20181033 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2020_20200224

Mitigation Plan
Owen Farms Mitigation Site
Transylvania County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100064
USACE ID: SAW-2018-01165
French Broad River Basin
Cataloging Unit 06010105

January 31, 2020

Prepared for:

NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Prepared by:

HDR Engineering
555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601-3034

LMG Contributing Staff: Ben Furr, Ryan Smith, Alex DiGeronimo,
Chris Smith, Yvette Mariotte, Kevin Williams
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 NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services operations and procedures for the delivery of
compensatory mitigation

February 13, 2020

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Owen Farms Mitigation Site /
Transylvania Co./ SAW -2018-01165/ NCDMS Project # 100064

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Owen Farms Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on August 25, 2019. A follow-up meeting was held with the provider and the IRT January
8, 2020 to discuss concerns with the draft mitigation plan. These comments, and the revised
asset map, are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crumbley

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner– NCDMS
Benjamin Furr, Ryan Smith—LMG
Vickie Miller—HDR

Meeting Minutes
Project: Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS # 100064)
Subject: IRT Meeting to Discuss Comments on Mitigation Plan
Date: Wednesday, January 08, 2020
Location: USACE Office, Wake Forest, NC
Attendees: Ryan Smith (LMG) Ben Furr (LMG)
Paul Wiesner (via phone, DMS) Vickie Miller (HDR)
Mac Haupt (DWR) Erin Davis (DWR)
Kim Browning (USACE) Andrea Leslie (via phone, WRC)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
The IRT meeting to discuss comments on the Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan was held
at 10:00am on Wednesday, January 8, 2020 at the USACE Office in Wake Forest. The following
represents highlights of discussions that occurred during the meeting:

1. Mac Haupt began by reviewing DWR comments, specifically regarding DWR concerns about
bench width on West Fork French Broad River (WFFBR). DWR stated that they are concerned
bench width is too narrow and may result in stream bank erosion, particularly through the reach
depicted on plan sheets 5 and 6. HDR understands concerns voiced by DWR and assured all in
attendance that proposed conditions models and previous experience have been reviewed to
determine bank stress on proposed conditions.
2. Mac also discussed concerns about UT 3 originating in a headwater wetland and whether it will
maintain single channel flow throughout the monitoring period. LMG explained that the
enhancement work on UT 3 is simply being done to stabilize UT 3 as it converges with WFFBR
and that there should be enough slope through the enhanced reach of UT 3 to maintain single
channel flow. LMG stated that additional discussion will be added in the mitigation plan to
explain why enhancement 1 is necessary on UT 3.
3. USACE questioned why some of the ratios and proposed mitigation approaches were changed
between the proposal phase and the mitigation plan phase. LMG explained that additional data
was collected during the design phase that led to revisions in mitigation approach in certain
areas.
4. Mac questioned the floodplain interceptors and associated typical in the design sheets.
Specifically, DWR wants to make sure that mitigation credit is not being granted to reaches with
large portions of rip-rap along the stream banks. LMG explained that floodplain interceptors are
typically small (i.e. ~ 5 feet wide) and intended to stabilize the bank in areas where concentrated
overland flow enters the stream channel. LMG also stated that the intent is to use native
material from on-site to construct the floodplain interceptors where material is readily available.
LMG will add a statement on the typical, detailing use of native material.
5. Todd Tugwell asked a question about why an impervious channel plug was shown overlapping
the wetland enhancement area on plan sheet 5, near the confluence of UT 5 and WFFBR. LMG
noted that it appears to be a mistake and that it will be corrected on the plan sheets and credit
tables to ensure that wetland enhancement credit is not being generated where channel plugs
and/or floodplain interceptors are being installed. Wetlands that are currently shown as
enhancement where UT 5 will be filled will be changed to wetland restoration since that area is
not an existing wetland but will revert to wetlands once construction has been completed. DWR
also mentioned that the area near the confluence of UT 5 and WFFBR may be a weak point in
the left bank of WFFBR given the close proximity of W3 to the stream bank. LMG explained that
soil lifts with toe wood and impervious channel plugs would be installed along the left bank at
this location to promote bank stability.
6. DWR requested that one of the groundwater gauges proposed for the W3 Re-establishment
area be moved slightly west into the W3 Rehabilitation area to improve coverage of
groundwater gauges throughout W3. LMG agreed and will update the Mitigation Plan
accordingly.
7. USACE and DWR also have questions concerning the limits of construction lines shown on plan
sheet 11 and why they extended into wetland re-establishment/re-habilitation areas. LMG
explained that restoration of UT 5 at this location was a Priority I restoration and that there
would not be a bench cut to the limits of construction as there is on WFFBR. The limits of
construction lines on UT 5 will be revised to more accurately depict where grading will occur.
8. Andrea Leslie explained that WRC wanted language added to the Mitigation Plan stating that
some amount of herbaceous dominated coverage within wetlands on-site was acceptable and
appropriate based on reference bog complexes in the area. LMG agreed to add language to the
performance standards section and adaptive management sections of the Mitigation Plan to
discuss the potential for herbaceous dominated areas within wetlands on-site. WRC also
requested that additional shrubby species be included with the planting plan for W3 to improve
diversity (swamp rose was mentioned as an example). LMG stated that additional shrubby
species could be added to the planting plan but questioned how that would affect performance
standards (i.e. would areas planted with mostly shrubby species still be held to the same vigor
standards as tree species). USACE stated that the Swamp Forest/Bog complex communities are
naturally dominated by shrubby and herbaceous species and would not be held to the same
vigor standards as communities dominated by tree species. Everyone agreed that there are few,
if any good reference Swamp Forest/Bog complex communities in the vicinity of the project and
WRC suggested using Schafale and Weakley as a reference for potential vegetation that could be
added to the planting plan to improve diversity. WRC also asked if herbaceous species would be
planted in the wetlands. LMG explained that the existing wetlands already exhibit a variety of
herbaceous wetland species but that any disturbed and/or restored wetland areas would be
planted with a native riparian seed mix. LMG will add the native seed mix to the planting plan
within the Mitigation Plan.
9. Credit Ratio Discussion:
a. LMG explained that tributary reaches were lumped together from a crediting standpoint
to avoid having too many small reaches with different credit ratios (as was discussed
during the initial IRT site walk). DWR and USACE agreed with this approach but
disagreed with some of the credit ratios allocated to certain tributaries.
b. Following discussion about the varying degrees of cattle impact across the site, buffer
widths, and opportunity for functional uplift at each tributary, the following credit ratios
were agreed upon for each tributary (ratios that were changed from what was proposed
in the Mitigation Plan are highlighted):
i. UT 1 (4:1)
ii. UT 2 (3.5:1)
iii. UT 2A (2.5:1)
iv. UT 2B (2.5:1)
v. UT 3 (1.5:1)
vi. UT 4 (2.5:1)
vii. UT 4A (2.3:1)
viii. UT 4B (4:1)
ix. UT 5 (1:1)
x. UT 6 (10:1)
xi. UT 6A (10:1)
xii. UT 7 (R = 1:1, E2 = 3.5)
xiii. UT 7A (10:1)
xiv. UT 7B (2.5:1)
xv. UT 8 (1:1)
c. LMG will update the Mitigation Plan to reflect the credit ratios listed above. Kim
Browning requested a more detailed discussion on how HDR determined ratios for each
stream reach. LMG agreed to add language to the Mitigation Plan to provide more
explanation on how some stream reaches are lumped together to determine credit ratio
(for example UT 4). LMG will also add discussion in the Mitigation Plan to explain that
the beaver dams on UT 2 appear to be relic (i.e. not active beaver dams).
10. Utility Lines:
a. LMG explained that there is an existing utility easement overlapping the conservation
easement.
b. USACE explained that an exception for utility maintenance will need to be included in
the stewardship transfer document and requested that language also be added to the
Mitigation Plan discussing this issue.
c. LMG clarified that no stream or wetland credits were being generated within the utility
easement.
d. USACE suggested using a different stream centerline color for portions of streams within
utility easements that are not generating credits. LMG will modify Project Asset Map
(Figure 17) accordingly.
e. IRT stated that the utility easement label should be changed from “proposed” to
“existing”. LMG will update the plan sheets accordingly.
f. IRT requested that shrubby species be planted in the wetland rehabilitation area within
the utility easement. LMG will update the Planting Plan to include the area within the
utility easement.
11. USACE questioned the extent of grading that would occur within wetland restoration areas.
LMG explained that restoration of W3 would require grading to a depth of less than 11 inches
and that grading within W5 restoration areas would consist of removing distinct spoil piles
adjacent to UT 7. USACE suggested adding language to the Mitigation Plan describing that
distinct spoil piles will be removed as part of W5 restoration.
12. DMS asked what the IRT needed to move forward with approval of the Mitigation Plan. The IRT
requested that HDR submit the following items for review and final approval of the Mitigation
Plan:
a. Revised Response to IRT Comments
b. Revised Project Asset Map (Figure 17)
c. Final Meeting Minutes from 01-08-2020 meeting

-
hdrinc.com
1
January 31, 2020
Dear Ms. Browning,
We have reviewed and addressed IRT comments on the draft Mitigation Plan as follows:
NCWRC, Andrea Leslie:
1.We appreciate the provider’s consideration of NCWRC’s recommendations made in the field and via email
earlier in 2019. One of these recommendations is to rescue any stranded aquatic animals (including fish,
salamanders, and crayfish) in sections of channel that will be abandoned. It is important that this rescue
operation be performed as soon as the flows are diverted from the old channel, and animals should be
netted, placed into a bucket, and transported downstream of the impact area.
Response: This recommendation will be noted in the construction documents and communicated to the
contractor. HDR will have a representative on-site during the rescue operation.
2.If hellbenders are seen on site, place into a bucket and transport downstream of the project area. Please
notify Lori Williams ([e-mail]) and Andrea Leslie ([e-mail]) if
hellbenders are seen and/or moved.
Response: HDR will show the contractor pictures of hellbenders and instruct them to transport
hellbenders downstream of the project area if encountered during construction. Contractor will be
instructed to notify HDR immediately if hellbenders are encountered.
3.The 130 ft section of the West Fork French Broad River that will be under a powerline will have pattern,
profile, and dimension restored, but the plan notes that this will not be planted. We ask that at a
minimum, the banks be planted with livestakes so that a narrow shrubby buffer can be established. This
should help ensure longer term stability of this section of channel.
Response: The planting plan was revised to show that live stakes will be planted along the stream banks
through the utility easement. Language was also added to Section 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 to state that stream
banks under the powerline easement will be planted with live stakes.
4.We ask that the streamside woody species list be expanded to include tree and shrub species seen on site
and just upstream/downstream of the project – this would include rhododendron, dog hobble, and other
species. Do not include black walnut, however.
Response: Several of the species included in the planting plan currently occur on or near the site.
Rhododendron is not included because it does not grow well in full sunlight. Rhododendron prefers partial
to full shade underneath mature canopy. Given the abundance of rhododendron along the tributaries on-
site, it is expected to colonize the floodplain of West Fork French Broad River (WFFBR) as the planted
species mature. Doghobble is not included due to its propensity to form dense thickets and choke out
other planted species before they have time to mature.

hdrinc.com

2
5. Please inform Andrea Leslie at least 2 weeks before project construction begins.
Response: HDR will notify Andrea Leslie at least 2 weeks before project construction begins.
DWR Comments, Mac Haupt and Erin Davis:
1. HDR’s response to the DMS comment letter included a response to Appendix J which was concerning
Buffer calculations. DWR would like to see the spreadsheet table showing the footage above the minimum
and the footage below the required. In addition, DWR would like to know what is the percentage of the
buffers on site that are less than the minimum.
Response: HDR will provide the buffer calculation spreadsheet to DMS for distribution to the IRT. The
spreadsheet includes a summary tab that shows linear feet of stream below the minimum required buffer
(354 LF) and linear feet of stream above the required buffer (8,421 LF).
2. One of the issues regarding this site will be the appropriate ratios for several of the enhancement reaches.
Especially since Table 3 shows three of these reaches with Overall NCSAM ratings of High (UT1, UT2a, and
UT6). While UT6 is preservation, the other reaches are proposed enhancement reaches and some
discussion of appropriate ratios will follow in other DWR comments later in this document.
Response: Stream reach conditions and impairments were discussed in depth during the initial IRT site
visit as documented in the meeting minutes dated August 1, 2018 provided in Appendix H. HDR developed
the proposed credit ratios based on existing site conditions, proposed enhancement measures, and
feedback from the IRT during the initial site visit. Although UT 1 and UT 2A have similar NCSAM ratings the
buffers and level of impact cattle are having on the streams is significantly different. Item 8 in the meeting
minutes notes the severe impact cattle were having on UT 2A (cattle are accessing large portions of UT 2A
for shade and water), in which members of the IRT were in agreement with during the site visit. In
comparison, cattle are accessing UT 1 in select locations along the reach but severity of impact is less than
it is on UT 2A. Cattle appear to only access UT 6 near its confluence with WFFBR and therefore impacts are
minor and preservation is appropriate. Following further discussion with the IRT on 01-08-2020, HDR will
revise the credit ratios for UT 1 and UT 4B to 4:1. In addition, UT 2 will be revised to 3.5:1. Credit ratios for
other stream reaches will remain as proposed in the Mitigation Plan submitted on 12-12-2019.
3. DWR does not recall UT3 from the site visit but given the fact this reach originates from a wetland
spring/seep, the provider should be warned that constructing single thread channels in and from these
areas have shown a propensity for evolving into wetlands versus showing channel-like features.
Response: Noted. UT3 is currently headcutting/eroding as it converges with WFFBR, enhancement
measures are necessary to stabilize UT3 at its confluence with WFFBR. The slope of UT 3 through this
enhancement reach should be steep enough to maintain single channel flow.
4. Section 5.6- DWR and the IRT take notice when significant grading is planned for wetland re-establishment
or rehabilitation. While the plan states that spoil is to be removed at varying depths (3 to 11 inches), any
grading of 12 inches or more will result in the wetland approach being classified as creation.

hdrinc.com

3
Response: Noted. The proposed grading is to remove spoil that was excavated from UT 5 and UT 7 and
placed in the wetland areas adjacent to each stream. Removing this material will only be re-establishing
natural contours in the floodplain of each tributary, not artificially lowering elevations to create wetlands.
Additional language will be added to the Mitigation Plan to explain that spoil adjacent to UT 7 is in the
form of distinct spoil piles, whereas spoil adjacent to UT 5 has been spread out.
5. Section 5.8- DWR suggests that the provider add verbiage that states some of the wetland restoration
areas which may exhibit a Bog complex may have more herbaceous vegetation that may persist through
the monitoring period. However, DWR would like to emphasize that these areas should be kept to a
minimum.
Response: The following verbiage was added to Section 5.8, “Bog Complex communities may have more
herbaceous vegetation that may persist through the monitoring period, when compared to other Swamp
Forest communities.” The site will be planted to minimize areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
Planted species within the Bog Complex will be dominated by shrubs and therefore may not meet the vigor
standards as set forth in IRT monitoring guidance. A note will be added to the Performance Standards
Table indicating that Box Complex communities may have a lower vigor and stem count when compared
with other communities at the Site.
6. Table 13- DWR and the IRT are recommending that all Ash species be removed from planting plans
because of the Emerald Ash Borer.
Response: Based on comments from DWR and USACE, green ash will be removed from the planting plans.
7. Section 6.1- The 30-day flow requirement is for intermittent streams only. Perennial streams are expected
to have near continuous flow.
Response: Noted, the 30-day flow requirement was included in the performance standards simply to
provide evidence that the streams proposed for mitigation credits were “at least” intermittent during the
monitoring period and thus jurisdictional streams.
8. Section 6.3- The wetland performance criterion should be 12% based on the soil borings from the Licensed
Soil Scientist. While the site may be mapped as Rosman (which is not a hydric soil series), the borings
showed a hydric soil with the associated taxonomic subgroup (Fluvaquentic Humaquept) which
corresponds to the Ela soil series in the October 2016 Mitigation Update. Please update Table 14 to reflect
this required change.
Response: Table 14 was updated to show the wetland performance criterion of 12% as requested.
Verbiage was also added to Section 6.3 to reflect this update.
9. Table 15- DWR will be recommending the addition of 3 groundwater wetland gauges and we will specify
the location when the Design sheets are reviewed. This table will need to reflect the change in number of
gauges.
Response: A total of 6 groundwater gauges (3 currently proposed plus 3 additional gauges requested by
DWR) seems excessive for monitoring wetland hydrology on 1.32 acres of restored wetland (only 0.35 ac of

hdrinc.com

4
the 1.32 ac is proposed as re-establishment). HDR will coordinate with DWR regarding placement of the 3
originally proposed groundwater gauges. HDR will also add an additional groundwater gauge in W5 as
requested in DWR comment 16.
10. DWR is very concerned about the 15 foot minimum benches proposed for many sections of the West Fork
of the French Broad. DWR noted but does not agree with the response letter to DMS regarding this
matter. DWR strongly recommends for a stream of this drainage area that the floodplain benches be at
least 2 times bankfull width. Particularly of interest are the bench widths on the meander bends where
much of the flow energy vectors are directed.
Response: The bankfull benches have been maximized where feasible and measures have been proposed
to protect the channel (i.e. toe wood with soil lifts along outside meander bends). Additionally, the two
dimensional HECRAS model did not result in erosive velocities in the proposed channel nor on the
proposed floodplain.
11. Design sheet 2D- DWR is concerned with the Floodplain Interceptor typical. Basically this looks like a rip
rapped stream bank. DWR will need to know where these are planned for, or where the designer thinks
they may occur. Typically, we do not allow stream credit where banks are total rip rap.
Response: The floodplain interceptor is a stabilized conveyance of a single point discharge where overland
sheetflow is connected to the proposed channel. It is intended to protect the channel bank from erosion
in locations that become apparent during construction and are therefore not located on the plans.
Floodplain interceptors are only used when necessary. Floodplain interceptors will incorporate native
channel material where available (a note regarding use of native channel material for interceptors will be
added to the typical).
12. Design sheet 5: DWR is concerned about several issues on this sheet:
a. The bench widths are not adequate for the meander bend at station 20+00. Even though there is
channel fill on the inside of the bend with presumably a wider bench, the energy vectors from the
flow are still directed primarily at the outer bend, especially the lower third of the meander bend.
Response: The bench width along the outside meander bend has been modified around station
20+00 to accurately reflect the proposed grading plan and now proposes a wider floodplain in this
area.
b. In addition to the above, the UT5 confluence is located at the lower end of the meander bend and
appears to be stepped down to the riffle. DWR believes this portion of UT5 is at a high risk for
stability.
Response: UT5 is proposed to be stepped down to connect to WFFBR via in-stream rock structure
that will aid in stream stability.
c. UT4 also has its confluence in virtually the same area. Does the Designer believe there is enough
of a riffle to dissipate the energy from the two confluences in addition to West Fork of the French
Broad as well?

hdrinc.com

5
Response: The model, which was completed to evaluate the proposed design, does not indicate
velocities that are problematic.
d. To further exacerbate the above, a wetland is adjacent to the streambank on stream left just
below the confluence of the two aforementioned tributaries. The wetland drainage toward the
streambank will put lateral hydrologic pressure on the streambank and likely result in increased
risk for streambank stability.
Response: Impervious channel material and toe wood with soil lifts are proposed along the
outside channel meander in an effort to stabilize potentially vulnerable areas.
e. We looked for but could not find the profile representation of the lower end of UT5 where it has
its confluence with the main stem. Was this included in the design sheets?
Response: The profile for UT5 can be found at the bottom of Sheets 10 and 11.
13. Design sheet 6- the bench widths are not adequate in the areas near station 28+25 to the next cross vane.
Response: The bench widths in this location transition to meet the existing top of bank for the
enhancement reach where no channel modification is proposed with the exception of bank stabilization
where indicated/necessary.
14. Design sheet 11- DWR recommends an additional wetland gauge be placed on stream right (20 feet
beyond the bench cut, dotted line?) at station 16+00.
Response: HDR will locate one of the proposed wetland gauges at this location but additional wetland
gauges will not be added to W3 (i.e. a total of 2 wetland gauges will be located within W3 Rehabilitation
area, and 1 wetland gauge will be located within W3 Re-establishment area).
15. DWR recommends another gauge in W3 below the powerline.
Response: See response to DWR comment 14. One of the two groundwater gauges proposed for the W3
rehabilitation area will be located below the powerline as requested by DWR (Figure 17 has been updated
accordingly).
16. Design sheet 12- DWR recommends an additional wetland gauge be placed on stream right at
approximately station 10+75.
Response: Figure 17 and Table 15 have been updated to reflect adding an additional wetland gauge as
requested.
17. Stream reach ratios: DWR has the following recommendations regarding the appropriate ratios on the
following stream reaches:
a. UT1- DWR believes this tributary should be at least a 4:1 ratio if not higher. As you may recall,
this is the tributary where we had a lot of discussion regarding the initially proposed 2.5:1 ratio.
Our recommendation is based on the existing vegetation (mostly vegetated overstory), lack of a

hdrinc.com

6
minimum required buffer, and minimal impact from cattle, and an Overall High rating from the
NCSAM assessment.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 2. In addition, although cattle have not
caused severe stream bank erosion/instability along UT 1, cattle routinely access UT 1 for shade
and water resulting in direct fecal inputs. Excluding cattle from the stream and planting a wider
riparian buffer will improve water quality in UT 1 and corresponds to the level of intervention
discussed during the initial IRT site visit. Based on discussions with the IRT on 01-08-2020, HDR
will revise the credit ratio for UT 1 to 4:1.
b. UT2A- this reach was ranked as an Overall High by your NCSAM assessment. Given that the reach
is wooded with perhaps moderate cattle impact, DWR recommends a ratio of 3:1.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 2. In addition, the existing wooded buffer
along UT 2A is narrow (~10-15’) and has been degraded by frequent cattle access. Following
enhancement activities UT 2A will exhibit a minimum buffer width of 30 feet with portions of the
buffer exceeding 50 feet in width. HDR proposes to maintain a 2.5:1 credit ratio for UT 2A.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The USACE ID for the cover page is SAW-2018-01165.
Response: USACE ID number has been added to the cover page.
2. Please change the colors of the stream preservation and Enhancement II (2:1) on figure 17. It’s very
difficult to discern the difference between the two shades of green.
Response: Figure 17 has been updated to address the color issue.
3. It’s noted that there are several crossings, both culverts and fords. Please include who will be responsible
for the culvert maintenance in the monitoring section, and how cattle will be excluded from these
crossings.
Response: Maintenance of crossings and fencing is addressed in Section 9.0. The property owner will be
responsible for culvert maintenance. Gates will be installed at each crossing to promote cattle exclusion
when the crossings are not in use.
4. There are several reaches of stream restoration proposed that will impact existing wetlands. Please
describe how you will ensure that no functional loss/loss of waters occurs. Please include wetland gauge
data in the monitoring reports annually.
Response: See Item 3 from the meeting minutes dated August 1, 2018 provided in Appendix H. Existing
wetland impacts resulting from stream restoration will be offset by wetland area gained in the footprint of
the abandoned channel. In addition, raising the stream inverts will restore and enhance the hydrology of
adjacent wetlands. Impacts to existing wetlands will be identified in the permit application and the overall

hdrinc.com

7
net gain in wetland as a result of the mitigation project will be discussed in the permit as well. Wetland
gauge data will be reported in the annual monitoring reports.
5. It would be beneficial to add some coarse woody debris to the depressional areas in the buffers and
throughout the adjacent wetlands for habitat, and to help store sediment, increase water
storage/infiltration, and absorb water energy during overbank events.
Response: Woody material removed during restoration activities will be used on-site for stream bank
stabilization and habitat creation within the floodplain/wetlands.
6. Please depict photo points/digital image stations on Figures 11. If the fixed cross-section locations are to
be used, please describe that in the text.
Response: Fixed cross section locations and vegetation plot locations will be used as photo points.
Verbiage was added to Section 7.0 to explain.
7. Please discuss how fescue will be treated in conjunction with buffer establishment.
Response: HDR does not plan to actively treat the site to eliminate fescue. As planted stems mature and
the canopy develops, any remaining fescue within the buffer should be shaded out. The site will be
treated to control fescue during the monitoring phase if the presence of fescue is jeopardizing the
establishment of native woody vegetation.
8. UT4A: The majority of this reach (about 400 LF) will only have fencing and possible supplemental planting,
while the bottom 71 LF of this reach will require channel work to tie into UT4. 3.5:1 is more appropriate for
the 400’ reach, and 1.5:1 is acceptable for the 71’ at the confluence.
Response: As discussed in the meeting minutes attached in Appendix H (see item 10), UT4A is routinely
accessed by cattle. The buffer is significantly degraded from reference condition and the floodplain on
both sides of UT4A shows signs of heavy cattle traffic. HDR agrees that the 400’ reach should not receive a
1.5:1 ratio; however, based on existing conditions and proposed enhancement measures, HDR proposes
that the 400’ reach receive a 2.5:1 ratio similar to other reaches that have a minimal buffer and are heavily
impacted by cattle. In addition, based on discussions and recommendations from the IRT during the initial
site visit, HDR recommends using a weighted ratio (2.3:1) for the entire reach instead of splitting it out into
two reaches (see item 9 in meeting minutes, Appendix H).
9. UT2A, UT2B, UT2 upstream of the crossing, UT7B: These areas are more appropriate for 3.5:1 or 4:1 due to
some existing buffer which will require only supplemental planting and cattle exclusion.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 2 and number 17. Based on discussions with the IRT
on 01-08-2020, HDR will revise the credit ratio for UT 2 to 3.5:1. Credit ratios for UT 2A, UT 2B, and UT7B
will remain as proposed in the Mitigation Plan.
10. Section 5.6.1: Please specify the amount of spoil that will be removed from W5 to ensure that this area is
appropriate for wetland re-establishment rather than wetland creation. Typically any removal over 12”
garners a 3:1 ratio.

hdrinc.com

8
Response: See response to DWR comment number 4. Spoil adjacent to UT 7 is in the form of distinct spoil
piles. Spoil piles will be removed to match natural elevations in the floodplain adjacent to the spoil areas.
11. Please explain what you plan to stabilize the banks/floodplain with in restoration areas that fall under the
powerline easement.
Response: See response to NCWRC comment number 3. In addition, the floodplain underneath the
powerline easement will also be planted. The planting plan will be revised accordingly.
12. Please include an estimate of trees to be cleared in the PCN in relation to NLEB habitat.
Response: An estimate of trees to be cleared will be included in the PCN as requested.
13. Credit Release: NCDMS has recently requested that all previously mentioned As-Built reports will now be
referred to as Record Drawing. Please verify this with DMS and correct as advised.
Response: HDR will coordinate with DMS concerning reference of As-Built vs. Record Drawings and update
project documents accordingly.
14. UT1: Please specify how much of this reach doesn’t meet the minimum buffer width, and specify of overall
buffers on site that do not meet the minimum width exceed 5% of the total easement.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 1. The entirety of UT 1 meets the minimum buffer
requirement (i.e. 30 feet) and the overall buffers that do not meet the minimum width are approximately
4% of the total.
15. Section 6.1, Stream Dimension: The 20% variance over as-built conditions is only applicable to individual
bank pin measurements in the guidance. Bankfull cross-sectional area must not increase by more than 15%
over the duration of the monitoring period.
Response: 20 percent was changed to 15 percent in Section 6.1, Stream Dimension.
a. Please remove the statement “Therefore, more leeway on pool section geometry is expected.”
Response: This statement has been removed.
16. Crossings shown on UT1 and UT2A seem like they could potentially be moved to the top of the reach and
outside the easement. Please justify current placement. These two reaches also scored high on NCSAM,
please justify the EII ratio proposed aside from cattle exclusion.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 2 and number 17. The crossings could not be moved
to the top of the reach for UT 1 and UT 2A because the existing topography is too steep in those areas.
17. Section 6.1, Hydraulics: 30-days consecutive flow is only applicable to intermittent streams.
Response: See response to DWR comment number 7.

hdrinc.com

9
18. Section 6.2: Please remove the statement “Or a species included in the Classification of the Natural
Communities of North Carolina descriptions for proposed vegetative communities at the site.” NCIRT 2016
guidance should be used.
Response: This statement has been removed from Section 6.2.
a. Any corrective measures or remediation proposal should be proposed to the IRT through an
Adaptive Management Plan for IRT review and approval.
Response: Language was added to Section 6.2 to reference Section 8.0 and state that IRT
approval is required prior to implementing any corrective measures.
19. UT2 and UT2A: There is currently a beaver dam affecting the hydrology of Wetland 1. What is the
anticipated effect of beaver on the stream channels and buffer of these reaches?
Response: Based on current observations, the downstream portions of UT 2 and UT 2A are affected by
backwater from the beaver dams but the system is stable overall and provides high quality habitat.
Vegetation in these areas is suited to a saturated/inundated hydrologic regime and vegetation mortality is
not anticipated in the near future as a result of the beaver dams. HDR does not foresee the beaver dams
having a negative effect on UT 2 or UT 2A or the project as a whole. Language will be added to the
Mitigation Plan explaining that beaver dams on UT 2 and UT 2A appear to be relic (i.e. not active dams).
20. Veg Plots should be located in all wetland areas proposed for re-establishment (1:1).
Response: Vegetation Plots 12 and 18 will be relocated to occur inside of wetland re-establishment areas.
21. It is recommended to cap the proposed percentage of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) to be planted at
5% since emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) has the potential to impact long-term tree density and
canopy cover.
Response: See response to NCDWR comment number 6.
22. Table 14: Performance standard for flood attenuation should be four bankfull events in separate years.
Response: Table 14 was revised accordingly.
a. Please include a vigor standard for riparian habitat.
Response: A vigor standard (i.e. height measurement) of 6 feet at Year 5 and 8 feet at year 7 was
added to Table 14 and Section 6.2. A note will also be added to the Performance Standards Table
indicating that Bog Complex communities may exhibit lower vigor and stem density compared to
other communities at the Site.
23. Table 15: Please include culvert/crossing maintenance.
Response: Visual inspection of culverts and crossings was added to Table 15.

hdrinc.com

10
24. General comment regarding fencing: Please depict all existing and planned fencing on the plan sheets.
Additionally, it is recommended that gate access is provided to the easement for annual monitoring and
Long Term Management.
Response: Existing and proposed fencing was added to the plan sheets. Means of access to the easement
will be provided via kissing gates.
Sincerely,
HDR Engineering

Vickie Miller
Project Manager
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064

Transylvania County, NC Page i January 31, 2020

Contents
1.0 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .......................................................................................... 3
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 5
3.1 Landscape Characteristics ............................................................................................................. 5
3.2 Land Use - Historic, Current and Future ....................................................................................... 7
3.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response ....................................................................................... 13
3.3.1 Existing Streams .................................................................................................................. 13
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands ................................................................................................................ 24
3.4 Regulatory Considerations .......................................................................................................... 28
3.4.1 Protected Species ................................................................................................................ 29
3.4.2 Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................... 29
3.4.3 Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................. 30
3.4.4 401/404 ............................................................................................................................... 30
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives ........................................................ 30
5.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ................................................................................... 34
5.1 Design Approach Overview ......................................................................................................... 34
5.1.1 West Fork French Broad River ............................................................................................ 34
5.1.2 UT 5 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 35
5.1.3 UT 7 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 36
5.1.4 UT 8 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 36
5.1.5 Other Unnamed Tributaries Proposed for Enhancement ................................................... 37
5.1.6 Unnamed Tributaries Proposed for Preservation ............................................................... 38
5.2 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 39
5.2.1 West Fork French Broad River ............................................................................................ 39
5.2.2 UT 5 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 39
5.2.3 UT 7 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 40
5.2.4 UT 8 West Fork French Broad River .................................................................................... 41
5.3 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 42
5.3.1 West Fork French Broad River ............................................................................................ 42
5.3.2 UT 5, UT 7, UT 8 .................................................................................................................. 43
5.4 Design Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 45
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064

Transylvania County, NC Page ii January 31, 2020

5.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 46
5.5.1 West Fork French Broad River ............................................................................................ 46
5.5.2 UT 5, UT 7 and UT 8 ............................................................................................................ 49
5.6 Wetland Design Approach .......................................................................................................... 50
5.6.1 Wetland Rehabilitation and Re-establishment ................................................................... 50
5.6.2 Wetland Enhancement ....................................................................................................... 51
5.7 Reference Wetland ..................................................................................................................... 51
5.8 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................... 51
5.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties .................................................................................................. 53
6.0 Performance Standards .................................................................................................................. 53
6.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 53
6.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 54
6.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 54
7.0 Monitoring Plan .............................................................................................................................. 55
8.0 Adaptive Management Plan ........................................................................................................... 58
9.0 Long-Term Management Plan ........................................................................................................ 58
10.0 Determination of Credits ................................................................................................................ 58
11.0 References ...................................................................................................................................... 63

Figures
Figure 1. Location Map ................................................................................................................................. 2
Figure 2. Watershed Planning Contextual Map ............................................................................................ 4
Figure 3. Soils Map ........................................................................................................................................ 6
Figure 4. Land Use Map ................................................................................................................................ 8
Figure 5. Historic Photo 1951 ........................................................................................................................ 9
Figure 6. Historic Photo 1995 ...................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 7. Historic Photo 2012 ...................................................................................................................... 11
Figure 8. Existing Conditions Map ............................................................................................................... 12
Figure 9. USGS Topographic Map ............................................................................................................... 16
Figure 10. DEM Map ................................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 11. Pre-Monitoring Feature Location Map ...................................................................................... 26
Figure 12. Wetland 3 Groundwater Data.................................................................................................... 27
Figure 13. Wetland 5 Groundwater Data.................................................................................................... 28
Figure 14. Reference Reach Location Map ................................................................................................. 44
Figure 15. HECRAS Proposed Sediment Results.......................................................................................... 48
Figure 16. HECRAS Existing Sediment Results ............................................................................................. 49
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064

Transylvania County, NC Page iii January 31, 2020

Figure 17. Project Assets Map .................................................................................................................... 61
Figure 18. Buffer Map ................................................................................................................................. 62

Tables
Table 1. Project Attributes ............................................................................................................................ 1
Table 2. Existing Stream Conditions ............................................................................................................ 14
Table 3. NCSAM Ratings .............................................................................................................................. 18
Table 4. NCWAM Ratings ............................................................................................................................ 24
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 6. Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives ................................................................................... 32
Table 7. WFFBR Morphological Conditions ................................................................................................. 39
Table 8. UT 5 Morphological Conditions ..................................................................................................... 40
Table 9. UT 7 Morphological Conditions ..................................................................................................... 41
Table 10. UT 8 Morphological Conditions ................................................................................................... 42
Table 11. WFFBR Sediment Competency .................................................................................................... 47
Table 12. Sediment Competency for Restored UT’s ................................................................................... 50
Table 13. Planting Plan ................................................................................................................................ 52
Table 14. Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 56
Table 15. Monitoring Plan Components ..................................................................................................... 57
Table 16. Project Assets Table .................................................................................................................... 59
Appendices
Appendix A – Soil Boring Logs
Appendix B - Photo Log
Appendix C – NC SAM and NC WAM Rating Sheets
Appendix D – Categorical Exclusion Documentation
Appendix E – DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist
Appendix F – Jurisdictional Determination Documentation
Appendix G – Plan Sheets
Appendix H – Data and Supplementary Information
Appendix I – Site Protection Instrument
Appendix J –Credit Release Schedule
Appendix K – Financial Assurance

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Introduction

Transylvania County, NC Page 1 January 31, 2020
1.0 Introduction
The Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (Site) has been selected by the NC Division of
Mitigation Services (DMS) to provide Stream Mitigation Units (SMUs) and Wetland Mitigation Units
(WMUs) in the French Broad River basin (Hydrologic Unit Code 06010105; 14-digit hydrologic unit
06010105010020). The Site is located approximately 3 miles north of Lake Toxaway in Transylvania
County, NC (Figure 1). The Site encompasses approximately 25 acres of active cattle pasture and involves
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 8,565 existing linear feet of stream including the West
Fork French Broad River (WFFBR, Index # 6-5-(0.5)) and 14 (fourteen) unnamed headwater tributaries.
Stream mitigation at the Site will provide 5,044 SMUs. The site will also restore 1.32 acres of wetland and
enhance 1.54 acres of wetland producing 1.76 WMUs.
The intent of mitigation activities is to establish a stable stream and wetland system and provide
functional uplift of features within the existing landscape. Functional uplift will be provided through the
restoration or enhancement of unstable and eroding streams; restoration and enhancement of altered,
filled, or cattle impacted wetlands; planting a riparian buffer; and excluding cattle from the easement.
Table 1. Project Attributes
Project Attributes
Project Name Owen Farms Mitigation Site
County Transylvania
Project Area (acres) 25
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35.183902 -82.937970
River Basin French Broad (06010105)
14 digit HUC 06010105010020
EPA level IV Ecoregion Southern Crystalline Mountains and Ridges
Existing Stream Length (linear feet) 8,565
Existing Wetland Acreage (acres) 3.39
Proposed SMUs 5,044
Proposed WMUs 1.76

Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,
USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance
Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, ©
OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 1- LOCATION MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/1/2019
LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 1
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
0 1Miles
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Easement
Page 2
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Watershed Approach and Site Selection

Transylvania County, NC Page 3 January 31, 2020
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The Site is located within USGS 14-digit hydrologic unit 06010105010020 (Figure 2). A Local Watershed
Plan has not been developed for this hydrologic unit as it is not listed as a Targeted Local Watershed
(TLW). However, the Site drains into the Upper French Broad River TLW which is discussed in the 2009
River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2009). The RBRP notes a goal of sediment and
nutrient reduction through riparian buffer restoration, bank stabilization, livestock exclusion, and
restoring natural geomorphology, especially in headwater streams. The RBRP also notes a goal of
restoring and protecting habitat for priority fish, mussel, snail, and crayfish species in the basin (Wildlife
Resource Commission (2005) lists the Upper French Broad River Watershed as a Priority Watershed for
freshwater conservation).
The 2011 French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (Water Quality Plan) was reviewed to
determine significant stressors in the French Broad River Basin. Dominant stressors in the basin were
determined to be: pathogens, turbidity, copper, pesticides, low pH, and habitat degradation.
Recommendations to minimize stressors in the watershed included: stormwater management, erosion
control, agricultural BMPs, and communication between trout farmers and regulatory agencies (DWQ,
2011). The Water Quality Plan discussed a study conducted in the WFFBR Subwatershed (060101050102)
as part of the Collaborative Assessment of Watersheds and Streams (CAWS) project. The study occurred
in 2002 and 2003 and was designed to determine discharge impacts from the Whitewater Trout Farm (see
location on Figure 2) on benthic macroinvertebrate and fish community populations in the WFFBR. DWQ
recommended that local agencies work with landowners to install best management practices (BMPs) to
improve the riparian zone and limit livestock access to streams (DWQ, 2004).
Available mapping was used to evaluate land within the watershed and locate properties that exhibited
stressors identified in the watershed planning documents. The Site was ultimately selected because it
provides an opportunity to protect and restore streams and wetlands located in the headwaters of the
WFFBR on a property that has high potential for future residential development. On-site streams and
wetlands are severely degraded due to past human alterations and cattle access. The proposed mitigation
project supports goals established in the RBRP and recommendations identified in the Water Quality Plan
by restoring existing degraded streams, stabilizing channel banks, and reducing point and non-point
source pollution. These actions will reduce pollutant inputs to project streams and wetlands and increase
high quality aquatic, semi-aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
GF
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 2-WATERSHED PLANNING CONTEXTUAL MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/1/2019
0 2Miles
O
LEGEND
GF Whitewater Trout Farm
Proposed Easement
Parcel Boundary
WFFBR Watershed (at Site)
14-digit HUC Boundary
WATERSHED PLANNING CONTEXTUAL MAP
FIGURE 2
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
14-digit HUC
06010105010020
Page 4
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 5 January 31, 2020
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Landscape Characteristics
The Site is located in Southern Crystalline Mountains and Ridges (level IV 66d) Ecoregion of the Blue Ridge
Mountains physiographic province. The Southern Crystalline Mountains and Ridges is typified by low to
high mountains with gently rounded to steep slopes and narrow valleys with elevations ranging from 990
to 5,500 feet above sea level. Natural vegetation includes Montane Oak-Hickory Forests, Pine Oak/Heath
Forests, Rich Cove Forests and Acidic Cove Forests, and Northern Hardwoods Forests at higher elevations
(Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The Site is located in the Intrusive Rocks group (Quartz diorite to
granodiorite) of the Blue Ridge Belt (NCGS 1985). The Intrusive Rocks group (Quartz diorite to
granodiorite) contains biotite, muscovite, and xenocrysts.
The site topography and relief ranges between approximately 2,700 feet MSL to 2,760 feet MSL. WFFBR
meanders through the Site in a very gentle unconfined valley and transitions to a confined valley as it exits
the site. UT 1, UT 2, UT 4, UT 4B, UT 5, UT 6, UT 6A, UT 7, and UT 8 originate as spring fed tributaries at
higher elevations off-site (Figure 8). These tributaries flow through confined valleys before transitioning
into the WFFBR floodplain. UT 2A, UT 2B, UT 3, UT 4A and UT 7A originate on-site as spring fed tributaries
near the transition into the WFFBR valley. These tributaries are generally short and originate close to the
valleys of larger receiving tributaries. Headwater wetlands (W1 through W9) are located adjacent to
several of the unnamed tributaries. Wetland hydrology is primarily derived from groundwater seeps, with
occasional overbank flooding. Beaver dams were observed along UT 2, downstream of the project
easement, and are affecting hydrology associated with W1. The dams appear to have been in place for
several years and do not appear to be currently active. Dominant vegetation within W1 is indicative of a
semi-permanently to permanently inundated wetland.
Soil series depicted in the Transylvania County Soil Survey are shown on Figure 3. The majority of lands
within the WFFBR floodplain and associated riparian wetlands are mapped as Rosman fine sandy loam.
These soils are well drained, nearly level, frequently flooded and formed from loamy alluvium. These soils
are typically found in depressions on stream terraces.
Ro
Ro
393E393E
TeB TsE
AeE
AeE
W
ChEAeF
AeF
AeF
761E
AeF
TsD
101D 101D
793E 793D793E
AhG
CfF
TeD
737E
TuD
101E
AeF
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA, USGS,
AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 3 - SOILS MAP.MXD - USER: ADIGERON - DATE: 5/8/2019
0 800Feet
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Easement
Soil Units
101D-Cullasaja-Tuskasegee complex, 15 to 30%
101E-Cullasaja-Tuskasegee complex, 30 to 50%
393E-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, 30 to 50%
737E-Trimont loam, 30 to 50%
761E-Porters-Unaka complex, 30 to 50%
AeE-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, 15 to 30%
AeF-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, 30 to 50%
AhG-Ashe-Chestnut complex, 50 to 95%
CfF-Chandler-Micaville complex, 30 to 50%
ChE-Evard loam, 15 to 30%
Ro-Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 2%
TeB-Tate fine sandy loam, 2 to 8%
TeD-Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 15%
TsD-Saunook loam, 8 to 15%
TsE-Saunook loam, 15 to 30%
TuD-Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15%
W-Water
SOILS MAP
FIGURE 3
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLANPage 6
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 7 January 31, 2020
3.2 Land Use - Historic, Current and Future
The watershed for WFFBR is 5.93 sq miles (3,795 acres) at the downstream extents of the Site. Land use
within the WFFBR watershed upstream of the Site consists of forested land (92%), pasture and agriculture
(5%), and residential properties, open water and roads (3%). Future land use changes in the watershed
are expected to be minimal as a majority of the watershed is located within the Pisgah National Forest.
However, the Site is located on property that is ideal for residential development and would likely be
developed in the future if not protected. Current land use is shown in Figure 4.
Historic aerial photographs were utilized to collect information on Site changes in recent history.
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) provided aerials from the following years: 1951, 1976, 1986,
1995, 1998, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2016. Select aerials are shown in Figures 5, 6, and 7.
According to the aerial imagery, current site conditions and uses have changed little since 1951. It appears
the Site was cleared prior to 1951 and has been utilized for agricultural purposes including pasture and
row crops. Portions of WFFBR appear to have been straightened between 1951 and 1976. On-site
conditions suggest that UT 5 and UT 7 have been modified as evidenced by straightened and incised
channels, spoil piles adjacent to banks and evidence of overburden spread within the floodplain. The
existing channels display poor stability, moderate entrenchment and incision within the landscape. W3
and W5 appear to have been altered following the spread of overburden after the straightening of UT 5
and UT 7. Soil boring logs in Appendix A depict evidence of overburden within W3 and W5.
One ford crossing exists on WFFBR within the Site. Two rock weirs have been installed in the channel; one
is approximately 80 feet upstream of the existing ford and one is approximately 260 feet downstream of
the existing ford. The channel banks upstream of each rock weir have been lined with rip rap for
approximately 150 feet. The rock was installed by the property owner in an attempt to stabilize the
channel and create pool habitat for fish. Ford crossings are also present on UT 1 and UT 2A. Culvert
crossings are present on UT 2, UT 4, and UT 5. Existing crossings are depicted on Figure 8. Two utility
(powerline) easements cross through the proposed easement, crossing UT 5, W3, and WFFBR. The utility
easements are 40 feet wide and are depicted on Figure 8.
Based on field evaluation and aerial imagery assessment, the Site has experienced physical and functional
changes resulting from land clearing, cattle access to streams and wetlands, and channel modification.
Current conditions are resulting in water quality degradation through direct input of nutrients, fecal
matter and increased sedimentation.
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 4- LAND USE MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/1/2019
LAND USE MAP
FIGURE 4
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
0 0.5Miles
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Agricultural - 5.3%
Forested - 91.5%
Open Water - 0.1%
Residential - 3.1%
Project Watershed
Page 8
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 9 January 31, 2020
Figure 5. Historic Photo 1951

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 10 January 31, 2020
Figure 6. Historic Photo 1995

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 11 January 31, 2020
Figure 7. Historic Photo 2012
GF
GF
GF
GFGF kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kj
kjkj
W9
UT 1W1
UT 2A
UT 2B
UT 2UT 4AUT 4BUT 4UT 6AUT 6WFFBR
W7
W8
W2
UT 3
W3
UT 5
W6
W6A
W4
UT 7UT 7B
UT 7A
W5A
W5BUT 8W3
(floodplain pool)
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 8- EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/9/2019
0 375Feet
O
LEGEND
kj Bedrock
Mass Wasting
Scour Moderate
GF Beaver Dam
Utility Easement (40')
Proposed Easement
Existing Culvert Crossing
Existing Ford Crossing
Existing Weir
Rip Rap
Stream
Relic Wetland
Project Wetlands
Property Boundary
EXISTING CONDITIONS MAP
FIGURE 8
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLANPage 12
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 13 January 31, 2020
3.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The Site watershed has experienced minimal change since 1951 according to aerial imagery.
Approximately 30 percent of the pasture in the watershed is located on the Site. The presence of cattle is
a direct water quality stressor on the Site. All wetlands and streams on-site are accessed by cattle with
the exception of the upstream extents of each of the following resources: UT 2, UT 4A, UT 5, UT 6A, UT 7,
UT 7A, UT 7B and wetland W8 above the existing pond on UT 5. Cattle have direct access to over 75
percent of the stream footage and 98 percent of wetland acreage on-site. Unabated cattle access is
resulting in degraded vegetative communities in wetlands and buffers, fecal loading into the channels and
hoof shear along stream banks. Photos of existing conditions on-site are presented in Appendix B.
3.3.1 Existing Streams
All on-site streams are stressed by cattle and vegetative maintenance. Site streams have physical
impairments including:
• Substantial fine and coarse sediment loads from bank failure and mass wasting,
• Loss of physical habitat in bed form due to anthropogenic manipulation of meander geometry,
• Continual maintenance of riparian buffers and denudation of deep rooted vegetation from those
buffers,
• Fecal loading into the channels from unabated access of cattle,
• Hoof shear of channel banks and bed form from cattle access and wading, and
• Agricultural machinery access.
These physical impairments have a significant effect on water quality and biological integrity of the Site.
Effects of physical impairment include:
• Silting of habitat for trout and other fish species, Eastern hellbender, and macrobenthos in the
stream channels,
• Loss of essential bed form features, which reduces habitat for trout and other fish species
• Potential of increased loading of nutrients and pathogens to all stream systems on-site due to
maintenance of fields within riparian areas and access of cattle to stream channels,
• Abandonment of floodplain interaction (i.e. channel incision) reduces the ability of the Site to
uptake and store nutrients and other pollutant inputs,
• Denudation of riparian vegetation substantially reduces potential woody debris inputs to the
channel that are vital for aquatic propogation and cover habitat, and
• Denudation of riparian vegetation reduces semi-aquatic and terrestrial habitat corridors through
the Site.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 14 January 31, 2020
Table 2 provides a summary of existing stream conditions. Figures 9 and 10 provide supporting evidence
for historical presence of streams on-site.
Table 2. Existing Stream Conditions
Reach Historical Presence Drainage
Area
(Acres)
DWQ
Score*
Impairment
UT 1 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
19.5 33.5 cattle and equipment access,
narrow buffer
UT 2 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
18.6 33.5 cattle and equipment access,
narrow buffer
UT 2a LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
7.3 30.5 cattle and equipment access,
narrow buffer
UT 2b LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
<1 21 cattle access, narrow buffer
UT 3 LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
<1 20 cattle access, narrow buffer,
stream incision near
confluence with WFFBR
UT 4 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
30.6 31.5 cattle and equipment access,
narrow buffer
UT 4a LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
<1 26 cattle and equipment access,
narrow buffer
UT 4b LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
<1 22 cattle access
UT 5 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
45.2 27.5 Entrenched, cattle and
equipment access, relatively
no buffer,
straightened/channelized

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 15 January 31, 2020
Reach Historical Presence Drainage
Area
(Acres)
DWQ
Score*
Impairment
UT 6 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
21.7 29.5 Cattle access
UT 6a Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
22.7 30 Cattle access, narrow buffer
on left bank
UT 7 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 2); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
32.1 32.5 Entrenched, channelized,
relatively no buffer on right
bank, cattle access, actively
eroding streambanks
UT 7a LiDAR topographic breaks within
WFFBR Floodplain (Figure 10)
<1 22.5 No impairment
UT 7b Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
8.4 29.5 Cattle access
UT 8 Topographic crenulations in the valley
(USGS) (Figure 9); LiDAR topographic
breaks within WFFBR Floodplain
(Figure 10)
41 38 Cattle access, relatively no
buffer on right bank
WFFBR Blue line stream on USGS and soil
survey, LiDAR shows topographic
breaks (Figure 9 and Figure 10)
3,795 N/A
(large
river)
Entrenched, cattle access,
relatively no buffer, actively
eroding streambanks,
migrating riffles, mid channel
bars
*DWQ Stream Identification Forms are provided in the PJD documentation provided in Appendix F.

Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 9- USGS MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/2/2019
0 0.4Miles
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
FIGURE 9
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLANPage 16
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 10- DEM MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/2/2019
0 0.06Miles
O
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
DEM Range
Value
High : 3482.21
Low : 2624.61
DEM MAP
FIGURE 10
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLANPage 17
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 18 January 31, 2020
The North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) was used to assess the functions and values of
streams throughout the project area. NC SAM recognizes three major functions (Hydrology, Water
Quality, and Habitat) that are rated based on several sub-functions. Cattle have direct access to over 75
percent of the stream footage on-site. Cattle access and degraded riparian buffers resulted in low
functional ratings in one or more of the three major categories for nearly all streams on-site. Low
functional ratings indicate that these streams fail to provide the benefits of a reference system. WFFBR,
UT 5, and UT 7 received low overall ratings due to significant channel degradation, cattle access, and lack
of riparian buffer. Most of the unnamed tributaries within the Site received a medium to high overall NC
SAM rating because they are relatively stable channels with a narrow wooded buffer. Table 3 provides a
summary of NC SAM ratings. Detailed NC SAM Rating Sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 3. NCSAM Ratings
Stream ID NC SAM Stream
Category
NC SAM Overall
Rating Hydrology Water
Quality Habitat
WFFBR Ma4 Low Low Low Medium
UT 1 Mb1 High High Low High
UT 2 Mb1 Medium High Medium Low
UT 2a Mb1 High High Low High
UT 3 Mb1 Medium High Low Medium
UT 4 Mb1 Medium High Low Medium
UT 5 Ma1 Low Low Low Medium
UT 6 Mb1 High High Medium High
UT 7 Ma1 Low Low Low Low
UT 8 Mb1 High High Medium High

WFFBR, UT 5, and UT 7 are proposed for restoration due to high instability resulting from channel
manipulation though channelization and lack of vegetative presence. UT 1, UT 2, UT 2a, UT 2b, UT 3, UT
4, UT 4a, UT 4b, UT 6, UT 6a, UT 7a, UT 7b, and UT 8 are all first or second order, spring fed, perennial
tributaries with mild instability due to cattle hoof shear and limited buffer presence in some places. No
in-stream work is proposed for these tributaries with the exception of constructing tie-ins at the
confluences with WFFBR and stabilizing a headcut on UT 4a. The headcut on UT 4a, just upstream of the
confluence with UT 4, will be stabilized with rock step structures. Tributaries proposed for restoration are
discussed more in depth below. Although the majority of UT 8 is stable, it is discussed in detail as a
restoration reach given its relatively large watershed and length of required tie in to WFFBR.
West Fork French Broad River
WFFBR is primarily a gravel bed stream with significant inputs of fine sediments due to actively eroding
banks. Eroding banks are primarily a result of a lack in deeply-rooted stream bank and riparian vegetation
and cattle accessing the stream for shading and as a watering source. Channel bed form displays several
well defined riffles and pools, however substantial loads of fine sediments from bank scour has deposited
in many of the channel’s riffles and pools. Significant fecal matter inputs to WFFBR are assumed due to
direct cattle access and indirectly through the non-vegetated riparian buffer. Evidence of this includes
visual observation of cattle in the stream channel during site visits and fecal matter along stream banks
and within the stream channel. Down-valley migration of the channel is common throughout the Site as
 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 19 January 31, 2020 
evidenced by riffles that often occur within arcs of meander bends, numerous trees and fence posts falling 
into the channel and large, newly formed bars dominated by fine sediments.   
The large majority of the channel displays little to no deeply rooted bank or riparian vegetation.  When a 
woody buffer is present, it is commonly only one tree wide, with vegetation typically sparse at best.  Many 
of the trees within the one‐tree buffer have been undercut because the channel has incised below the 
rooting depth.  The lack of a mature vegetated buffer and the substantial influence of hoof shear have led 
to mass wasting of channel banks along large portions of the channel in both arc and tangent sections.  It 
should be noted that the large majority of WFFBR contains channel banks that depict moderate to 
substantial bank erosion (Figure 8). 
It would be anticipated that in undisturbed conditions entrenchment ratios of WFFBR should be much 
higher (meaning that flood flows should have greater access to its adjacent, well defined floodplain) with 
bank‐height ratios approaching 1.0. Existing cross‐sections of the channel clearly show that the bankfull 
elevation is well below the historic floodplain elevation (i.e. existing top of ground) with bank‐height ratios 
ranging from 1.7 to above 2.0. Morphological data of the existing conditions of WFFBR confirms that the 
channel is in a state of flux. It appears that the channel is incising through the landscape and beginning to 
over widen in an attempt to scour a floodplain at the bankfull elevation. 
Multiple cross sections were analyzed throughout the Site and varying nature of morphological conditions 
indicate that the existing channel is in a state of flux.   
Cross‐section 1 is 
classified as a B4 type 
channel, displaying a 
width‐to‐depth ratio of 
11.94 and 
entrenchment ratio of 
1.79.  The channel in 
this section has some 
erosion on the left bank 
and is incised to the 
point that it has 
abandoned its historic 
floodplain as evidenced 
by a bank‐height ratio of 2.19.  
 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 20 January 31, 2020 
Cross‐section 2 is 
classified as an overly 
wide, B4 type channel, 
as evidenced by a 
width‐to‐depth ratio 
25.34.  The left bank is 
eroding and the 
stream has deposited 
sediment on the right 
bank as it attempts to 
narrow and form a 
new floodplain inside 
the existing channel.  
The channel as incised to the point that is has abandoned its historic floodplain as evidenced by an 
entrenchment ratio of 1.44 and bank height ratio of 1.7 
Cross‐section 3 is 
classified as an F4 type 
channel with a width‐
to‐depth ratio of 18.6 
and entrenchment 
ratio of 1.25.  This 
cross‐section is typical 
of several reaches 
through the Site which 
have over widening 
due to mass bank 
failure and cattle 
access. Cattle access to the stream has eroded banks and denuded the riparian buffer of deep rooted 
vegetation which would allow for soil stabilization along the stream.  The channel is in the process of 
widening to the point that flow has been split by a center bar in the channel.  Additionally, like other 
reaches described above, the channel has abandoned its floodplain as evidenced by a bank‐height ratio 
of 1.8. 

 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 21 January 31, 2020 
UT 5 
UT 5 is a perennial, sand and 
gravel bed stream that 
originates off‐site and enters 
the Site through a culvert 
under Silverstein Road.  UT 5 
flows into a pond immediately 
downstream of the culvert.  
UT 5 has been straightened 
and channelized downstream 
of the pond, creating a 
relatively uniform plan and 
bed form. Bankfull flows are entrenched and unable to access the historic floodplain causing high stress 
on the channel banks. UT 5 flows into a relic meander scroll prior to its confluence with WFFBR.  The 
channel loses a defined bed and bank within the meander scroll.  Flow dissipates in the meander scroll as 
the feature becomes an emergent wetland (W3). 
Cattle have access to the entirety of UT 5; however, cattle access appears more common in the section 
that flows through W3.  Morphological data was collected on the straightened portion of UT 5 between 
the pond and W3 (location depicted on Figure 10).  Morphological data suggests that the channel is an E 
type channel based on the Rosgen Classification system, however the system appears to function more 
typical of a degraded B type channel because flood flows are confined as evidenced by a bank height ratio 
of 2.4. Tag alder along the banks serves to minimize stream bank erosion through this section; however, 
channel shear stress would remain high due to flow confinement. The drainage area for UT 5 is 45.2 acres 
(0.07 square miles).  UT 5 scored 27.5 on the DWQ stream classification form but would have scored above 
30 with natural sinuosity and in‐channel structure.  One culverted crossing is present immediately 
downstream of the pond dam. The successional trend of UT 5 is anticipated as follows:  E/B » G » F » C. 
UT 7 
UT 7 enters the site 
through a culvert under 
Silverstein Road (NC 281).  
The upstream most 248 
feet of UT 7 within the Site 
is stable and displays an 
undisturbed vegetated 
buffer due to current cattle 
exclusion (fencing) within 
this section.  Cattle have 
access to the channel 
immediately downstream 
of the fence. The riparian buffer is absent to minimal within areas where cattle are not fenced out.  Hoof 
shear of channel bed and banks has led to slope failure, mass wasting and sedimentation within the 
channel as well as direct inputs of fecal matter.  Spoil piles along the channel’s left bank are present in the 
 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 22 January 31, 2020 
downstream half of the stream and signify apparent past manipulation of planform (channel has been 
straightened). An example of spoil is depicted in UT 7: XS1.  Spoil piles and overburden have been placed 
over a relic wetland (W5).  Morphological data suggests that the modified portion of the channel is an E 
type channel based on the Rosgen Classification system, however the system appears to function more 
typical of a degraded B type channel because flood flows are confined as evidenced by a bank height ratio 
of 1.9.  The drainage area for UT 7 is approximately 32.1 acres (0.05 square miles) and the DWQ score is 
32.5 indicating a perennial channel. The successional trend of UT 7 is anticipated as follows:  E/B » G » F 
» C. 
 UT 8 
UT 8 is a gravel bed B‐Type 
channel that discharges into 
West Fork French Broad River 
at the northwest corner of the 
property.  Upstream of the 
easement boundary, UT 8 is 
stable and exhibits a step‐
pool system with short, steep 
riffles averaging a riffle slope 
of 0.05 ft/ft.  UT 8 is stable 
and functional except for the 
downstream most 40 feet of the reach which is down cutting to match the invert elevation of WFFBR at 
the confluence.  In the downstream portion of the reach there is little to no deeply rooted vegetation 
along the banks. The banks have been lined with old bricks by the land owner in an attempt to prevent 
further mass wasting as the channel continues to incise and undercut the banks.  
Other Unnamed Tributaries (UT 1, UT 2, UT 2A, UT 2B, UT 3, UT 4, UT 6, UT 6A, UT 7A, UT 7B, and UT 8) 
UT 1 
UT 1 is a spring fed, first order tributary that originates out of a steep bedrock face and flows through a 
confined, densely vegetated valley before entering the floodplain of WFFBR.  UT 1 maintains stable bed 
and banks as it flows through the floodplain of WFFBR. The riparian buffer at the upstream extents of UT 
1 exceeds 300 feet on each side and consists of mature hardwoods.  As UT 1 flows into the pasture the 
buffer transitions to a narrow strip of hardwood trees along both sides of UT 1.  The wooded buffer in this 
area ranges from 10 to 20 feet wide on each side of UT 1, then transitions into pasture.  Cattle have full 
access through the buffer to UT 1 and are currently using the tributary as a source of shade and water. 
Visual evidence of cattle in the stream was observed on multiple site visits and several areas of hoof shear 
are present along the valley side slopes.  The majority of cattle access occurs along the right side of UT 1. 
UT 1 has one ford crossing near its confluence with WFFBR. UT 1 has a drainage area of 19.5 acres (0.03 
square miles) at its confluence with WFFBR.   
UT 2, UT 2A, and UT 2B 
Each of these tributaries can be characterized as spring fed first order perennial tributaries with gravel 
dominated substrate.  The exception being the portions of UT 2 and UT 2a that flow through W1.  Sections 
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 23 January 31, 2020
flowing through W1 are influenced by beaver dams, which have aided in the formation of a riverine swamp
forest (W1) in the valley. Stream channels are discernable through the wetland but are dominated by
sand, silt, and detritus. The stream and wetland complex appears stable. Beaver dams appear to have
been built over 8 years ago as evidenced by the size of tag alder (Alnus serrulata) and black willow (Salix
nigra) growing in the wetland as well as historic aerial photography. The beaver dams appear to be
currently inactive. Upstream of W1, these streams are stable with a narrow vegetated buffer along both
sides of each tributary. Cattle have access to each tributary except the upstream portion of UT 2, which
is on the higher slope of the mountain; however; vegetation along the stream banks of each tributary has
assisted in maintaining stable stream systems. UT 2 has a drainage area of 18.6 acres (0.03 square miles)
at its confluence with UT 2a. UT 2a has a drainage area of 7.3 acres (0.01 square miles) at its confluence
with UT 2. UT 2b is a small channel that originates from a hillside seep and flows directly into UT 2a. The
drainage area for UT 2b is not discernable on a USGS quadrangle map. The perennial status of UT 2a and
UT 2b is derived more from the spring fed nature of these streams than from drainage area. One ford
crossing is present along UT 2a and one culverted crossing is present along UT 2. Both crossings occur
near the boundary between the pasture and mature forest.
UT 3
UT 3 originates out of a spring fed wetland (W2) and flows as a first order, intermittent tributary into
WFFBR. UT 3 is relatively stable with the exception of areas that have been accessed by cattle or where
the stream has incised as it flows through the landscape to reach its confluence with WFFBR. Substrate
consists of gravel, sand, silt, and detritus. Stream side vegetation consists mainly of tag alder, common
rush (Juncus effusus), and various sedges (Carex spp.). The drainage area for UT 3 is not discernable on a
map, as its hydrology is primarily derived from a groundwater seep. UT 3 scored 20 on the DWQ stream
classification form due mainly to weak geomorphology indicators, which may score higher if not
influenced by cattle.
UT 4, UT 4a, and UT 4b
Each of these tributaries can be characterized as spring fed first order, perennial tributaries with gravel
dominated substrate. Cattle have access to each tributary except the upstream most limits of UT 4 and
UT 4a. UT 4a appears to have been straightened upstream of its confluence with UT 4; however, stream
bed and banks on UT 4a are relatively stable with the exception of a headcut that occurs approximately
20 feet upstream of its confluence with UT 4. The narrow, wooded buffer along UT 4 has stabilized the
stream bed and banks despite cattle access. The drainage area for UT 4 is 30.6 acres (0.05 square miles).
The drainage area for UT 4a and UT 4b is not discernable on a USGS quadrangle map. One culverted
crossing exists on UT 4 just before its confluence with WFFBR.
UT 6, UT 6a
Each of these tributaries can be characterized as spring fed first order, perennial tributaries with gravel
dominated substrate. Cattle have access to UT 6a along the left bank as it flows adjacent to the pasture.
Cattle have access to UT 6 near its confluence with WFFBR. There is no fence to prevent the cattle from
accessing upstream sections of either tributary. Woody vegetation along the stream banks has
stabilized the streams and provides adequate shading. The drainage areas for UT 6 and UT 6a are 21.7
acres (0.03 square miles) and 22.7 acres (0.04 square miles), respectively. There are no crossings on
either tributary.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 24 January 31, 2020
UT 7a and UT 7b
UT 7a is a small spring fed, intermittent tributary that originates on-site and drains into UT 7. UT 7a is
stable, with an undisturbed vegetated buffer. Cattle do not have access to the channel. The drainage
area for UT 7a is not discernable on the topographic map. UT 7b originates off site and enters the Site
through a culvert under NC 281. UT 7b enters the Site as a stable stream with mature vegetation along
both banks. Stable sections of UT 7b are located upstream of a fence that excludes cattle. Downstream
of the fence the riparian buffer is minimal to non-existent (especially along the banks) with significant
cattle impacts which have resulted in sedimentation within the channel. The drainage area for UT 7b is
approximately 8.4 acres (0.01 square miles).
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands
Several riparian wetlands have experienced loss and/or degradation of characteristic function due to prior
site manipulation. Hydrologic and vegetative alteration of the Site has resulted in diminished nutrient
uptake/transformation and sediment retention. The consequence of these impacts is the rapid delivery
of pollutants to down-gradient waters. In addition, flood attenuation and wildlife habitat has also been
compromised. The North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) was used to assess the
functions and values of wetlands throughout the project area. NC WAM wetland types within the Site
include Riverine Swamp Forest, Headwater Forest and Floodplain Pool. NC WAM recognizes three major
functions (Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat) that are rated based on several sub-functions. Most of
the wetlands within the Site are Headwater Forests located adjacent to first or second order tributaries.
The primary exceptions being W1, which is a beaver influenced Riverine Swamp Forest, and W3, which is
separated into two wetland types; Riverine Swamp Forest and Floodplain Pool (located in a relic meaner
scroll of WFFBR). Overall NC WAM ratings were low for the majority of wetlands onsite due to cattle
disturbance, altered surface and subsurface water storage, and disturbed vegetative communities. Table
4 provides a summary of NC WAM ratings. Detailed NC WAM Rating Sheets are provided in Appendix C.
Table 4. NCWAM Ratings
Wetland ID* NC WAM
Wetland Type
NC WAM Overall
Rating Hydrology Water
Quality Habitat
W1 Riverine Swamp
Forest High High High Low
W2 Headwater Forest High High High Low
W3 Riverine Swamp
Forest Low Low Low Low
W3 Floodplain Pool Low Low Low High
W4 Headwater Forest Low Medium Low Low
W5A and W5B Headwater Forest Low Low Low Low
W6 and W6A Headwater Forest High High High Low
W7 Headwater Forest Medium Medium High Low
W8 Headwater Forest Low Low Medium Low
W9 Headwater Forest High High High High
*NC WAM assessments were completed on existing wetlands at the Site.
W1 is located adjacent to UT 2 and is heavily influenced by beaver. Several beaver dams have been
constructed along UT 2 that have created a Riverine Swamp Forest dominated by vegetation such as tag
alder, black willow, common rush, and various sedges. The beaver dams appear to have been constructed
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 25 January 31, 2020
over eight (8) years ago based on historic aerial photography and age of vegetation within the wetland.
However, the beaver dams appear to be currently inactive. Surface water was persistent throughout W1
and hydric soil indicators included a thick dark surface layer. Cattle have direct access to W1 with hoof
tracks evident throughout the wetland.
W3 is the largest wetland within the Site (1.8 acres). It can be divided into two distinct wetland types:
Riverine Swamp Forest and Floodplain Pool. The Riverine Swamp Forest portion of W3 has a significantly
altered vegetative community compared to reference condition. This portion of W3 consists solely of
herbaceous vegetation which is dominated by common rush and serves as a cattle pasture. Fecal matter
and cattle tracks are present throughout the wetland. Surface water was observed throughout the
wetland during field investigations. Hydric soil indicators include depleted matrix. Historically, it is likely
W3 extended to the current location of UT 5; however, there is an approximately 100 foot wide area
between the existing wetland boundary and UT 5 that appears to be the location where overburden from
the dredging and channelization of the channel has been spread (see “Relic Wetland” depicted on Figure
11). Soil boring logs in Appendix A depict evidence of overburden. Soil boring locations and corresponding
naming conventions are depicted in Figure 11 below.
Channelization of UT 5 has also likely affected hydrology of this relic wetland area, as indicated by the
Skaggs Method of determining lateral drainage effects (Skaggs 2005). The Skaggs Method indicates that
UT 5 may have a lateral drainage effect between 60 feet and 100 feet from existing top of bank on the
relic wetland area. HDR installed three groundwater gauges (Gauges 1 through 3) in this area on June 8,
2018 to collect data on the potential drainage effect of UT 5. Gauges were installed in a transect through
W3 and perpendicular to UT 5 (Figure 11). Gauge 1 was installed closest to UT 5 with each subsequent
gauge spaced approximately 70 feet apart. Groundwater data collected from the gauges supports the
Skaggs Method results.
The average static water table at Gauge 1 was significantly lower than Gauges 2 and 3. Additionally, it
appears that groundwater near Gauge 1 recharges to UT 5 faster than what is depicted for Gauges 2 and
3. Gauges 2 and 3 have maintained wetland hydrology (i.e. water table within 12 inches of surface) since
the date of installation. Gauge 3 has exhibited a water table within 12 inches of the surface for short
periods of consecutive days from June through August 2018 and November 2018 through February 2019.
The longest consecutive day period of high water table at Gauge 3 was 13 days. Gauge data is presented
in Figure 12.
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_
^_^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
#*
#*#*
#*#*
#*#*W9
UT 1W1
UT 2A
UT 2B
UT 2UT 4AUT 4BUT 4UT 6AUT 6WFFBR
W7
W8
W2
UT 3
W3
UT 5
W6
W6A W4
UT 7UT 7B
UT 7A
W5A
W5B
SB1
SB2
SB5
SB4
SB6
SB3
FG3
GT1 GT2GT3
GT4 GT5
GT6
GT7
G3
G2
FG2
G1
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 11- PRE-MONITORING FEATURE LOCATION MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/8/2019
0 400Feet
O
LEGEND
#*Geotech Borings
!(Gauges
^_Soil Borings
Cross Sections
Streams
Relic Wetland
ProjectWetlands
Proposed Easement
Property Boundary
PRE-MONITORING FEATURE LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 11
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
^_
^_
!(
!(
!(SB7
SB8
G5
FG1
G4
NCCGIA
Page 26
 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 27 January 31, 2020 
Figure 12. Wetland 3 Groundwater Data 

The Floodplain Pool portion of W3 formed in a relic meander scroll of WFFBR and appears to remain 
inundated for long durations, as evidenced by a predominance of hydrophytic herbaceous vegetation 
throughout the wetland.  Tag alder dominates along the edges of the meander scroll.  Surface water was 
present throughout the wetland during site investigations.  UT 5 flows through the eastern portion of this 
Floodplain Pool prior to its confluence with WFFBR.  Cattle have unrestricted access to the entirety of W3. 
W5 is a relic Headwater Forest wetland area adjacent to UT 7.  The relic wetland no longer supports 
wetland hydrology as it has been impacted by the channelization of UT 7 and placement of spoil in the 
floodplain.  W5A and W5B are small portions of W5 that remain as existing wetland (Figure 11). W5A 
retains wetland hydrology because it is located upstream of the incised portion of UT 7.  W5B retains 
wetland hydrology because it is a small depression located between the toe of slope and spoil piles, which 
trap water in the depression for extended periods of time.  The relic wetland area for W5 appears to 
connect W5A and W5B, and extend into the right floodplain approximately 10 to 50 feet based on the 
extent of hydric soils adjacent to UT 7.  Soil borings collected by a Licensed Soil Scientist on February 3, 
2018 confirmed the presence of hydric soils adjacent to UT 7 (soil boring logs are presented in Appendix 
A and depicted on Figure 11).  Spoil has been cast onto UT 7’s floodplain (within relic wetland areas of 
W5) off both the left and right banks, as evidenced by distinct spoil piles and identification of overburden 
in soil profiles (see soil profiles in Appendix A).  The Skaggs Method suggests that UT 7 may have a lateral 
drainage effect between 40 feet and 70 feet from existing top of bank on the relic wetland area. Two 
Groundwater gauges (Gauges 4 and 5, Figure 11) installed in relic portions of W5 in June 2018 support the 
Skaggs Method results.   Gauge 4 was installed on the left side of UT 7 near the upstream extents of the 
spoil piles.  The water table at Gauge 4 stayed between 15 and 30 inches below the surface from June 
through November, with brief spikes above 12 inches following rain events.  During December and 
January, the water table remained within 15 inches of the surface most days.  Gauge 5 was installed in 
 Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064 
Baseline and Existing Conditions 

Transylvania County, NC Page 28 January 31, 2020 
the right floodplain of UT 7, downstream of Gauge 4.  UT 7 was incised as it flowed adjacent to Gauge 5 
with a bank height ratio of approximately 2.0 and depth to top of bank of 2.5 feet.  The water table at 
Gauge 5 stayed between 30 and 40 inches below the surface from June 2018 through February 2019, with 
brief spikes above 12 inches following rain events. Gauge data is presented in Figure 13.  
Hydrology indicators throughout the relic wetland portion of W5 were weak and consisted only of 
secondary indicators such as geomorphic position.  Cattle have unrestricted access throughout W5, which 
has altered the vegetative structure and ground surface condition. Existing vegetation is sparse and 
consists of tag alder, American holly (Ilex opaca), common grape (Vitis sp.), green brier (Smilax sp.), and 
various sedges.   
Figure 13. Wetland 5 Groundwater Data 

Wetlands 2, 4, 6, 6A, 7, 8 and 9 are classified as headwater wetlands. Cattle have full access to these 
wetlands and routinely use the areas for water and shading as evidenced by cattle tracks and fecal matter 
throughout the wetlands. The vegetative structure of the wetlands is generally altered compared to 
reference conditions (with the exception of W9) due to human and agricultural manipulation. W6 and 
W6A are part of the same wetland system but are separated by an existing culverted crossing on UT 4.
3.4 Regulatory Considerations 
Table 5 provides a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site.  Additional information concerning 
protected species, cultural resources, and jurisdictional waters is presented in Sections 3.4.1 through 
3.4.4. The Interagency Review Team (IRT), DMS, and HDR visited the site on August 1, 2018 to review 
existing conditions of aquatic resources and discuss mitigation approach.  Meeting minutes are provided 
in Appendix H.   

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Baseline and Existing Conditions

Transylvania County, NC Page 29 January 31, 2020
Table 5. Regulatory Considerations
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Documentation?
Waters of the United States – Section 404 Yes Yes PCN*
Waters of the United States – Section 401 Yes Yes PCN*
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes CE (Appendix D)
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes CE (Appendix D)
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes Yes Floodplain Development
Permit**
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
*PCN will be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan
**A floodplain development permit is not required but will be submitted to keep the local floodplain administrator informed.

3.4.1 Protected Species
Transylvania County has 12 federally listed species as Threatened or Endangered. Records at the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) do not indicate an occurrence of a federally threatened or
endangered species on-site. The Categorical Exclusion documentation provided in Appendix D provides
details concerning threatened and endangered species at the Site. The proposed project was determined
to have “no effect” on federally protected species. Coordination regarding the Northern long-eared bat
was documented through completion of the 4(d) Streamlined Consultation Form (Appendix D).
The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) noted in a letter dated September 13, 2018
that Eastern hellbender (Cryptobranchus alleganiensis) is known to occur immediately downstream of the
Site. The letter also noted that brown trout and rainbow trout are present in the vicinity of the project.
NCWRC conducted a Site visit on January 11, 2019 to assess the Site for hellbender habitat and collect
water samples to test for hellbender DNA. HDR met NCWRC on-site on January 28, 2019 to discuss the
results of their site visit, review hellbender habitat locations, and discuss how the mitigation project could
improve habitat for hellbender. NCWRC concluded that the Site does provide habitat for Eastern
hellbender but water samples were negative for hellbender DNA. Habitat was present in the form of large
cover rocks scattered throughout WFFBR but the best habitat was concentrated in the downstream third
of the Site. NCWRC recommended that in-stream work be minimized in the downstream third of WFFBR
and that care be taken during construction to move aquatic species from the abandoned channel into the
new channel. NCWRC requested to be contacted if hellbender are identified during construction. NCWRC
also recommended a trout moratorium on in-channel work between October 15 and April 15. HDR has
incorporated hellbender habitat improvement structures into the Site design based on habitat details
provided by NCWRC and will continue coordination with NCWRC through construction.
3.4.2 Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Review of the Floodplain Mapping Program website and the effective Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
Map Number 3700852400J Effective Date October 2, 2009 indicates West Fork French Broad River is
within a Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Therefore a CLOMR and LOMR will not be required as part
of this project. Coordination with the floodplain administrator for Transylvania County on February 2,
2018 confirmed that a CLOMR/LOMR would not be required for this project. In addition, the floodplain
administrator confirmed that the project would not require a floodplain development permit but one may
be submitted to keep the County informed about the project.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives

Transylvania County, NC Page 30 January 31, 2020
Hydrologic trespass is not a concern based on the proposed design. Restoration of WFFBR is designed as
Priority II restoration to avoid trespass on upstream property. Priority I restoration of UT 5, UT 7, and UT
8 will not result in hydrologic trespass due to the natural fall of the valley between the easement boundary
and beginning of restoration on each tributary. Hydrologic trespass is also not a concern due to wetland
re-establishment/rehabilitation because the location of wetlands and their surrounding topography limit
any hydraulic trespass to be contained within the conservation easement. The DMS Floodplain
Requirements Checklist was completed for this project and is provided in Appendix E.
3.4.3 Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Site was approved by FHWA on December 14, 2018. The CE included
information regarding cultural resources at the Site and coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Office. Based on results from the CE research and documentation there are no historic or cultural
resources that would be affected by this project. CE documentation is provided in Appendix D.
3.4.4 401/404
The USACE issued a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for the Site on September 14, 2018
(Appendix F). The Site contains approximately 8,565 existing feet of stream, 3.39 acres of riparian
wetland, and 0.53 acre of open water. Impacts to jurisdictional streams and wetlands will be necessary
for restoration and enhancement activities but this project will result in a net uplift of aquatic resources
at the Site. A Pre-Construction Notification form will be completed and submitted to USACE to obtain a
Nationwide General Permit 27 to complete restoration and enhancement activities.
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives
Project goals are based on the French Broad RBRP (NCEEP 2009), current conditions observation, and on-
site data collected during existing conditions collection. Site specific goals and objectives were developed
to provide the highest practical potential for functional uplift based on NC SAM and NC WAM analyses of
streams and wetlands on-site presented in Section 3.3. Table 6 summarizes the functions targeted for
uplift and the goals and objectives that will be achieved to provide the proposed uplift. Targeted functions
listed in Table 6 are based on NC SAM and NC WAM functions and sub-functions.
Significant fecal and nutrient loads are entering WFFBR and its tributaries as a result of direct cattle access
to streams and overland sheetflow from adjacent pastures. Evidence of this includes visual observation
of cattle in the stream channel during site visits and fecal matter along stream banks and within the stream
channel. HDR used equations and guidance set forth by DMS in the document titled “Quantifying Benefits
to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration”
(June 15, 2016) to estimate potential fecal load reductions that may result from proposed restoration
activities at the Site. It is estimated that cattle exclusion and establishment of a riparian buffer would
decrease the fecal load of the Site by approximately 3.96E+14 col/year. HDR also used equations set forth
in the NC DEQ memorandum titled “Approval of Cattle Exclusion Nutrient Reduction Practices” (April 5,
2017) as well as the document titled “NC Division of Water Quality – Methodology and Calculations for
determining Nutrient Reductions associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment” to determine potential
nitrogen and phosphorous reduction loads for the Site. Cattle exclusion and establishment of a riparian
buffer is estimated to reduce the nitrogen loads for the Site by 1,718 lb/yr and reduce the phosphorous
load for the site by 169 lb/yr. Although the project has the ability to reach partial uplift, some constraints
prevent the Site from reaching full uplift potential. Watershed processes can only partially be controlled,
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives

Transylvania County, NC Page 31 January 31, 2020
as upstream uses will not be altered. In addition, local constraints are present including stream crossings
and a utility easement over WFFBR, UT 5, and W3.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives

Transylvania County, NC Page 32 January 31, 2020
Table 6. Targeted Functions, Goals, and Objectives
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives
(1) Hydrology
(2) Flood Flow
• Provide/enhance flood attenuation
• Restore riparian habitat
• Restore UT 5, UT 7, and UT 8 as primarily a Priority I
restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access
the floodplain
• Restore WFFBR as Priority II with a floodplain bench
ranging from 15’ to 100’ wide on each side of the
channel
• Restore/enhance wetlands
• Plant native vegetation along stream banks and adjacent
riparian corridor (including wetlands)
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
• Restore/enhance streams within the
Site so that they are neither aggrading
nor degrading.
• Construct stable dimension, pattern, and profile on
WFFBR, UT 5, UT 7, and UT 8
• Install fencing to exclude cattle from streams, wetlands,
and riparian corridors
• Plant native vegetation along stream banks and adjacent
riparian corridor (including wetlands)
• Seed newly constructed channels with native substrate
harvested from the existing channels
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
Wetland Surface Storage and Retention
• Restore/enhance wetlands within the
Site to remove hydrologic impairments
• Restore wetland hydrology by raising the inverts of
adjacent, incised tributaries
• Remove spoil and overburden from relic wetland areas
• Plant native vegetation in wetlands Wetland Sub-Surface Storage and Retention

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Functional Uplift Potential and Project Goals and Objectives

Transylvania County, NC Page 33 January 31, 2020
Targeted Functions Goals Objectives
(1) Water Quality
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
• Reduce sediment, nutrient and other
pollutant sources that affect water
quality
• Restore riparian habitat

• Plant native vegetation along stream banks and adjacent
riparian corridor (including wetlands)
• Install fencing to exclude cattle from streams, wetlands,
and riparian corridors
• Restore/enhance wetlands
• Restore UT 5, UT 7, and UT 8 as primarily a Priority I
restoration where bankfull and larger flows can access
the floodplain, allowing adjacent wetlands to treat
nutrients and filter sediment
• Restore WFFBR as Priority II with a floodplain bench
ranging from 15’ to 100’ wide on each side of the
channel
• Remove agricultural equipment from streams by
converting existing fords on UT 1 and UT 2A to culverted
crossings
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
Wetland Pathogen Change, Particulate Change,
and Soluble Change
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
• Restoring and enhancing aquatic, semi-
aquatic, and riparian habitat
• Restoring and connecting riparian
habitat with adjacent natural habitats
• Permanently protecting the Site from
undesirable uses
• Plant native vegetation along stream banks and adjacent
riparian corridor (including wetlands)
• Construct rock habitat structures for Eastern hellbender
• Restore/enhance wetlands and create floodplain pools in
abandoned channel of WFFBR
• Protect riparian buffers with a perpetual conservation
easement
• Introduce woody material through toe wood and log sills
on restored channels
• Restore sinuous gravel bed channels that promote riffles
and pools
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
Wetland Physical Structure, Landscape Patch
Structure and Vegetation Composition
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 34 January 31, 2020
5.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
5.1 Design Approach Overview
5.1.1 West Fork French Broad River
Stream channel restoration of pattern, profile, dimension and riparian buffer is proposed for
approximately 1,799 linear feet of WFFBR (excluding 127 feet that flows through a powerline easement
and 60 feet that will be used as a ford crossing). WFFBR flows under a powerline easement from station
14+53 to 15+82. This portion of WFFBR will be restored to maintain stream stability throughout the
project and the buffer under the powerline easement will be planted. No stream credits are proposed for
the portion of WFFBR that flows under the powerline easement. The channel has experienced bank failure
leading to the deposition of sediment (from channel banks) and nutrients (from cattle) loading to on-site
and downstream receiving waters. Proposed mitigation activities include stabilizing channel banks by
restoring a more natural and stable dimension and plan form while maintaining portions of the existing
alignment where feasible, meandering WFFBR through the low point of the valley, providing overbank
flood relief through the creation of bankfull benches through excavation (benches) and fill (abandoned
channel areas), installation of wood and rock structures for grade control and habitat improvement,
seeding riffles with existing, native channel material for immediate restoration of the hyporheic zone,
restoration of a vegetated riparian buffer, and removal of agricultural operations from the channel and
riparian buffer through fencing.
Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle and clearly demarcate
the easement boundary for the landowners. A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative species
will be planted within the proposed conservation easement. Following restoration, WFFBR will exhibit a
minimum riparian buffer between 50 feet and 75 feet wide off of the left and right banks throughout the
restoration reach. Trees 12 inches and greater within the potential restored riparian areas were surveyed.
The survey was used during the stream channel design to ensure that mature tree disturbance is limited
to the greatest extent practical during construction. Portions of the existing buffer that are removed to
facilitate restoration of WFFBR will be replanted with native vegetation.
The existing ford crossing of WFFBR will be relocated approximately 85 feet upstream of the current
location but will not be included within the conservation easement. The crossing will be approximately
60 feet wide and is necessary to provide the landowner access between farming paddocks outside of the
conservation easement.
Due to evidence of bedrock outcropping throughout the Site, geotech test pits were excavated along the
proposed alignment to ensure that the proposed design is constructible. Test pits were excavated to a
depth sufficient to exceed the proposed thalweg depth of WFFBR. No bedrock was encountered along
the proposed alignment and therefore should not pose a problem during construction. The location of
geotech test pits can be found on Figure 11.
Multiple factors necessitated Priority II stream restoration for WFFBR. The restoration of WFFBR cannot
result in hydraulic trespass on the upstream landowner. Additionally, the restored stream must connect
vertically downstream with the existing channel invert. Since, the upstream and downstream elevations
are set, manipulating stream slope within the Site would be the only way to achieve some Priority I
restoration. However, to maintain sediment transport through the Site the bankfull design slope could
not be decreased. A minimum 15 foot floodplain bench will be excavated on each side of the channel to
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 35 January 31, 2020
provide additional flood attenuation. In some areas the bench along the inside of meander bends will
extend to approximately 100 feet.
Hellbenders have been recorded in WFFBR immediately downstream of the Site so HDR met with NCWRC
onsite to discuss hellbender habitat within WFFBR. Based on discussions and details provided by NCWRC
specific structures are proposed throughout the restoration reach of WFFBR to provide in-stream habitat
for hellbenders. This includes the use of wood and rock that the hellbender can use for cover. In-channel
rock structures will be located in runs and glides and toe wood will be incorporated into soil lifts along the
stream banks.
Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 705 linear feet of WFFBR at the downstream extent of the
project. Enhancement activities include stabilizing the unstable and eroding left channel bank.
Approximately 264 feet of vertical and eroding banks will be reconstructed using soil lifts with toe wood
and hellbender habitat. Efforts will be made to protect and preserve stable banks with mature vegetation.
The right channel bank is stable and vegetated, therefore no construction activity is proposed for the right
channel bank. Additionally, the invert of the channel is stable and, according to NCWRC, already exhibits
hellbender habitat and therefore should not be modified. Soil lifts with toe wood and hellbender habitat
will enhance the habitat available to the hellbender in the enhancement reach of WFFBR. Exclusionary
fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle and clearly demarcate the
easement boundary for the landowners. A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative species will
be planted on the left side of WFFBR through the enhancement reach. The right side of WFFBR through
the enhancement reach already exhibits a mature riparian buffer. Following enhancement activities,
WFFBR will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer between 50 feet and 75 feet wide off of the left bank and
30 feet to 50 feet wide off of the right bank throughout the enhancement reach.
5.1.2 UT 5 West Fork French Broad River
Stream channel restoration of pattern, profile, dimension and riparian buffer is proposed for
approximately 827 linear feet of UT 5 (excluding 72 feet that flows under a powerline easement). UT 5
flows under a powerline easement from station 14+33 to 15+05. This portion of WFFBR will be restored
to maintain stream stability throughout the project and the buffer under the powerline easement will be
planted. No stream credits are proposed for the portion of UT 5 that flows under the powerline easement.
UT 5 will be restored through the existing pond, then through pasture within the Site, beginning upstream
of the pond and ending at its convergence with WFFBR. The existing pond area is approximately 0.66
acres with a dam approximately 8 feet tall, 220 feet long, 12 feet wide at the top and 50 feet wide at the
bottom. Proposed mitigation activities include removing the pond dam, meandering UT 5 through the
low point of the valley, restoring a more natural and stable plan form, installation of wood and rock
structures for grade control and habitat improvement, restoration of a vegetated riparian buffer, and
removal of agricultural operations from the channel and riparian buffer through fencing. The existing
pond dam will be removed by notching the dam and slowly discharging the retained water in a manner
that reduces potential erosion and siltation (from potential sediment wedging behind the dam) to
downstream receiving water. Once the water has been drained from the pond, the entire pond dam will
be removed down to the natural floodplain elevation. The bottom of the pond has been surveyed and it
does not appear that excessive sediment has formed any wedge at the pond dam. However, if excess
sediment is discovered upon draining the pond then the sediment will be removed as necessary to ensure
Priority I restoration of UT 5 through the existing pond. Any fine sediment accumulated in the bottom of
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 36 January 31, 2020
the pond will be excavated before the proposed channel is constructed through the low point of the pond
(i.e. low point of the valley).
The majority of UT 5 restoration will be Priority I which will provide greater connectivity of overbank flow
with the wetland (W3) that does not currently occur due to the incised nature of UT 5. There are two
reaches of Priority II restoration, one at the upstream extent and one at the downstream extent. Priority
II restoration will be used at the upstream extent to transition from the existing channel to the proposed
Priority I channel. The channel will be cascaded over a series of log structures which will allow the channel
to drop in elevation while maintaining a stable riffle slope. A floodplain bench will not be constructed in
this area, instead, gentle side slopes will be cut from the proposed top of bank and tie into existing ground
which will also minimize the excavation impacts to Wetland 9. Priority II restoration is also proposed at
the downstream extent of UT 5 to stably construct the convergence with WFFBR. However, a floodplain
bench will be installed along the right bank to ensure overbank flow connectivity with the meander scroll
in Wetland 3. Additionally, a half-bankfull channel is proposed on the left bank to connect flow into the
downstream section of the meander scroll of Wetland 3 which will aid in maintaining the existing
hydrology.
5.1.3 UT 7 West Fork French Broad River
Stream channel restoration of pattern, profile, dimension and riparian buffer is proposed for
approximately 417 linear feet of UT 7. The downstream extent of the current channel has been modified
and relocated from its natural valley position to a point at which it flows adjacent to an existing hill slope.
UT 7 will be restored away from its current location back through the low point of its natural valley which
is currently utilized as pasture. The channel has experienced bank failure leading to the deposition of
sediment (from channel banks) and nutrient (from cattle) loading to downstream receiving waters.
Proposed mitigation activities includes stabilizing channel banks, meandering through the low point of the
valley, restoring a more natural and stable plan form, installation of wood and rock structures for grade
control and habitat improvement, restoration of a vegetated riparian buffer, and removal of agricultural
operations from the channel and riparian buffer through fencing.
The majority of UT 7 restoration will be Priority I, the only exception is at the downstream extent of the
channel where Priority II is necessary to construct the convergence with WFFBR. The existing spoil piles
along existing UT 7 will be removed to allow floodplain connectivity throughout the entire natural
floodplain which will also aid in restoring adjacent relic wetlands.
Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 439 linear feet of UT 7, beginning at the easement
boundary and extending to the beginning of restoration. This enhancement reach is proposed at a 3.5:1
ratio because the cattle are already excluded from the portion of UT 7 above the confluence with UT 7A.
Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle from the remainder
of UT 7 and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowners. The existing, degraded buffer
will be populated with native vegetative species to restore natural vegetative structure and composition.
Following enhancement activities, UT 7 will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer between 50 feet and 75
feet wide off of the left and right banks throughout most of the enhancement reach.
5.1.4 UT 8 West Fork French Broad River
Stream channel restoration of pattern, profile, dimension and riparian buffer is proposed for
approximately 137 linear feet of UT 8. WFFBR will be diverted away from its current alignment, which will
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 37 January 31, 2020
require the extension of UT 8 to converge with WFFBR. UT 8’s alignment will be extended by 136 feet
beginning at a stable cross section upstream of its current confluence with WFFBR. The extended channel
will flow through a filled portion of the abandoned WFFBR until the point of their new convergence within
existing pasture land. Channel pattern, profile, and dimension were designed to ensure that the channel
will convey flow and transport sediment in a way where the channel will neither aggrade nor degrade.
Additional mitigation activities include installation of wood and rock structures for grade control and
habitat improvement, and restoration of a vegetated riparian buffer.
5.1.5 Other Unnamed Tributaries Proposed for Enhancement
UT 1 - Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 764 feet of UT 1 (excluding 25 feet that flows through
an agricultural crossing). This enhancement reach is proposed at a 3.5:1 ratio because although cattle
have full access to UT 1, a mature riparian buffer is present on both sides of the channel. The buffer
narrows as UT 1 flows through the pasture but still maintains a width of approximately 10 to 20 feet.
Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle from UT 1 and clearly
demarcate the easement boundary for the landowners. A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative
species will be planted from the edge of the existing wooded buffer to the easement boundary. Following
enhancement activities, UT 1 will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of the left and
right banks throughout the easement. The existing ford crossing on UT 1 will be replaced with a culvert
crossing. A single 24 inch Corrugated Metal Pipe (CMP) will be installed at the culvert crossing.
UT 2, UT 2A, and UT 2B – Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 923 feet of UT 2 (excluding 20
feet that flows through an agricultural crossing), 546 feet of UT 2A (excluding 24 feet that flows through
an agricultural crossing), and 75 feet of UT 2B. These enhancement reaches are proposed at a 2.5:1 ratio
because cattle routinely access this area of the Site for water and shade, which has resulted in frequent
inputs of nutrients and fecal matter, and degradation of the narrow riparian area adjacent to the streams.
Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle from UT 2, UT 2A,
and UT 2B, and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowners. The existing, degraded
buffer will be populated with native vegetative species to restore natural vegetative structure and
composition. Following enhancement activities, UT 2, UT 2A, and UT 2B will exhibit a minimum riparian
buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of the left and right banks throughout the easement. Portions of the buffer
along UT 2 and UT 2A will exceed 50 feet in width. The existing ford on UT 2A will be replaced with a
culvert crossing and the existing culvert crossing on UT 2 will be replaced with a new culvert crossing. A
single 24 inch CMP will be installed at each crossing.
UT 3 – Enhancement I is proposed for approximately 125 feet of UT 3. Enhancement measures will consist
of grading stream bed and banks and installing a rock step structure to stabilize UT 3 as it converges with
WFFBR. Stabilization of UT 3 is necessary through this reach because the channel is currently degraded
and eroding at the confluence with WFFBR. Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement
boundary to exclude cattle from UT 3 and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowner.
A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative species will be planted on both sides of UT 3. Following
enhancement activities, UT 3 will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of the left and
right banks.
UT 4 – Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 809 linear feet of UT 4 (excluding 30 feet that flows
through an agricultural crossing). This enhancement reach is proposed at a 2.5:1 ratio because cattle
routinely access UT 4 for water and shade, which has resulted in frequent inputs of nutrients and fecal
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 38 January 31, 2020
matter, and degradation of the narrow riparian area adjacent to the stream. The riparian buffer in some
areas along UT 4 consists of a single tree buffer. In addition, WFFBR will be diverted away from its current
alignment, which will require the extension of UT 4 to converge with WFFBR. Approximately 146 linear
feet of UT 4 will be constructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile to connect UT 4 with the newly
constructed WFFBR. The extended channel will flow through a filled portion of the abandoned WFFBR
until the point of their new convergence. Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement
boundary to exclude cattle from UT 4 and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowner.
A riparian buffer populated with native vegetative species will be planted on both sides of UT 4. Following
enhancement activities, UT 4 will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of the left and
right banks. The existing culvert crossing on UT 4 will be replaced with a new culvert crossing. A single 36
inch CMP will be installed at the crossing.
UT 4A – Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 472 linear feet of UT 4A. This enhancement reach
is proposed at a 2.3:1 ratio because cattle routinely access UT 4A for water and shade, which has resulted
in frequent inputs of nutrients and fecal matter, and degradation of the riparian area adjacent to the
stream. In addition, approximately 72 linear feet of UT 4A will be stabilized with rock step structures near
the convergence with UT 4. Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude
cattle from UT 4A and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowner. A riparian buffer
populated with native vegetative species will be planted on the left side of UT 4A. Following enhancement
activities, UT 4A will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of the left bank and 50 to 75
feet wide off of the right bank.
UT 4B – Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 178 linear feet of UT 4B. This enhancement reach
is proposed at a 3.5:1 ratio because although cattle have full access to UT 4B, a mature riparian buffer is
present on both sides of the channel. Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary
to exclude cattle from UT 4B and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowner. Following
enhancement activities, UT 4B will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of both sides
of the channel.
UT 7B – Enhancement II is proposed for approximately 136 linear feet of UT 7B. This enhancement reach
is proposed at a 2.5:1 ratio because cattle routinely access this area of the Site for water and shade, which
has resulted in frequent inputs of nutrients and fecal matter, and degradation of the riparian area adjacent
to the stream. Woven wire fencing will be installed along the easement boundary to exclude cattle from
UT 7B and clearly demarcate the easement boundary for the landowners. The existing, degraded buffer
will be populated with native vegetative species to restore natural vegetative structure and composition.
Following enhancement activities, UT 7B will exhibit a minimum riparian buffer 30 to 50 feet wide off of
the left and right banks throughout the easement.
5.1.6 Unnamed Tributaries Proposed for Preservation
UT 6, UT 6A, and UT 7A are proposed for preservation because they currently exhibit stable streams with
a mature riparian buffer and cattle are either excluded from the streams or do not appear to access the
streams. Two rock structures will be installed at the downstream extents of UT 6 in order to construct a
stable convergence with WFFBR.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 39 January 31, 2020
5.2 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
5.2.1 West Fork French Broad River
The proposed channel is designed as a moderate width to depth ratio, C4-type channel that conveys a
bankfull discharge of approximately 300 cfs (proposed cross-sections shown on Sheet X-1). Proposed
morphological conditions can be found in Table 7.
Table 7. WFFBR Morphological Conditions
Parameter Existing Condition
(XS1)
Existing Condition
(XS2)
Existing Condition
(XS3)
Reference
Condition (SFMR)
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 215 215 215 990 215
Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
3520 3520 3520 454 3520
Channel/Reach
Classification B4 B4 F4 C4 C4
Design Discharge
Width (ft) 28.8 47.9 38.5 15.2 30
Design Discharge
Depth (ft) 2.41 1.89 2.07 1.12 2.10
Design Discharge
Area (ft2) 69.31 90.63 79.6 17 69.6
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) 4.28 3.39 3.76 3.2 4.3
Design Discharge
(cfs) 300 300 300 55 300
Water Surface
Slope 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0097 0.0034
Sinuosity 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.12 1.12
Width/Depth
Ratio 11.9 25.3 18.6 13.5 14
Bank Height Ratio 2.2 1.7 1.8 1.32 1.0
Entrenchment
Ratio 1.79 1.44 1.25 2.31 3.1
d16 / d35 / d50 /
d84 / d95 / dibar
7/20.6/32.1/
66.7/77.9/83
7/20.6/32.1/
66.7/77.9/83
7/20.6/32.1/
66.7/77.9/83
5.7/22.6/40.1/
85.1/115.3
7/20.6/32.1/
66.7/77.9/83

Due to backwater constraints at the upstream extent of the project along with the required tie-in
elevation at the downstream extent of the project, the restoration of WFFBR will be Priority II restoration
in which a floodplain bench is excavated at the bankfull elevation.
5.2.2 UT 5 West Fork French Broad River
The proposed channel is designed as a moderate width to depth ratio, C4b-type channel through a
relatively steep valley (0.027 ft/ft) (proposed cross-sections shown on Sheet X-2, Appendix G). UT 5’s
design discharge is estimated to be 10 cfs.
Short pool to pool spacing (averaging 4.2 bankfull widths) and grade control structures are utilized
throughout the restored channel in an attempt to dissipate energy (through pools) and maintain a lower
bankfull slope of 0.00569 ft/ft between drops. The lower bankfull slope is required to transport sediment
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 40 January 31, 2020
and flow such that, over time, the stream neither aggrades nor degrades. Proposed morphological
conditions are provided in Table 8.
Table 8. UT 5 Morphological Conditions
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition
(UT SFMR)
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 100 350 100
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 44.8 160 44.8
Channel/Reach Classification B4 C4 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 4.4 10.4 8.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.66 1.19 0.76
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.9 8.2 5
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 3.45 3.2 2
Design Discharge (cfs) 10 23.7 10
Water Surface Slope 0.012 0.0062 0.006
Sinuosity 1.08 1.07 1.14
Width/Depth Ratio 6.64 12.6 13.5
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 1.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 1.83 8 11.8
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dibar 3.6/7.2/11.5/26.7/32.9/40 0.9/9.8/13.7/25.7/34.6 3.6/7.2/11.5/26.7/32.9/40

5.2.3 UT 7 West Fork French Broad River
The proposed channel is designed as a moderate width to depth ratio, C4-type channel that conveys a
bankfull discharge of approximately 13 cfs (proposed cross-sections shown on Sheet X-3, Appendix G).
The design discharge was estimated by determining the existing channel forming discharge of a stable
cross-section, within a stable, vegetated reach upstream of the proposed conservation easement.
The valley slope is relatively steep at approximately 0.026 ft/ft. Grade control structures are utilized in an
attempt to dissipate energy and to maintain a relatively low bankfull slope of 0.00534 ft/ft between drops.
The lower bankfull slope is required to transport sediment and flow such that, over time, the stream
neither aggrades nor degrades. A large spoil berm is situated between the existing left channel bank of
UT 7 and the toe of slope leading to Silverstein Road. The existing berm will be removed allowing for
unimpeded floodwater access to the restored riparian buffer. Proposed morphological conditions are
provided in Table 9.

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 41 January 31, 2020
Table 9. UT 7 Morphological Conditions
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition
(UT SFMR)
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 60 350 60
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 41 160 41
Channel/Reach Classification B4 C4 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 4.7 10.4 9
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.7 1.19 0.8
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.7 8.2 5.6
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 4.8 3.2 2.3
Design Discharge (cfs) 13 23.7 13
Water Surface Slope 0.0246 0.0062 0.0054
Sinuosity 1.54 1.07 1.24
Width/Depth Ratio 8.3 12.6 13.5
Bank Height Ratio 3.4 1.2 1
Entrenchment Ratio 2.7 8 14.4
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dibar 0/0/3.4/25.4/61.7 0.9/9.8/13.7/25.7/34.6 0/0/3.4/25.4/61.7

5.2.4 UT 8 West Fork French Broad River
The proposed channel is designed as a moderate width to depth ratio, C4-type channel that conveys a
bankfull discharge of approximately 45 cfs (proposed cross-sections shown on Sheet X-4, Appendix G).
The design discharge was estimated by determining the existing channel forming discharge of a stable
cross-section, within a stable, vegetated reach upstream of the proposed conservation easement.
The valley slope of UT 7 is approximately 0.025 ft/ft. Grade control structures are utilized to dissipate
energy and drop the invert elevation to match the thalweg elevation of WFFBR at the confluence of the
tributary and WFFBR. A design bankfull slope of 0.0110 ft/ft will be maintained to transport the sediment
and flow such that, over time, the stream neither aggrades nor degrades. Proposed morphological
conditions are provided in Table 10 Morphological Conditions.

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 42 January 31, 2020
Table 10. UT 8 Morphological Conditions
Parameter Existing Condition Reference Condition
(UT SFMR)
Proposed
Valley Width (ft) 30 350 30
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 198 160 198
Channel/Reach Classification B4 C4 C4
Design Discharge Width (ft) 11.6 10.4 12
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.97 1.19 1.11
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 8.19 8.2 10.3
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 5.5 3.2 4.4
Design Discharge (cfs) 45 23.7 45
Water Surface Slope 0.0379 0.0062 0.0110
Sinuosity 1.03 1.07 1.09
Width/Depth Ratio 16.3 12.6 13
Bank Height Ratio 2.79 1.2 1.00
Entrenchment Ratio 1.47 8 2.5
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95 / dibar 0/7.2/16.8/65.3/76.8 0.9/9.8/13.7/25.7/34.6 0/7.2/16.8/65.3/76.8

5.3 Reference Streams
5.3.1 West Fork French Broad River
Morphological conditions of a reach of South Fork Mills River (SFMR) was surveyed and utilized as
reference information for the design of WFFBR (Table 8). The stream maintains a moderate to high
width/depth ratio and a low bank height ratio which allows the stream to access the floodplain. The
reference reach’s valley type (Rosgen valley type VIII) and valley slope are similar to valley conditions of
WFFBR. The reference reach flows through a wooded, mature riparian buffer that displays minimal signs
of instability.
The reference reach is classified as a C4 type channel. The C descriptor is designated because the channel
displays a width to depth ratio of 13.5 and entrenchment ratio of 2.3 which indicates that the channel
displays typical C type channel parameters. The channel’s substrate is dominated by gravel which is
indicated by the 4 descriptor. The bankfull discharge for SFMR where the reference was surveyed is 55
cubic feet per second. Figure 13 shows the location of SFMR reference reach. Photographs of SFMR
reference reach are presented in Appendix B.
SFMR is surround by a mature (50 years or older) vegetated floodplain. The vegetated floodplain extends
a minimum of 100 feet from both the left and right banks throughout the study area. Dominant vegetation
within the floodplain includes Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), rhododendron (Rhododendron
maximum), red maple (Acer rubrum), flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), white pine (Pinus strobus),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), elderberry (Sambucus candensis), dog hobble (Leucothoe
fontanesiana), American elm (Ulmus americana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera).
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 43 January 31, 2020
5.3.2 UT 5, UT 7, UT 8
Generally, each restored UT flows off high gradient hill slopes with confined valleys into a broader, lower
slope floodplain before discharging into WFFBR. Several stream reaches within the same physiographic
and eco-region were identified as potential references to be used in the design parameters for the
restored stream reaches; however site inspections revealed that the overwhelming majority of reaches
areas were identified as having broad valleys within the mountains were also cattle farms and showed
signs of degradation similar to the tributaries to WFFBR. UT to South Fork Mills River (UT SFMR) was
selected for having a similar valley type to the tributaries at Owen Farms. UT SFMR originates in a narrow,
relatively steep valley and transitions into the broader floodplain of the South Fork Mills River. The
reference reach is located within the Pisgah National Forest and flows through a mature riparian buffer,
displaying minimal signs of instability.
Morphological conditions of the surveyed reach of UT SFMR is utilized as reference information for the
design of UT 5, UT 7, and UT 8 (Tables 9, 10, and 11). The reference reach is classified as a C4 type channel.
The C descriptor is designated because the channel displays a width to depth ratio of 12.6 and
entrenchment ratios of 8 which indicates that the channel displays typical C type channel parameters.
The channel’s substrate is dominated by gravel which is indicated by the 4 descriptor. The bankfull
discharge for UTSFMR where the reference was surveyed is 26 cubic feet per second. Figure 13 shows
the location of UT SFMR reference reach. Photographs of UT SFMR reference reach are presented in
Appendix B.
UT SFMR is surrounded by a mature vegetated floodplain, similar to that outlined in the section above for
the reference of WFFBR.
South Fork Mills River
Reference Reach
UT South Fork Mills River
Reference Reach
14-digit HUC
06010105010020
Owen Farms Mitigation Site
14-digit HUC
06010105020030
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, USGS, Intermap, INCREMENT P, NRCan,
Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), Esri Korea, Esri (Thailand),
NGCC, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 1- REFERENCEREACH_LOCATION MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 5/2/2019
REFERENCE REACH LOCATION MAP
FIGURE 14
SOUTH FORK MILLS RIVER
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
0 3.5Miles
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
14-digit HUC Boundary
Reference Reach
Level IV Ecoregions
Broad Basins
High Mountains
Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains
Page 44
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 45 January 31, 2020
5.4 Design Discharge Analysis
Bankfull discharge on WFFBR and all restored tributaries was determined by two methods. The first
method used to determine the discharge included identifying bankfull indicators within the Site. Several
bankfull indicators were identified within the Site and while some of the design discharge determinations
from the Site were not used due to the degree of channel instability; some clear bankfull indicators were
located in stable sections that indicated the data is practical. Cross-sectional data was collected within a
riffle where bankfull indicators were readily identifiable. Additionally, a longitudinal profile of the water
surface, invert and bankfull indicators were collected within the reach in an attempt to identify an
accurate Bankfull slope. A Manning’s Roughness Coefficient was estimated for the reach. An estimated
velocity, and ultimately discharge, was calculated using Manning’s Equation solving for flow velocity using
data obtained from the cross-section, the slope of the water surface profile, and Manning’s Roughness
Coefficient. Discharge calculations can be found in Appendix H.
The second method for determining bankfull discharge on-site included comparing the Site’s data with
existing hydraulic curves from Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for Bankfull Regional Curves for
North Carolina Rural Mountain Streams (Harman, W et. al.) (Mountain Regional Curve).
The bankfull discharge on WFFBR within the Site is determined to be approximately 300 cfs. The Mountain
Regional Curves estimate bankfull discharge to be 367 cfs, for a watershed drainage area of 5.49 sq. mi.
(drainage area of WFFBR within the Site’s limits). It is recognized that the design discharge is less than
the value provided using the equation generated by the data points for stable NC mountain streams.
However, the published curve contains a data point at approximately 5.5 square mile drainage area that
is below the curve line at approximately 240 cfs. Therefore, the data collected on-site falls within the
range that is published on the Mountain Regional Curve.
The bankfull discharges of UT 5 and UT 7 are determined to be 10 cfs and 13 cfs, respectively. The
Mountain Regional Curves estimate bankfull discharge to be 13 cfs for UT 5 which has a watershed
drainage area of 0.07 sq. mi. within the Site’s limits. The Mountain Regional Curves estimate a bankfull
discharge of 12.5 cfs for UT 7 which has a watershed drainage area of 0.06 sq. mi. within the Site’s limits.
It is recognized that the design discharge is for UT 5 is less than the value provided using the equation
generated by the data points for stable NC mountain streams. The published curve data does not provide
data for a drainage area less than 1 sq. mile, therefore HDR placed a higher level of confidence in bankfull
indicators and determined discharge of actual conditions for both tributaries.
On-site data revealed an estimated bankfull discharge of 45 cfs for UT 8. Additionally, the Mountain
Regional Curves estimate a bankfull discharge of 41 cfs for UT 8 which has a watershed drainage area of
0.31 sq. mi. within the Site’s limits.
HEC-RAS Version 5.0.4 was used to evaluate how the discharge of the restored channel flows within the
proposed channel geometry. The two-dimensional (2D) option was utilized within HEC-RAS in order to
observe modeled velocities and shear stresses in addition to flood inundation for multiple storm events.
This evaluation verifies that the proposed plan, dimension, and profile would adequately convey the
discharge at the bankfull stage; the point where water begins to overflow onto the floodplain. The 2 year
storm was also modeled to evaluate the additional floodplain connectivity created as result of Site
restoration activities. A map documenting the results of the HECRAS model can be found in Appendix H.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 46 January 31, 2020
The 2 year storm models revealed that proposed conditions would inundate 6.4 acres in comparison to
the 3.5 acres that are inundated under the existing conditions. An 83% increase in the area inundated by
the 2-year flood from the existing to proposed model is a reflection of proposed activities (i.e. grading
floodplain bench on WFFBR, Priority I restoration on UT5 and UT 7) providing functional uplift. Increasing
the area of inundation improves habitat within the floodplain and increases the opportunity for treatment
of nutrient and sediment laden floodwaters.
5.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
One of the goals of this project is to construct stable channels that will transport their sediment and flow
such that, over time, the stream system neither aggrades nor degrades. This stability is achieved when
the sediment input to the design reach generally equals the sediment output. Sediment concentration
and capacity (using stream power models) have been utilized to model the channel’s ability to transport
potential sediment loads that enter the Site. Below is a discussion of the various methods used to analyze
sediment transport and its relation to stability in the design:
5.5.1 West Fork French Broad River
The watershed of WFFBR is predominantly stable, consisting mostly of forest land. Much of WFFRB’s
channel was assessed during various site visits. Review of aerial photography and on-the-ground
reconnaissance confirm that the majority of WFFBR’s channel, side slopes and overbank areas upstream
of the Site display general stability (with relatively minor areas of noted instability). The Site is the
upstream most point of significant and consistent soil loss from channel banks and adjacent
disturbed/maintained riparian areas. Observations support that the majority of fine sediment found in
WFFBR within the Site’s boundary originate from the Site, rather than upstream of the Site. Additionally,
the channel invert is not actively down cutting immediately upstream of the Site or within the upstream
most portion of the Site. Based on these observations, restoring the channel to a stable condition through
the Site should remove the largest contributor of excess sediment loads to WFFBR.
The proposed channel was designed to transport sediment that enters the Site from the upstream, stable
watershed. A pebble count and bulk sample sieve analysis was performed at the upstream extent of the
Site in an effort to determine the particle distribution of contributing sediment entering the project area.
Data for the pebble count and sieve analysis can be found in Appendix H. Sand fractions were determined
based on the coarseness of the particle that was encountered while performing the pebble count.
Sediment competency and capacity models were completed to analyze the potential of restored
conditions at the Site. This information is presented below:
Competency (Entrainment)
Collected soil data confirms that WFFBR’s substrate is dominated by gravel. It is common practice in
gravel bed streams to study the competency of the stream’s ability to entrain the largest sized particle
during bankfull flows for stability analysis. The primary factor studied is shear stress of the bankfull
channel. The bankfull mean depth and slope are the two primary variables used to determine if the
channel has the competency to entrain its largest particle size under bankfull flows. Entrainment
calculations for both existing and proposed conditions on WFFBR are included as Appendix H.
Since WFFBR exhibits varying cross sectional measurements throughout the Site, the existing entrainment
was analyzed through multiple sections. An upstream, stable section was analyzed for both bankfull
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 47 January 31, 2020
discharge calculations and sediment competency, a middle section was analyzed that is over-widened and
a downstream section was analyzed that is incised. Each section produced different competency results
which are summarized in Table 11 below:
Table 11. WFFBR Sediment Competency
Reach
WFFBR Existing
Upstream
WFFBR Existing
Middle
WFFBR Existing
Downstream
WFFBR Design
Required* BKF Mean
Depth (ft) 2.45 2.45 2.45 2.42
Existing BKF Mean
Depth (ft) 2.41 1.11 3.01 2.14
Required* BKF Slope
(ft/ft) 0.0035 0.0075 0.0028 0.0039
Existing BKF Slope
(ft/ft) 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034 0.0034
Bankfull Shear Stress
(lb/ft2) 0.46 0.23 0.58 0.43
* Required refers to the value needed to stably transport the sediment regime measured on-site based
on entrainment calculations
The over widened middle section is aggrading while the downstream incised section is degrading. The
proposed design reflects a similar shear stress to the existing stable section at the bankfull discharge of
0.43 lb/ft2, by reflecting a similar bankfull slope of 0.34 percent and mean bankfull depth of 2.14 ft. The
proposed shear stress will entrain a particle size between 32 and 82 mm as predicted by the Shields
Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, respectively. The Site’s largest particle size is 83 mm,
which would indicate that the proposed channel dimensions and slope are adequate to transport
sediment input through the Site. All existing and proposed entrainment calculations can be found in
Appendix H.
Capacity
A sediment transport analysis model was completed using HEC-RAS to determine the potential change in
invert elevation for the bankfull event. Since there is no existing sediment gauge data on WFFBR, a stable
cross section (i.e. not aggrading or degrading) was used to model sediment input to the Site using the
HEC-RAS equilibrium method. A model was generated for both the existing and the proposed conditions
of the Site. A quasi-unsteady hydrograph was created from the bankfull event and this event was run
back-to-back 4 times through the Site to simulate multiple events. The advantage of modeling the
discharge in this manner provides an output that displays the trends that the Site may experience as a
result of multiple bankfull flows as opposed to a singular event. Sediment data utilized for the model is
the same data utilized for the entrainment calculations discussed above and can be found in Appendix H.
A comparison of pre-storm conditions and post-storm conditions of the channel invert was completed
after running multiple bankfull flows through the model (Figure 15). Model results indicate minor
adjustments of to both pool and riffle inverts as anticipated, however, the change in channel invert was
limited to tenths of a foot and is within reason of what should be expected in a dynamic system.
It should also be noted that the invert comparison was completed for the existing conditions of the
channel (Figure 16). The existing conditions produced similar results as the proposed conditions because
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 48 January 31, 2020
there was some change to the channel invert but nothing significant. The existing conditions model results
replicates field observations of the existing channel in that WFFBR is generally not aggrading nor
degrading from a reach-wide standpoint. There are particular cross sections that were analyzed for
entrainment purposes that resulted in aggradation or degradation but this vertical instability is localized
to particular sections and not reflective of the entire Site. The main stressor to WFFBR is bank erosion
due to lateral expansion and not invert instability due to vertical stress. The model’s accurate portrayal
of existing conditions provides confidence in the results of the proposed sediment model.
Figure 15. HECRAS Proposed Sediment Results

2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000Invert ElevationStation
WFFBR Proposed HECRAS Sediment Results
Pre-Bankfull Storm Invert Post-Bankfull Storm Invert
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 49 January 31, 2020
Figure 16. HECRAS Existing Sediment Results

Another method used to evaluate sediment transport through the Site is the Bedload Assessment for
Gravel-bed Streams (BAGS) model. Specifically, the Wilcock and Crowe equation within the BAGS model
was used to analyze bedload. This equation was used because it incorporates both sand and gravel in
developing a sediment transport rate. The BAGS model was completed on both a stable section of existing
WFFBR (the reference section) and proposed channel conditions in an effort to analyze the channel’s
ability to transport sediment volume entering the Site. The reference section is located at the upstream
extents of the Site (as WFFBR enters the Site). It does not display significant signs of aggradation or
degradation, nor does the reach display substantial sediment deposition on the floodplain. The lack of
significant noticeable aggradation/degradation and floodplain deposition is an indicator that this portion
of channel is transporting its sediment supply efficiently. Additionally, existing conditions entrainment
calculations completed for the reference section indicate that it is currently stable (which is not the case
for many of the other existing sections evaluated). According to the Wilcock and Crowe equation, the
existing reference section and proposed conditions channel bedload transport rate are within 4 percent
of each other. Therefore, this data suggests that proposed channel conditions are capable of transporting
the contributing sediment load through the Site without significant aggradation or degradation.
5.5.2 UT 5, UT 7 and UT 8
As described previously, the restored UT’s substrate is dominated by gravel. Competency (Entrainment)
calculations were also conducted for each tributary. It is common practice in gravel bed streams to study
the competency of the stream’s ability to entrain the largest sized particle during bankfull flows for
stability analysis. The primary factor studied is shear stress of the bankfull channel. The bankfull mean
depth and slope are the two primary variables used to determine if the channel has the competency to
2686
2687
2688
2689
2690
2691
2692
2693
2694
2695
1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000Invert ElevationStation
WFFBR Existing HECRAS Sediment Results
Pre-Bankfull Storm Invert Post-Bankfull Storm Invert
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 50 January 31, 2020
entrain its largest particle size under bankfull flows. Entrainment calculations for both existing and
proposed conditions of the tributaries are included as Appendix H and are summarized in Table 12 below.
Table 12. Sediment Competency for Restored UT’s
Reach
UT 5 Existing UT 5 Design UT 7 Existing UT 7 Design UT 8 Existing UT 8 Design
Required* BKF
Mean Depth
(ft)
0.41 0.61 0.28 0.62 0.28 0.95
Existing BKF
Mean Depth
(ft)
0.52 0.63 0.60 0.67 1.13 0.92
Required* BKF
Slope (ft/ft) 0.0063 0.0052 0.0091 0.0050 0.0092 0.0113
Existing BKF
Slope (ft/ft) 0.0080 0.0053 0.0196 0.0054 0.0379 0.0110
Bankfull Shear
Stress (lb/ft2) 0.23 0.19 0.64 0.20 1.63 0.57
* Required refers to the value needed to stably transport the sediment regime measured on-site based
on entrainment calculations
5.6 Wetland Design Approach
5.6.1 Wetland Rehabilitation and Re-establishment
Relic wetland areas once connected to W3 and W5A/B were identified for wetland Re-establishment
based on evidence of altered hydric soils (see sealed soil boring logs in Appendix A), existing groundwater
gauge data, and jurisdictional delineations. Approximately 0.17 acres of relic wetland adjacent to W3
(excluding 0.10 acres of relic wetland within the powerline easement) and 0.19 acres of relic wetland
adjacent to W5A/B will be restored and reconnected to the existing wetlands (Figure 17). Re-
establishment of these relic wetland areas will consist of removing spoil and overburden material to
expose the underlying hydric soils. Depth of spoil to be removed in the relic wetland adjacent to W3
ranges from approximately 3 inches to 11 inches. This material was spread fairly evenly across the relic
wetland area when it was excavated from UT 5. Depth of spoil to be removed in the relic wetland area
adjacent to W5A/B ranges from 4 inches to 15 inches. This material was placed in mounds along the left
side of the channel when it was excavated from UT 7. Wetland hydrology will be restored by raising the
invert of the incised tributaries adjacent to these wetlands and filling the existing ditched channels. The
portion of relic wetland that falls within the powerline easement will also be planted. No wetland credits
are proposed for areas that occur within the powerline easement.
W3 is an existing wetland that has been significantly altered as a result of anthropogenic disturbance and
cattle access. W3 is dominated by herbaceous vegetation and currently serves as part of the cattle pasture
at the Site. Rehabilitation of 0.97 acres of W3 will consist of replanting the wetland with native vegetation,
installing exclusionary fencing to eliminate cattle access, and restoring UT 5 to increase the frequency of
floodwaters accessing W3. HEC-RAS Version 5.0.4 was used to evaluate the additional floodplain
connectivity created as result of Site restoration activities. Two figures are provided in Appendix H that
depict the inundation boundary at the Site under existing and proposed conditions at the bankfull stage
and 2 year storm stage. The 2 year storm is contained within the existing channel of UT 5, but under
proposed conditions the 2 year storm floods into the restored and enhanced areas of W3, providing an
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 51 January 31, 2020
opportunity for treatment of nutrients and sediment. All Re-establishment and Rehabilitation areas will
be planted with native wetland vegetation as described in the planting plan.
5.6.2 Wetland Enhancement
Wetlands proposed for enhancement exhibit wetland hydrology and hydric soils but have a disturbed
vegetative community and are impacted by cattle. W1, W2, W4, and W5A/B through W9 will be
enhanced by excluding cattle and replanting with native hydrophytic vegetation as described in the
planting plan. A total of approximately 1.53 acres of wetland will be enhanced at the Site.
5.7 Reference Wetland
Reference wetlands are difficult to obtain in the mountain region due to the scarcity of undisturbed
bottomland areas. In addition, climatic variability in the mountain region can result in similar wetland
types with divergent hydroperiods. A reference search was conducted in the project vicinity but no
suitable reference wetlands were identified. Vegetative communities proposed to be restored at the Site
will be based on descriptions provided in Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
Thrid Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990) for natural mountain vegetative communities.
Reference hydrology for restored wetlands will be based on existing on-site wetlands. Groundwater
gauges will be installed in existing wetland areas of W3 and W5A for comparison with groundwater data
collected in the re-established wetland areas of W3 and W5.
5.8 Planting Plan
Target vegetation communities for the Site will be Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest in the
floodplain of WFFBR transitioning upslope to Montane Alluvial Forest along the tributaries. W3 and W2
are wetter than other areas within the floodplain of WFFBR and its associated tributaries. The target
vegetative community for W3 and W2 will be Swamp Forest – Bog Complex (Typic Subtype). Bog Complex
communities may have more herbaceous vegetation that may persist through the monitoring period,
when compared to other Swamp Forest communities. Stream banks of restored and enhanced stream
reaches will be planted with a streamside assemblage consisting of black willow, tag alder, and other
common streamside species. Table 12 below identifies the proposed species composition for each
planting zone. A plan view of the planting zones is depicted on Plan Sheet 13 (Appendix G). Bare root
seedlings in Zones 2, 3, and 4 will be planted on approximately eight (8) foot spacing, corresponding to
approximately 680 stems per acre. The stream bank (Zone 1) will be planted with a combination of live
stakes and bare root seedlings on approximately four (4) foot spacing. It is expected that other
characteristic species will recruit naturally into these areas subsequent to completion of construction.
The herbaceous layer will be restored by seeding disturbed areas with a native seed mix.

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
Transylvania County, NC Page 52 January 31, 2020
Table 13. Planting Plan
Zone 1: Streamside Assemblage Footage
7,813 ft
Plant Spacing
4’
Common Name Scientific Name % Composition
Black willow Salix nigra 25
Tag alder Alnus serrulata 25
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 25
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 25
Zone 2: Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest
Area
7.21 ac
Plant Spacing
8’
Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15
River birch Betula nigra 15
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20
Shagbark hickory Carya ovata 15
American elm Ulmus Americana 10
Flowering dogwood Cornus florida 5
Bitternut hickory Carya cordiformis 15
Mountain silverbell Halesia tetraptera 5
Zone 3: Swamp Forest-Bog Complex Area
1.99 ac
Plant Spacing
8’
Silky willow Salix sericea 15
Tag alder Alnus serrulata 20
Possumhaw viburnum Viburnum nudum 20
Red chokeberry Aronia arbutifolia 15
Silky dogwood Cornus amomum 15
Mountain holly Ilex montana 10
Swamp rose Rosa palustris 5
Zone 4: Montane Alluvial Forest Area
5.06
Plant Spacing
8’
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 15
Yellow birch Betula alleghaniensis 15
White oak Quercus alba 20
Tulip tree Liriodendron tulipifera 15
Sweet birch Betula lenta 10
River birch Betula nigra 15
Witch-hazel Hamamelis virginiana 10
Permanent Native Seed Mix Area
7.1
Application Rate
20 lbs/ac
% Composition lbs Planted
Autumn bentgrass Agrostis perennans 15 22
Big bluestem Andropogon gerardii 10 15
Lanceleaf coreopsis Coreopsis lanceolata 10 15
Virginia wildrye Elymus virginicus 20 29
Fox sedge Carex vulpinoidea 5 8
Switchgrass Panicum virgatum 15 22
Blackeyed susan Rudbeckia hirta 10 15
Little bluestem Schizachyrium scoparium 5 8
Indian grass Sorghastrum nutans 5 8
Eastern gamagrass Tripsacum dactyloides 5 8
Total 150
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Performance Standards

Transylvania County, NC Page 53 January 31, 2020
5.9 Project Risks and Uncertainties
A large portion of the watershed is part of the Pisgah National Forest, therefore land use change within
the watershed should be minimal. One ford crossing and four culvert crossings will be installed to allow
farming operations to continue on land adjacent to the project. The crossings will be designed to convey
flow and sediment to maintain stability upstream and downstream of the crossings. Gates will be installed
at the ford crossing to allow the landowner to restrict cattle access when the ford is not in use. Fencing
will be erected to NRCS and DMS standards to restrict cattle from accessing land within the easement.
Geotech test pits were conducted along the proposed alignment of WFFBR to check depth to bedrock.
Test pits were excavated to a depth sufficient to exceed the proposed thalweg depth of WFFBR. No
bedrock was encountered along the proposed alignment and therefore should not pose a problem during
construction. The location of geotech test pits can be found on Figure 11. Beaver dams were observed
along UT 2, downstream of the project easement. Based on conversations with the farm manager, review
of historic aerial photography, and field observations, beaver activity has remained confined to the area
around UT 2 for several years and is not anticipated to impact other streams on-site. The beaver dams
appear to be currently inactive but beaver activity will be monitored closely throughout the project
lifecycle and addressed as detailed in Section 8.0, if necessary.
6.0 Performance Standards
Site performance standards and required remediation actions are based on the Wilmington District
Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (USACE et al. 2016) and the Annual Monitoring
Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (NCDMS 2017). Performance standards for
stream morphology, hydrology, and vegetation are discussed below. Proposed project monitoring
features are depicted on Figure 11.
6.1 Streams
Stream Dimension
General Maintenance of a stable cross-section and hydrologic access to the floodplain features over the
course of the monitoring period will generally represent success in dimensional stability. Riffle cross-
sections should remain stable and show little change in bankfull area, bank-height ratio, and width to
depth ratio. Some changes in dimension (such as lowering of bankfull width-to-depth ratio) should be
expected. Riffle sections should generally maintain a Bank Height Ratio (BHR) approaching 1.0 – 1.2, with
some variation in this ratio naturally occurring, and display an entrenchment ratio of no less than 2.2.
Both ratios should display no more than 10 percent change from year-to-year. Based on current DMS
guidance regarding BHR, years that exhibit deposition in the channel may yield BHR ratios that are less
than 1.0. Pool sections naturally adjust based on recent flows and time between flows. No individual
measurements should exceed 15 percent variance over as-built conditions over the monitoring time
frame.
Stream Pattern and Profile
Pattern features should show little adjustment over the standard 7 year monitoring period. The profile
should not demonstrate significant trends towards degradation or aggradation over a significant portion
of a reach. Visual assessment and photo documentation will be used to indicate that streams are
remaining stable and do not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. Longitudinal profile
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Performance Standards

Transylvania County, NC Page 54 January 31, 2020
survey will be conducted during the as-built survey, but will not be conducted during the seven-year
monitoring period unless a trend towards vertical or lateral instability is observed.
Substrate and Sediment Transport
There should be an absence of any significant trend in the aggradational or depositional potential of the
channel.
Hydraulics
All stream channels will maintain an ordinary high water mark (OHWM) through monitoring. Continuous
surface water flow within tributaries must be documented to occur every year for at least 30 consecutive
days during the prescribed monitoring period. A minimum of four bankfull events must be documented
within the 7 year monitoring period. The four bankfull events shall occur within separate years.
6.2 Vegetation
Vegetation requirements state that there must be a minimum of 320 planted stems per acre surviving
after year three, 260 stems per acre after year five, and 210 stems per acre after year seven. Trees should
average 6 feet in height at year five and 8 feet in height at year seven. Bog Complex communities may
exhibit areas with low stem density that are dominated by herbaceous species, which is acceptable for
this community type. In addition, Bog Complex communities will be planted with a high percentage of
shrub species, which are not expected to reach the height requirements listed above for trees. Volunteers
must be present for a minimum of two growing seasons before being included in performance standards
in Year 5 and Year 7. For any tree stem to count toward success, it may be either planted or volunteer,
but it must be a species from the approved planting list included in the Mitigation Plan. Other species not
included on the planting list or in the stated documentation may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-
case basis. Additionally, any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required number of
stems within any vegetation plot. Should the performance criteria outlined above not be met during the
monitoring period, HDR will provide DMS with an Adaptive Management Plan, detailing corrective actions
and/or maintenance actions proposed and an implementation schedule for said actions, planned to meet
the criteria. Upon review and approval of said corrective measures by DMS and the IRT, HDR will
implement the necessary corrective measures.
6.3 Wetlands
Final performance criteria for wetland hydrology will be a groundwater level within 12 inches of the soil
surface for a minimum of 12% (25 consecutive days) of the growing season (April 7 through October 30,
206 days). Wetland hydrology performance standards are based on the Lake Toxaway WETS table and
the wetland saturation range for Ela soils as presented in the Wetland Saturation Threshold Table. Ela
soils were used to determine the wetland saturation range because soil borings taken on-site showed a
hydric soil with the associated taxonomic subgroup Fluvaquentic Humaquept, which corresponds to the
Ela soil series. Both tables are provided in Appendix H. In the event of non-typical years of climatic
conditions, groundwater monitoring data may be compared to on-site reference groundwater data;
however, reference gauge data will not be tied to success criteria.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Monitoring Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 55 January 31, 2020
7.0 Monitoring Plan
Annual monitoring reports will be produced and submitted to DMS by December 1st of the year for which
monitoring was conducted. The Site will be monitored annually for a duration of 7 years. The seventh year
monitoring report will include a Closeout Report that provides an assessment of monitoring data collected
from the entire monitoring period. Fixed cross-sections and vegetation plots will be used as permanent
photo points throughout the monitoring period.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Monitoring Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 56 January 31, 2020
Table 14. Monitoring Plan
Goal Treatment Performance Standards Monitoring Metric Outcome Likely Functional
Uplift
Restore/enhance streams
within the Site so that
they are neither
aggrading nor degrading
Restore a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile. Install
fencing to exclude cattle.
Entrenchment Ratios should be ≥ 2.2.
BHR should not exceed 1.2. BHR
should not change more than 10% in
any given monitoring interval.
Riffle section W/D ratios should
remain within the range of the
appropriate stream type.
Cross-section
monitoring and visual
inspections.
Stable stream
channels with
entrenchment
ratios over 2.2
and BHRs
below 1.2.
Reduction of nutrients
and sediment to
downstream
locations, reduction of
shear stress, and
improved hydraulic
function.
Provide/ enhance flood
attenuation.
Restore several existing streams
as primarily a Priority I
restoration where bankfull and
larger flows can access the
floodplain. Construct floodplain
bench on WFFBR.
Four bankfull events in separate
monitoring years.
Flow gauges (Pressure
transducers), and visual
inspection.
Bankfull events
within
monitoring
period.
Increase attenuation
of floodwaters,
increase
biogeochemical
cycling and recharge
riparian wetlands.
Restore/enhance aquatic,
semi-aquatic, and riparian
habitat.
Restore native vegetation to the
stream channel banks,
wetlands, and the adjacent
riparian corridor.
Minimum of 320 stems/ac present at
MY-3. Minimum of 260 stems/ac
present at MY-5. Minimum of 210
stems/ac present at MY-7. Trees
should average 6 feet in height at MY-
5 and 8 feet in height at MY-7. Bog
Complex communities may exhibit
lower stem density and height.
Vegetation plots will be
monitored annually
between July 1st and
leaf fall using the CVS
protocol.
Planted stems
meet density
and vigor
requirements
in MY7, with
volunteer trees
also growing
on site.
Treatment of nutrient
enriched surface
runoff from adjacent
pastureland, increased
bank stability and
increased habitat.
Restore/Enhance
Wetlands within the Site
to remove hydrologic
impairments
Reconstruct above bankfull
stream channel flows to riparian
wetlands and re-grade
topography to remove spoil and
overburden material.
Groundwater elevation within 12
inches of the ground surface for at
least 12% of the growing season
(April 7 - October 30).
Groundwater
monitoring gauges.
Wetlands
meeting
criteria
Restoration of riparian
habitat, treatment of
nutrient enriched
runoff from adjacent
pastureland, increased
flood attenuation.
Restore and connect
riparian habitat with
adjacent natural
communities.
Conservation easement
establishment. Prevent Easement Encroachment. Visual inspection.
No
encroachment
into the
conservation
easement.
Protect Site from
encroachment in
conservation
easement.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Monitoring Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 57 January 31, 2020
Table 15. Monitoring Plan Components
Parameter Monitoring
Method
Quantity Frequency Notes
Dimension Riffle Cross
Sections
UT5 (2)
UT7 (1)
UT8 (1)
WFFBR (4)
Years 1, 2,
3, 5 & 7

Pool Cross
Sections
UT5 (2)
UT7 (1)
UT 8 (1)
WFFBR (2)
Years 1, 2,
3, 5 & 7
Bank pins may be installed in areas of concern.
Pattern Visual None twice per
year
Bank pins may be installed in areas of concern
Profile Visual None twice per
year
Additional profile measurements may be required if
problems are identified during the monitoring period
Substrate Visual None Annual There should be an absence of any significant trend in the
aggradational or depositional potential of the channel
Surface Water
Hydrology
Flow Gage
(Pressure
Transducer)
UT5 (1)
UT7 (1)
UT8 (1)
WFFBR (1)
twice per
year
Measuring devices will be inspected/downloaded at each
site visit to document occurrence of bankfull events and
ensure device function
Groundwater
Hydrology
Groundwater
Gages
5 Site
gauges,
2 Reference
Gauges
Annual Data will be downloaded at each site visit.
Vegetation CVS Level 2 Vegetation
plots will be
placed on
~2% of the
planted area
(17
permanent,
10x10 meter
plots; 3
random
plots of
equal size)
Years 1, 2,
3, 5 & 7
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
Vegetation Survey (CVS) protocols. GPS coordinates and
orientation of random plots will be provided in the annual
monitoring reports and plot locations will be depicted on
the Current Condition Plan View maps.
Invasive and
nuisance
vegetation
Visual twice per
year
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation and the
occurrence of beaver dams and approximate inundation
limits will be mapped
Project
Boundary
Visual twice per
year
Fence damage, vegetation damage, boundary
encroachments, etc. will be mapped
Culverts and
Crossings
Visual Twice per
year
Blockages and/or erosion around culverts and crossings
will be mapped and noted in monitoring reports.

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Adaptive Management Plan

Transylvania County, NC Page 58 January 31, 2020
8.0 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards, HDR will notify the members of the IRT and work with the IRT to develop
contingency plans and remedial actions. Although existing beaver dams at the Site appear to be inactive,
beaver activity will be monitored following construction. A beaver control plan will be developed and
implemented if hydrologic modification from beaver dams jeopardizes Site success.
9.0 Long-Term Management Plan
Upon approval for close-out by the IRT the Site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program (or
3rd party if approved). This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic 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 to identify boundary markings, as needed. Any
livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility of the owner of the
underlying fee to maintain.
The Site protection Instrument can be found in Appendix I.
A utility easement crosses through the conservation easement and will require an exception to be listed
in the stewardship transfer document, allowing access to the utility easement for maintenance purposes.
10.0 Determination of Credits
Mitigation credits presented in Table 15 are projections based upon the proposed design. The assets
included in Table 16 are depicted on Figure 17. If site conditions are encountered during construction of
stream channels that result in significant deviations from the approved plan or credit amount (i.e. more
than would typically result from measurement variations), the as-built report will clearly identify the
difference in length and associated credit amount and explain how project design and construction were
altered. These changes will be submitted to the USACE for approval as a project modification. Although
the majority of stream buffers on-site exceed the minimum requirement of 30 feet for mountain counties
(particularly along WFFBR and UT 7), additional stream credits are not requested at this time. Buffers
associated with each stream reach are depicted on Figure 18.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Determination of Credits

Transylvania County, NC Page 59 January 31, 2020
Table 16. Project Assets Table

Project
Component
Wetland
Position and
HydroType
Existing
Footage
or
Acreage*
Mitigation
Plan
Stationing
Mitigation
Plan
Footage or
Acreage*
As-Built
Footage or
Acreage
Restoration
Level
Approach
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Mitigation
Credits*Notes/Comments
West Fork French
Broad River
(WFFBR)*1975 10+00 - 29+86 1799 -R PII 1 1799
Full channel Restoration, buffer planting, livestock exclusion,
permanent easement
West Fork French
Broad River
(WFFBR)705 29+86 - 36+91 705 -EII -2.5 282
Bank stabilization along the left bank, buffer planting, livestock
exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 1*764 10+00 - 17+88 764 -EII - 4 191 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 2*923 10+00 - 19+43 923 -EII -3.5 264 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 2A*546 10+00 - 15+70 546 -EII -2.5 218 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 2B 75 10+00 - 10+75 75 -EII -2.5 30 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 3 125 9+00 - 10+25 125 -EI -1.5 83
Stabilization of channel dimension and profile, buffer planting,
livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 4*731 2+98 - 11+36 809 -EII -2.5 324 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 4A 472 6+00 - 10+72 472 -EII -2.3 205
Stabilization of channel dimension and profile near confluence with
UT 4, buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 4B 178 10+00 - 11+78 178 -EII - 4 45 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 5*652 10+00 - 18+99 827 -R PI 1 827
Full channel Restoration, buffer planting, livestock exclusion,
permanent easement
UT 6 114 9+14 - 10+28 114 -P -10 11 Preservation
UT 6A 206 10+00 - 12+06 206 -P -10 21 Preservation
UT 7 372 10+00 - 14+17 417 -R PI 1 417
Full channel Restoration, buffer planting, livestock exclusion,
permanent easement
UT 7 439 5+61 - 10+00 439 -EII -3.5 125 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 7A 103 10+00 - 11+03 103 -P -10 10 Preservation
UT 7B 136 10+00 - 11+36 136 -EII -2.5 54 Buffer planting, livestock exclusion, and permanent easement
UT 8 49 10+00 - 11+37 137 -R PI 1 137
Full channel Restoration near confluence with WFFBR, buffer
planting, livestock exclusion, permanent easement
Wetland Group 1
(W1-W9)RR 1.54 1.54 1.54 E 2 0.77 Planting, livestock exclusion, permanent easement
Wetland Group 2
(W3 and W5)RR 0.35 0.35 0.35 Re-est.1 0.35
Raising invert of adjacent tributaries and filling abandoned channels;
livestock exclusion, planting, and removal of spoil
Wetland Group 3
(W3)RR 0.97 0.97 0.97 Rehab 1.5 0.64
Planting, livestock exclusion, permanent easement; restoring
adjacent tributaries to increase frequency of floodwaters accessing
wetland
*Length of streams flowing through utility easements or agricultural crossings has been deducted from existing and proposed mitigation footage and credits.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Determination of Credits

Transylvania County, NC Page 60 January 31, 2020
Table 16 (continued). Project Assets Table

Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category Overall Assets Summary
Stream Overall
(linear feet)Credits
Riverine Non-Riverine Stream 5,044
Restoration 3180 1.32 -1.76
Enhancement 1.54 -
Enhancement I 125
Enhancement II 5047
Preservation 423 --
RP Wetland
Restoration Level
Riparian Wetland
(acres)Asset Category
#0
#0 #0!.
#0
!.
!.
#0
!.
W9
UT 1W1
UT 2B
UT 2UT 4BUT 4WFFBR
W7
W2
UT 3
UT 5
W6
W6A
W4 UT 7UT 7B
UT 7A
W5
UT 2A
UT 4A UT 6A
UT 6
W3
W3
UT 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
14
13
15
16 17
18
19
20
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS\7.1_MAP DOCS\7.1.5_MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 17- PROJECT ASSET MAP REVISED.MXD - USER: BF0041 - DATE: 2/6/2020
0 400Feet
O
LEGEND
Cross Sections
Powerline Easement
#0 Groundwater Gauge
!.Flow Gauge
Proposed Easement
Property Boundary
Non-Creditable Stream
Stream Preservation
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II (2.3:1)
Stream Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Stream Enhancement II (3.5:1)
Stream Enhancement II (4:1)
Stream Restoration
Permanent Vegetation Plot
Random Vegetation Plot
Wetland Group 1 (RR, Enh, 2:1)
Wetland Group 2 (RR, Re-est.,1:1)
Wetland Group 3 (RR, Rehab, 1.5:1)
PROJECT ASSET MAP
FIGURE 17
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
W9
W1
UT2B
W7
W2
UT3
W3
W6
W6A
W4 UT7B
UT7A
W5
UT5
UT6A UT6 WFFBR
UT1
UT2
UT8
UT4A
UT4
UT2A UT2
UT7
UT4B
NCCGIA
PATH: Z:\OWEN_FARMS\7.0_GIS_MODELS\7.2_WORK_IN_PROGRESS\MXD\MIT PLAN FIGURES\FIGURE 18- STREAM BUFFER MAP.MXD - USER: BFURR - DATE: 7/17/2019
0 350Feet
O
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
Top of Bank
Powerline Easement
Existing and Proposed
Wetlands
Actual Buffer (feet)
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
75
100
125
150
BUFFER MAP
FIGURE 18
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS MITIGATION PLAN
Page 62
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
References

Transylvania County, NC Page 63 January 31, 2020
11.0 References

Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR). 2018. The EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package. Owen Farms
Mitigation Site 8049 Silversteen Road, Lake Toxaway, NC 28747. Inquiry Number: 5380683.8.
Shelton, Connecticut.
Lee, Michael & Peet, Robert & D. Roberts, Steven & Wentworth, Thomas. 2018. CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation All Levels of Plot Sampling, Version 4.2.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Division of Water Quality.
2010a. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins,
Version 4.11. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality. 2014. Final 2014 Clean Water Act (CWA) section 303(d) list of water
quality limited segments. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality. Raleigh, NC.

NCDENR. Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2013. Survey Requirements for Full Delivery Projects.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/Mitigation_Services/Document_Management_
Library/Guidance_and_Template_Documents/2013_08_13_FD_SurveySpecs.pdf

NCDENR. June 15, 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian
Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration. Accessed on December 28, 2018.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fs-
public/Mitigation%20Services/Document%20Management%20Library/Guidance%20and%20Te
mplate%20Documents/Estimates%20for%20nutrient%20and%20FC%20reductions_June15_201
6.pdf
NCDENR. Division of Water Quality. “NC Division of Water Quality - Methodology and Calculations for
Determining Nutrient Reductions Associated with Riparian Buffer Establishment.” Nutrient
Practices and Crediting, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality. Accessed on
December 26, 2018. https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water Quality/Planning/NPU/Nutrient Offset
Rule/Ag-Buffer-Credit.pdf.
NCDENR. Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2017. Annual Monitoring Report
Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance.
https://ncdenr.s3.amazonaws.com/s3fspublic/MitigationServices/DocumentManagementLibrar
y/GuidanceandTemplate2Documents/13_DMS_Mon_Rep_Templ_June_2017.pdf

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2017. “Design Specifications and
Nutrient Accounting for Cattle Exclusion.” Nutrient Practices and Crediting, North Carolina
Department of Environmental Quality, 5 Apr. 2017. Access on December 26, 2018.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water Quality/Planning/NPU/Nutrient Offset Rule/Cattle Exclusion
Practice Signed 04-05-2017.pdf
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
References

Transylvania County, NC Page 64 January 31, 2020
NCDEQ. NC Water Quality Classifications. Website accessed on January 30, 2018.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-
standards/classifications

NCDNCR. Natural Heritage Program (NHP). 2013. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program Online
Database. 2013. Accessed on January 30, 2018. Last updated on November 15, 2017.
http://www.ncnhp.org/web/nhp/database-search

NCDNCR. North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO). 2010. The “Study List” and The
National Register of Historic Places in North Carolina. Website accessed on January 30, 2018. Last
updated on September 27, 2013. http://www.hpo.ncdcr.gov/stdylist.htm

North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina.

North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT). 2016. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method
(NC WAM) User Manual, Version 5.0 (February 2016). 290 pp

North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team (SFAT). 2015. N. C. Stream Assessment Method (NC
SAM) User Manual, Version 2.1 (August 2015). 350 pp

Rosgen, David. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs Colorado.

Schafale, Michael P., Weakley, Alan S. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. 1990.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.

Skaggs, R.W., Chescheir, G.M, and Phillips, B.D. 2015. Method to Determine Lateral Effect of a Drainage
Ditch on Adjacent Wetland Hydrology. Version 2.8.1. Release Date: February 2015. North Carolina
State University.

US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT). 2016. Wilmington
District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

US Department of Agriculture (USDA). Natural Resources Conservation Service. Web Soil
Survey. http:/websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey

USDA. 2012. Construction Specification Barbed Wire. Available under Woven Wire Fence NRCS
Specifications – 02/14/12 at http://portal.ncdenr.org/web/DMS/fd-forms-templates

United States Geological Survey (USGS), 1984. Lake Toxaway Quadrangle, North Carolina, 7.5 Minute
Series (Topographic). Washington, D. C.

USGS, 2016. Blue Ridge Mountains. Website accessed on January 26, 2018. Last updated on July 7, 2016.
https://landcovertrends.usgs.gov/east/eco66Report.html

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix A – Soil Boring Logs
(see Figure 11 for soil boring locations)

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix B - Photo Log

Appendix B - Site and Reference Reach Photographs

Hoof shear along WFFBR Mass wasting along left bank of WFFBR

Spoil in relic portion of W3 adjacent to UT 5 Fallen trees along left bank of WFFBR

UT 2 and adjacent wetland W1 Ford crossing on UT 2
Appendix B - Site and Reference Reach Photographs

Cattle tracks in W2 W2 and Poor vege tated buffer of UT 3

Cattle access area on UT 4a Incision of UT 5

Incision/mass wasting on UT 7 and Spoil in Relic
W5 Cattle tracks in W4

Appendix B - Site and Reference Reach Photographs

Eroding bank along WFFBR near beginning of
project Large headcut on UT 4a near confluence with UT 4

Cattle access area on UT 2a Standing on rock pile looking southeast at W3

Cattle access on UT 1 and W9 Cattle access on UT 7b
Appendix B - Site and Reference Reach Photographs

Area of severe erosion along enhancement section of
WFFBR
Area of severe erosion along enhancement section of
WFFBR

Cow chilling in WFFBR Cattle access on UT 4

Incision/mass wasting on UT 7 and cattle access Mass wasting and center bar on WFFBR
Appendix B - Site and Reference Reach Photographs

UT South Fork Mills River Pool Cross Section on UT South Fork Mills River

Pool Cross Section on UT South Fork Mills River Riffle Cross Section on UT South Fork Mills River

Riffle Cross Section on South Fork Mills River Riffle Cross Section on South Fork Mills River

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix C – NC SAM and NC WAM Rating Sheets

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farms 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.183813, -82.938275
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): WFFBR 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4-6 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 30 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farms Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Ma4 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial
Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4) Microtopography LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(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 HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(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 #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.1765533, -82.9408917
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(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 HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.176462, -82.939442
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport LOW
(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 MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(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 MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.176385, -82.940070
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 2a 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(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 HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.183500, -82.938302
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 2 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(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 MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(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 #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation:12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name:HDR 4. Assessor name/organization:BNF/HDR
5. County:Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:West Fork French Broad 7. River basin:French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):35.176167, -82.938400
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map):UT 4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet):1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet):8 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(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 MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.183678, -82.937415
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 A
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 A
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 A
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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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 t he 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 i n 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 b ut retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Ma1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
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 HIGH (3) Stream Stability MEDIUM (4) Channel Stability HIGH (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 LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(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 #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.175767, -82.937128
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 6 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(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 HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farm 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.176378, -82.935693
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 7 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farm Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Ma1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(4) Channel Stability LOW
(4) Sediment Transport MEDIUM
(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 LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(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 #: NCDW R #:
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 prope rty, 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): Owen Farms 2. Date of evaluation: 12-14-17
3. Applicant/owner name: HDR 4. Assessor name/organization: BNF/HDR
5. County: Transylvania 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: West Fork French Broad 7. River basin: French Broad
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.185026, -82.942697
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT 8 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 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 (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream ):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
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 (I II III IV V)
Essential Fish Habitat Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
Publicly owned property NCDW R 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 macr ophytes 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 A
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 A
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 A
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 , dis ruption 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] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnatur ally 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
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low -tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K 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)
11a. 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)
11c. 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 )
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
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 proport ions. 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 spec ies 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 Owen Farms Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Stream Category Mb1 Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream ) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/ All Streams NCDW R Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH
(4) Channel Stability MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(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 LOW
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(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 HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W1
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183539, -82.943839
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W1 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Soluble Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W2
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183595, -82.941644
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W2 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W3
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183774, -82.940355
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W3 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
N
A
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Particulate Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Soluble Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Physical Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
H
I
G
H
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Vegetation Composition Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W3
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183774, -82.940355
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W3 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Riverine Swamp Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Particulate Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Soluble Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Physical Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

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 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W4
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.182288, -82.939861
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W4 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Particulate Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Physical Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
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 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W5A and W5B
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183025, -82.936953
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W5A and W5B Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Particulate Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
L
O
W
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Physical Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
O
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

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 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W6
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183195, -82.941280
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W6 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W7
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.182151, -82.942415
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W7 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW

Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W8
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.184325, -82.938741
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W8 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
L
O
W
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
L
O
W
Condition/Opportunity
M
E
D
I
U
M
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
L
O
W
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
L
O
W

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 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Owen Farms Date of Evaluation 12-14-17
Applicant/Owner Name HDR Wetland Site Name W9
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body West Fork French Broad River
River Basin French Broad USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03010105
County Transylvania NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.183534, -82.946157
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 a nd
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 contigu ous
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
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

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
B B Moderate density shrub layer
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 A
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 A
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

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name W9 Date of Assessment 12-14-17
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization BNF/HDR

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
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
F
u
n
c
ti
o
n Sub-function Metrics
R
a
ti
n
g
H
y
d
r
o
l
o
g
y Surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition
H
I
G
H
W
a
t
e
r
Q
u
a
li
t
y Pathogen Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Particulate Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
Soluble Change Condition
M
E
D
I
U
M
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Physical Change Condition
H
I
G
H
Condition/Opportunity
H
I
G
H
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
Y
E
S
Pollution Change Condition
N
A
Condition/Opportunity
N
A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
N
A
H
a
b
it
a
t Physical Structure Condition
H
I
G
H
Landscape Patch Structure Condition
L
O
W
Vegetation Composition Condition
H
I
G
H

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition HIGH

Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix D – Categorical Exclusion Documentation
(NCDMS can provide the full CE-ERTR document upon request. Results are
summarized in Section 3.4 Regulatory Considerations.)

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
art 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Owen Farms Stream and Weand MitgatFor Project
County Name: Tran lyanie
EEP Number: i000e4
Project Sponsor: HDR
Project Contact Name: Ben Fur
Project Contact Address. S55Fayettevillesttot, Suite 900 Raleigh, NC 27601
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Pr "ect Mena • er:
Restoration, enhancement and preservation
Specifically, restoration and enhancement
tributaries and wetlands.
Paul sner
Project Description
of streams and wetlands within the French Broad River Basin.
of West Fork French Broad River and several associated unnamed
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
12/13/18 7L a444. 14(teirtterv
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
outstanding issues Check this box if there are
Final Approval By:
te
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
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
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
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
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability 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
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
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
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
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:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
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
Places?
Yes
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
of antiquity?
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
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
listed for the county?
Yes
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
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
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 locally
important farmland?
Yes
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
water body?
Yes
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,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
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
project on EFH?
Yes
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 Treaty 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
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix E – DMS Floodplain Requirements Checklist

B5_FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 1 of 4

EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist

This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.

Project Location

Name of project:

Owen Farms Mitigation Site
Name if stream or feature:

West Fork French Broad River and four unnamed
tributaries (UT 4A, UT 5, UT 7 & UT 8)
County:

Transylvania
Name of river basin:

French Broad
Is project urban or rural?

Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:

Transylvania
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:

3700852400J Effective Date October 2, 2009
Consultant name:

HDR
Phone number:

919-900-1627 (Chris Smith)
Address:

555 Fayetteville Street, Suite 900
Raleigh, NC 27601-3034

B5_FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 2 of 4
Design Information

Owen Farms Mitigation Site is a stream and wetland restoration project for the Division
of Mitigation Services. The site contains West Fork French Broad River (WFFBR) and
eight unnamed tributaries (UT 1 - UT 8). However, only four of the tributaries will be
restored more than simply connected them to WFFBR (UT 4A, UT 5, UT 7 and UT 8).
WFFBR lies within a well-defined alluvial floodplain in the Mountain Ecoregion.
Elevations range between 2755 ft MSL and 2685 ft MSL on Site. WFFBR enters the Site
as a third order tributary and has approximately 3,980 acres (6.2 square miles) in drainage
area is at the downstream terminus of the Site. Roses Creek is a gravel/cobble bed stream
that is actively eroding due to 1.) a lack of stream bank and riparian vegetation and 2.)
cattle accessing the stream for shading and as a watering source.

Summary of stream reaches and/or wetland areas according to their restoration priority:

Reach Length Priority
West Fork French Broad 1,807 Two (Restoration)
West Fork French Broad 705 Enhancement II
UT 4A 72 One (Restoration)
UT 5 827 One (Restoration)
UT 7 417 One (Restoration)
UT 8 136 One (Restoration)
Wetland <1 acre Rehabilitation
Wetland <1 acre Restoration

Floodplain Information

Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?

If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:

List flood zone designation:

Check if applies:

B5_FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 3 of 4

If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:

Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?

Land Acquisition (Check)

Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
[phone])

Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP (attn: State NFIP Engineer, [phone])

Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Joy Fields
Phone Number: 828-884-3205

Floodplain Requirements

This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA

List other requirements:

B5_FEMA_Floodplain_Checklist4-23-12.docx Page 4 of 4
Comments:
Chris Smith spoke Joy Fields on 2/2/18 and she confirmed that no CLOMR/LOMR is
required. She also explained that the project does not require a floodplain development
permit, however, we will still submit the permit in an effort to keep the county informed
about the project.

Name: __________________________ Signature: __________________________

Title: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix F – Jurisdictional Determination
Documentation

UT 1
UT 2A
UT 2B
UT 2
UT 4A
UT 4B
UT 4
UT 3
UT 5
UT 7A
UT 7B
UT 7
W3
UT 6A
UT 6
West Fork French
Broad River
W2
W1
W4
¬«281
¬«281
SilversteinRd
Silverstein
R
d
W9
W6
W6A
W5A
W5B
W8
W7
Pond 1
UT8
DP1
DP2 DP3DP4
DP12
DP13
DP15
DP16
DP7
DP8
DP14DP6
DP10
DP9DP11
DP5
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Easement/ Review Area
Potential Wetlands
Potential Non-Wetland Waters- Open Water
Potential Non-Wetland Waters-Streams
Data Point
OWEN FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 6- AQUATIC RESOURCES MAP (08-10-2018)
0 200 400Feet
FIGURE 1- LOCATION MAP
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
0 1Miles
O
Parcel Boundary
Parcel #- 8524-24-1875-000
Parcel #- 8524-24-1875-000
127 Acres
0 500Feet
O
Parcel Boundary
FIGURE 2-AERIAL MAP
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
0 500Feet
O
Parcel Boundary
FIGURE 3- USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
Lake Toxaway 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Ro
TeB
TsE
W
761E
AeF
TsD
101D AhG
CfF
TeD
TuD
AeF
0 500Feet
O
101D-Cullasaja-Tuskasegee complex, 15 to 30% slopes
393E-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, high precipitation, 30 to 50%
722D-Chandler gravelly fine sandy loam, 15 to 30%
737E-Trimont loam, 30 to 50%
761E-Porters-Unaka complex, 30 to 50%
AeE-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, 15 to 30%
AeF-Chestnut-Edneyville complex, 30 to 50%
AhG-Ashe-Chestnut complex, 50 to 95%
CfF-Chandler-Micaville complex, 30 to 50%
Ro-Rosman fine sandy loam, 0 to 2%
TeB-Tate fine sandy loam, 2 to 8%
TeD-Tate fine sandy loam, 8 to 15%
TsD-Saunook loam, 8 to 15%
TsE-Saunook loam, 15 to 30%
TuD-Toecane-Tusquitee complex, 8 to 15%
W-Water
Parcel Boundary
FIGURE 4- PROJECT SOILS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
PUBHh
PUBHx
R4SBC
R4SBC
R4SBC
R3UBH
0 600 1,200Feet
O
Parcel Boundary
National Wetlands Inventory
FIGURE 5- NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
UT 1
UT 2A
UT 2B
UT 2
UT 4A
UT 4B
UT 4
UT 3
UT 5
UT 7A
UT 7B
UT 7
W3
UT 6A
UT 6
West Fork French
Broad River
W2
W1
W4
¬«281
¬«281
SilversteinRd
Silverstein
R
d
W9
W6
W6A
W5A
W5B
W8
W7
Pond 1
UT8
DP1
DP2 DP3DP4
DP12
DP13
DP15
DP16
DP7
DP8
DP14DP6
DP10
DP9DP11
DP5
O
LEGEND
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Easement/ Review Area
Potential Wetlands
Potential Non-Wetland Waters- Open Water
Potential Non-Wetland Waters-Streams
Data Point
OWEN FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE 6- AQUATIC RESOURCES MAP (08-10-2018)
0 200 400Feet
Table 1. Streams and Open Water
Feature ID Latitude Longitude Type of Aquatic Resource
Geographic Authority to
which aquatic resource
"may be" subject
Length (LF)Width (FT)Area (AC)
Potential Non-Wetland
Waters: Perennial (P)
Streams or Open Water
(OW)
West Fork French Broad 35.182097 -82.938193 2615 20 1.2 P Section 404
UT1 35.183503 -79.626503 709 3 0.05 P Section 404
UT2 35.18293 -82.94609 769 3 0.05 P Section 404
UT2A 35.183002 -82.943477 582 7 0.09 P Section 404
UT2B 35.182642 -82.944328 78 5 0.01 P Section 404
UT3 35.183224 -82.943172 84 2 84.3 P Section 404
UT4 35.182511 -82.941879 765 6 0.11 P Section 404
UT4A 35.181845 -82.941684 447 3 0.03 P Section 404
UT4B 35.181959 -82.942379 172 3 0.01 P Section 404
UT5 35.184087 -82.942092 884 3 0.06 P Section 404
UT6 35.181852 -82.939869 119 3 0.01 P Section 404
UT6A 35.182214 -82.93962 187 3 0.01 P Section 404
UT7 35.183197 -82.93986 765 5 0.09 P Section 404
UT7A 35.18364 -82.936657 50 5 0.01 P Section 404
UT7B 35.183409 -82.936478 134 5 0.02 P Section 404
UT 8 35.185139 -82.9427 40 10 0.01 P Section 404
SUB-TOTAL 8400 -86.06 --
Pond 1 35.184393 -82.939262 --0.53 OW Section 404
8400 86.59
Table 2. Wetlands
Feature ID Latitude Longitude
Estimated Amount
of Aquatic
Resource in Review
Area
Type of Aquatic
Resource
Geographic Authority
to which aquatic
resource "may be"
subject
Area (AC)
Potential
Wetland:
Cowardin
Classification
W1 35.183545 -82.943765 1.04 PSS Section 404
W2 35.183368 -82.941803 0.14 PSS Section 404
W3 35.18412 -82.940287 1.62 PEM Section 404
W4 35.182564 -82.940172 0.16 PSS Section 404
W5A 35.183025 -82.936953 0.04 PFO Section 404
W5B 35.182608 -82.937158 0.01 PSS Section 404
W6 35.183195 -82.94128 0.05 PFO Section 404
W6A 35.18328 -82.941137 0.02 PEM Section 404
W7 35.182151 -82.942415 0.1 PFO Section 404
W8 35.184325 -82.938741 0.06 PFO Section 404
W9 35.183534 -82.946157 0.15 PFO Section 404
Total 3.39
Estimated Amount of Aquatic Resource in Review Area
PERENNIAL
TOTAL
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP1-W1
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
2%ConcaveFloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.94383935.183539LRR N, MLRA 130B
PFONWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
6
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
2
Is the Sampled Area
Located at confluence of UT2 and UT2a. Beaver are present downstream.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1-W1
6
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
305
0
140
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
5
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
85.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
80
Rubus pensilvanicus
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Alnus serrulata
Platanus occidentalis
)
25
Indicator
Status
20
5
Dominant
Species?
Yes
40
10
Rosa palustris 10
20
Rhododendron maximum
Juncus effusus 20
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
Lonicera japonica
20
4
1640
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
55
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
No
165
50
40
Multiply by:
50
2.18Prevalence Index = B/A =
OBL
25
FAC
Yes FAC
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
13 5 50
Yes
Yes
FACW
OBL
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)
=Total Cover
FACWYes
38
=Total Cover15
Smilax rotundifolia
10 Yes
Yes
FACU
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP1-W1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 2/10-14
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP2- Up
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
3%Concaveterrace
Datum: UTM 17-82.93963935.183491LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Approximately 50' from W2 in active pasture.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2- Up 1
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Festuca arundinacea 90
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP2- Up 1SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 3/3
10YR 3/2
5-15
0-5
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Spring fed

NoYes
2
Is the Sampled Area
Headwater wetland that drains to UT3.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP3-W2
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
2%Concaveheadwater/valley
Datum: UTM 17-82.94164435.183595LRR N, MLRA 130B
PSSNWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X4
=Total Cover7
Smilax rotundifolia
5 Yes
Yes
FACU
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30'
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
Yes
2
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
50
2
No
126
50
80
Multiply by:
64
2.22Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
32
FAC
No
No FACW
FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
42
20
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
12
1639
30
30'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FAC
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30' )
Lonicera japonica
60
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Yes30
Ilex opaca 5
50
Rosa multiflora
Carex abscondita
Juncus effusus 30
77
Rubus pensilvanicus
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
10
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
2
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
80.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP3-W2
4
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
320
0
144
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):XYes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 4/10-14
DP3-W2SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP4- Up
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
3%Concaveterrace
Datum: UTM 17-82.994193635.183278LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Approximately 50' from W2 in active pasture.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP2- Up
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
0
0
0
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Festuca arundinacea 90
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
0
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP2- UpSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/30-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
3
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland locatd in floodplain of WFFB and UT5 and is heavily impacted by cattle.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
14
12
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP5-W3
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
2%ConcaveFloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.94035535.183774LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not mappedNWI classification:Rosman fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Tag alder, black willow are present along edges of linear portionn of wetland
)30'
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
0
Multiply by:
124
2.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
62
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
1331
30'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30' )
62
No2Solidago gigantea
Juncus effusus 60
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5-W3
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
124
0
62
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
?
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey90C
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 2/1 10Yr 3/40-16
DP5-W3SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
10 PL/M
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP6- Up
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
3%Concaveterrace
Datum: UTM 17-82.93963935.183491LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Upland near W8 in active pasture
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5-Up 3,8
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Festuca heterophylla 90
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP5-Up 3,8SOIL
12-20 10YR 4/4
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 5/4
7.5Yr 4/2
6-12
0-6
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X X
X X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
4
Is the Sampled Area
Narrow wetland that drains into UT 6. Wetland is heavily impacted by cattle.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP7- W4
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
1%ConcaveFloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.93986135.182288LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not MappedNWI classification:Rosman fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30'
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
No
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15 6 60
Yes OBL
120
60
0
Multiply by:
10
1.81Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
40
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
9
615
23
30'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30' )
45
Yes40
30
Carex abscondita
Juncus effusus 5
30
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Alnus serrulata
30' )
30
Indicator
Status
30
Dominant
Species?
Yes OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP7- W4
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
190
0
105
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Mucky Loam/Clay100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 2/10-14
DP7- W4SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
Oxidized Rhizospheres
Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Upland along hillside above W4
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP8- Up
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
3%Concaveterrace
Datum: UTM 17-82.94036435.182515LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Toecane-Tusquitee complex
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
0
Multiply by:
0
Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
1845
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
Festuca arundinaceus 90
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP8- Up
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
0
0
0
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/4
10YR 3/3
5-15
0-5
DP8- UpSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP9- W5A
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:BNF
1%Concavefloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.93695335.183025LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not mappedNWI classification:Rosman fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
24
20
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
1
Is the Sampled Area
Narrow wetland along toe of slope near UT7
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP9- W5A
5
6
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
250
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
83.3%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
60
Rubus pensilvanicus
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
15' )
20
Indicator
Status
20
Dominant
Species?
Yes
20
20
Yes10
20
Ilex opaca
Juncus effusus
Carex abscondita 10
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
20
4
1230
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
30
20
(A)
(B)
(A)
Yes
90
20
80
Multiply by:
60
2.50Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
FAC
Yes FACU
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10 4 20
Yes FACW
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)15'
=Total Cover
FAC
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
2 PL/M
DP9- W5ASOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 3/1 10YR 3/40-24
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey98C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
1
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland is located in left floodplain of UT7 between TOB and spoil berm.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
15
12
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP10- W5B
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:BNF
1%Concavefloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.93715835.182608LRR N, MLRA 130B
PSSNWI classification:Rosman fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)15'
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15 6 70
Yes
Yes
FACU
FACW
0
70
40
Multiply by:
230
1.74Prevalence Index = B/A =
115
No FACW
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
17
1640
43
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
85
No
Yes
5
70
Cornus amomum
Juncus effusus
20Impatiens FACW
Carex spp 60
80
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
15' )
30
Indicator
Status
20
10
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
80.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP10- W5B
4
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
340
0
195
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
C2.5Y 4/1
10YR 3/2
5YR 4/66-15
0-6
DP10- W5BSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%
M10
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP11- Up
6/6/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
1%Concaveterrace
Datum: UTM 17-82.93707235.183190LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Rosman fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Hillside adjacent to W5B
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP11- Up
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Schedonorus arundinaceus 90
30'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30' )
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30'
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL2
Texture
DP11- UpSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C2.5Y 6/3
10YR 4/2
2.5Y 6/44-15
0-4
Loc2
98
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP12- W6
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering/ NC DMS NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:BNF
1%Concavefloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.94128035.183195LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not mappedNWI classification:Toecane-Tusquitee Complex
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
1
Is the Sampled Area
Narrow wetland directly abbuting UT4. Wetland is impacted by cattle and broken apart by crossing (seperated between W6 and W6A).
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP12- W6
3
5
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
550
0
200
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
60.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
40
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Rhododendron maximum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
15 )
80
Indicator
Status
40
40
Dominant
Species?
Yes
15
5
Rosa multiflora
No
Yes
5
20
Ilex opaca
Juncus effusus
60impatiens canadensis FACW
Carex spp 10
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
85
FACUNo
17
820
43
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
65
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
60
0
260
Multiply by:
230
2.75Prevalence Index = B/A =
115
Yes FACU
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
40 16 0
Yes
Yes
FACU
FACW
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)15
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
No
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP12- W6SOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
10-15
0-10
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland is on left floodplain of UT4A
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
24
20
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP13- W7
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:BNF, KEB
1%NoneFloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.94241535.182151LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not mappedNWI classification:Chesnut-Edneyville complex
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
20 8 0
Yes FACW
90
0
0
Multiply by:
220
2.21Prevalence Index = B/A =
110
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
30
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
2050
30
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
100
Yes
Yes
50Polygonum sp.
30Fescue spp FAC
Carex spp 20
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
30 )
40
Indicator
Status
40
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP13- W7
4
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
310
0
140
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
M
98
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
10
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
7.5YR 3/1
10YR 4/62-8
0-2
DP13- W7SOIL
8-20 10YR 6/2
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
10YR 4/6
%%
PL2
Texture
C Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
No X X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Pond area is affecting wetland hydrology.
NoYes
1
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland adjacent to UT5 and along fringe of pond
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
10
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP14- W8
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:KEB
1%Concavefloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.93874135.184325LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not MappedNWI classification:Saunook loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)10x10
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
40 16 60
Yes
Yes
OBL
FACW
0
60
0
Multiply by:
240
1.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
120
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWYes
16
410
40
20
10x10
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
80
Polygonum
Yes
Yes
20
20
Juncus effusus
20Impatiens FACW
Carex spp 20
20
Alnus serrulata
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Carpinus caroliniana
Alnus serrulata
10x10 )
80
Indicator
Status
40
40
Dominant
Species?
Yes OBL
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP14- W8
7
7
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
300
0
180
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
Sandy
90 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
7.5YR 3/1
7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 4/3
2-10
0-2
DP14- W8SOIL
10-20 7.5YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
10 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Wetland adjacent to UT1 as UT1 enters floodplain of WFFB. Wetland is heavily impacted by cattle.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
4
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP15- W9
6/5/2018
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:KEB
1%Concavefloodplain
Datum: UTM 17-82.94615735.183534LRR N, MLRA 130B
Not MappedNWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
FACW
FACW
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
40 16
20
0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACW
150
0
20
Multiply by:
200
2.39Prevalence Index = B/A =
100
No FACU
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
50
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
No
FACWNo
14
615
35
10
30
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
30 )
70
Carex spp
Yes
No
20
20
Ilex opaca
Polygonum pensylvanicum
10Impatiens FACW
Juncus effusus 30
30
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Rhododendron maximum
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Liquidambar styraciflua
Oxydendrum arboretum
30 )
80
Indicator
Status
30
30
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
5
5
FAC
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
83.3%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP15- W9
5
6
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
370
0
155
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Sandy
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/2
10YR 3/1
6-12
0-6
DP15- W9SOIL
12-16 10YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%%Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA):Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site Transylvania County
DP16- Up 9
12/14/2017
HDR Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range: N/ABNF
2%NoneHillside
Datum: UTM 17-82.94591135.183564LRR N, MLRA 130B
N/ANWI classification:Tate fine sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Located within active cattle pasture outside of floodplain of UT1
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover:20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP16- Up 9
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Schedonorus arundinaceus 90
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
)30
=Total Cover
FACUYes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%Texture
DP16- Up 9SOIL
12-18 2.5Y 5/3
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
100
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
2.5YR 5/4
10YR 5/2
6-12
0-6
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix G – Plan Sheets

Reid
Oakland
1143
1147
1147
1148
1316
1318
1398
1304
1314
1314
1313
1306
1372
1376
1307
1375
1301
1308
1309
1309
1326
13101311
1309
1309
1309
1312
1326
1177
1152
1166
1144
1322
1170
1300
Wolf Mountain
Toxaway
1763
L
A
KE T
O
X
A
WA
Y
TOXAWAY Indian Creek Cree
kRoc
k
River
64%
1306
281(
281(
281(
.44
1119
1152
1153
1152
1154
1301
1140
1301
64%
1162COUNTYJACKSONCOUNTYTRANSYLVANIABlackrock
Mountain
Nantahala
National
Forest
Nix Mountain
Lake
Fairfield
Little Hogback
Mountain
Hogback Mountain
Sapphire
Lake
Toxaway
HogbackCreek
Mountain
Dobson
National
Pisgah
Forest
Cold Mountain
281(
STATE
N.C.1
LOCATION:
TYPE OF WORK:$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$CONTRACT:VICINITY MAP
INDEX OF SHEETS
Prepared in the Office of:DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
» »
CONVENTIONAL SYMBOLS
Pipe Culvert
E
PROJECT DESIGNER / ENGINEER
SHEET NO.
Easement
Conservation
Channel Plug
Impervious
2
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
4
CONTROL AND PLANTING)
(CLEARING, GRUBBING, GRADING, EROSION
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
2
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
CHRISTOPHER L. SMITH
TB
LAT: 35 11' 01" LONG: -82 56' 46"
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the Carolinas
N.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116
555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601127
51110
8 9Class B Rip Rap
Structure w/
Rock Step
E=1163787.2273
N=776921.5322
STA 10+00.00
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
E=822278.0322
N=545678.1038
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT8-
E=822843.5281
N=545040.5113
STA 11+36.08
END -UT4-
E=822599.8982
N=545155.2051
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT3-
E=822726.4083
N=545022.5103
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT4-
E=822623.4194
N=545164.3694
STA 10+25.24
END -UT3-
E=823938.6303
N=544835.2432
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT7-
E=822290.8912
N=545566.3716
STA 11+36.80
END -UT8-
2
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=
LENGTH
DESIGN STREAM
PROPOSED
0
0
0
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL)
PLANS
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
0
00
50 25 50 100
10 5 10 20
20 10 20 40
GRAPHIC SCALES
STREAM LENGTH
EXISTING
of Construction
Proposed Limits
2
2
CROSS-SECTIONED
=
=
=
=
=

=
=OWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEMITIGATION SITE
OWEN FARMS
MITIGATION PLANS
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION
TCE
E=822506.8867
N=544671.2994
STA 10+71.56
END -UT4A-
E=822447.9769
N=544648.6226
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT4A-
LOCATION
PROJECT
Interceptor
Floodplain FPI
Removal
Spoil
Habitat
W/ Hellbender
Rock Cross Vane
**
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
Gate
Proposed
Wire Fence
Strand Barbed
Proposed 3-
Kissing Gate
Proposed
Wire Fence
Proposed Woven
To Be Removed
Existing Fence
Re-Establishment
Wetland
Rehabilitation
Wetland
Enhancement
Wetland
Habitat
Hellbender
Log Sill
Hellbender Habitat
w/ Boulders and
Rock Step Structure
Crossing
Proposed Ford
Hellbender Habitat
Toewood and
Soil Lift w/
Floodplain Bench
Proposed
Bankfull
Proposed
Channel
Fill In Existing
Cross-Sections
Selected
Easement
Construction
Temporary
Boulder Toe
Existing
Body of Water
Stream or
Fence
Existing
Guardrail
Existing
Top of Bank
Existing
Power Line
Existing Over Head
Power Pole
Existing
Bedrock
Existing
Wetlands
Existing
0.00353
5.50
14.0
2.68
30.0
64.29
C4
0.00569
0.07
13.5
0.76
8.5
5.35
C4
0.00539
0.06
13.5
0.80
9.0
6.0
C4
0.01096
0.31
13.0
1.11
12.0
11.08
C4
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
BANKFULL SLOPE(FT/FT)
DRAINAGE AREA (MI )
WIDTH / DEPTH RATIO
MAX DEPTH (FT)
BANKFULL WIDTH (FT)

BANKFULL AREA (FT )
DESIGN STREAM TYPE
UT 5 UT 7 UT 8
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
-UT8-
-UT7-
-UT5-
-UT4A-
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
=
=
=
=
=
49.00
811.00
652.00
471.56
2,859.55
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
136.80
417.41
899.09
71.56
2,691.02
FT
FT
FT
FT
FT
CROSS SECTIONS........................................X-1 - X-4
PLANTING PLAN SHEET........................13
PLAN & PROFILE SHEETS...................4 - 12
PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP......3A
PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP...................3
DETAILS..........................................................2A - 2H
TYPICAL SECTIONS...................................2
TITLE SHEET...............................................1
E=823141.4783
N=544508.0166
STA 9+59.71
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT6-
E=823391.3103
N=544501.0886
STA 29+86.17
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
END RESTORATION &
E=823954.5358
N=544556.9968
STA 14+17.41
END -UT7-
E=824009.0378
N=544488.7701
STA 36+91.02
FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END ENHANCEMENT II WEST
E=823482.5394
N=545357.2890
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT5-
E=822845.4716
N=545055.9506
STA 18+99.09
END -UT5-6
Protection
Proposed Fill
FPIFPIFPI
BEDROCK
BEDROCK
B
E
DR
OCKB
E
D
R
OC
K
BEDROCK BEDROCKBEDROCKBEDROCK
BEDROCK
BEDROCK
BEDROCK
BEDROCK BEDROCK
BEDROCK
BEDROCK BEDROCKBEDROCKBEDROCKBEDROCKE
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
R
R
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALESECTIONS
TYPICAL
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$WIDTH
BANKFULL
EXISTING GROUND EXISTING GROUND
CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS
FOR DETAILED DIMENSIONS
SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS
TO BE FILLED
EXISTING CHANNEL
PROPOSED GROUND
STATION - STATIONVARIABLE
TYPICAL CHANNEL SECTION
TYPICAL SECTION - RIFFLE
SCALE: NTS
ALL UNITS ARE IN FEET
VARIABLE
BANKFULL WIDTH
BASE WIDTH
MAXIMUM DEPTH
SIDE SLOPE
•BANKFULL WIDTH
BANKFULL WIDTH
•BANKFULL WIDTH
BASE WIDTH
SLOPE
SIDE
BANKFULL STAGE
SLOPE
SIDE MAX DEPTH
THALWEG
IS LOCATED IN CENTER OF CHANNEL IN A RIFFLE.
THALWEG (DEEPEST POINT IN CROSS SECTION)

- ALL SHARP CORNERS SHOULD BE ROUNDED
- - GRADE POINT IS THE ELEVATION SHOWN ON PROFILE.
NOTES: - ALL CROSS SECTIONS ARE SHOWN LOOKING IN THE (DOWNSTREAM) DIRECTION.
VAR
BANKFULL WIDTH
DEPTH
MAXIMUM
BASE W
THALWEG
OUTSIDE WIDTH
IS LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BASE WIDTH.
THALWEG (DEEPEST POINT IN A CROSS SECTION)

- ALL SHARP CORNERS SHOULD BE ROUNDED
- - GRADE POINT IS THE ELEVATION SHOWN ON PROFILE.
NOTES: - ALL CROSS SECTIONS ARE SHOWN LOOKING IN THE (DOWNSTREAM) DIRECTION.
VAR
BANKFULL WIDTH
BASE W
THALWEG
OUTSIDE WIDTH
IS LOCATED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BASE WIDTH.
THALWEG (DEEPEST POINT IN A CROSS SECTION)
DEPTH
MAXIMUM
TYPICAL SECTION - POOL LEFT
SCALE: NTS
ALL UNITS ARE IN FEET

- ALL SHARP CORNERS SHOULD BE ROUNDED
- - GRADE POINT IS THE ELEVATION SHOWN ON PROFILE.
NOTES: - ALL CROSS SECTIONS ARE SHOWN LOOKING IN THE (DOWNSTREAM) DIRECTION.
TYPICAL SECTION - POOL RIGHT
SCALE: NTS
ALL UNITS ARE IN FEET
VARIABLE
BANKFULL WIDTH
MAX DEPTH
BAR SIDE SLOPE
RIGHT BANK SIDE SLOPE
BASE WIDTH
OUTSIDE WIDTHVARVAR
CROSS-SECTIONS
VARIES, SEE DETAILED
2:12:1 TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601CONFLUENCE GRADING
TYPICAL TRIBUTARY
SCALE: NTS
4:14:
1
UT BENCH
THALWEG
UT
BROAD RIVER BANKFULL
WEST FORK FRENCH
BROAD RIVER BANKFULL
WEST FORK FRENCH
BROAD RIVER FLOW
WEST FORK FRENCH
2.5:1
2.68
16.7
30.0
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
2.0
5.0
12.33
4.29
7.5
37.5
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
VARIABLE
BANKFULL WIDTH
MAX DEPTH
BAR SIDE SLOPE
BASE WIDTH
OUTSIDE WIDTH
2.0
5.0
12.33
4.29
7.5
37.5
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
LEFT BANK SIDE SLOPE
TRIBUTARY 8
TRIBUTARY 7
TRIBUTARY 5
TRIBUTARY 4A
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
10+00.00 - 11+36.80
10+00.00 - 14+17.41
10+00.00 - 18+99.09
10+00.00 - 10+71.56
10+00.00 - 29+86.17
2.0
4.75
5.20
1.85
3.0
15.0
8
TRIBUTARY
2.0
4.8
3.79
1.33
2.25
11.25
7
TRIBUTARY
2.0
4.75
3.59
1.26
2.13
10.63
5
TRIBUTARY
STAGE
BANKFULL
2.0
4.75
3.59
1.26
2.13
10.63
5
TRIBUTARY
2.0
4.8
3.79
1.33
2.25
11.25
7
TRIBUTARY
2.0
4.75
5.20
1.85
3.0
15.0
8
TRIBUTARY
STAGE
BANKFULL
2.5:1
0.76
4.8
8.5
5
TRIBUTARY
2.5:1
0.79
5.05
9.0
7
TRIBUTARY
2.4:1
1.10
6.7
12.0
8
TRIBUTARY
& UT CHANNEL DIMENSIONS
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
1. SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS FOR
NOTES:
3.2:1
1.0
4.0
10.5
4A
TRIBUTARY
BROAD RIVER INVERT
WEST FORK FRENCH
1'
Natural Natural
Ground Ground3:13:1VARIES
SCALE: NTS
-UT5-
HALF BANKFULL CHANNEL
FLOODPLAIN BENCH
MINIMUM
10'
10'
10'
10'
15'
BENCH
FLOOD PLAIN
2STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE11-14-19
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALE$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$DETAILS

4:1 SLOPE
SCALE: NTS
SIDE SLOPETOE OF SIDE SLOPETOE OF SIDE SLOPESELECT MATERIAL
IMPERVIOUS FLOW DIRECTIONTOP OF BANK
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUG
PLAN VIEW
MATERIAL
SELECT
IMPERVIOUS
SECTION B-B
CHANNEL
EXISTING
B
AA
5 FT.
MIN.
B
SECTION A-A
CHANNEL
DESIGN
EX CHANNEL
WIDER THAN
MIN. 1 FT.
MATERIAL
IMPERVIOUS SELECT
GROUND
EXISTING
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINANatural Natural
Ground Ground
2'
0.5'
DESIGN INVERT ELEVATION
SCALE:NTS
RIFFLE SEEDING
10'
2'
Natural Natural
Ground Ground
2'
0.5'
1'
Natural Natural
Ground Ground
SCALE: NTS
0.5'2:12:1
9'
12.5'
2.5'
2.5'
MATTING
COIR FIBER
MATTING
COIR FIBER
MATTING
COIR FIBER
CHANNEL MATERIAL
1.0' MIN NATIVE
OF PROPOSED CHANNELEXISTING CHANNEL
FLOW OF
12" MINGROUND
EXISTING
12" MIN 2.5:12.5:1
2.5:12.5:1
PLAN VIEW
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
FLOW
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
10' SOIL PATH
PROFILE ALONG CULVERT
FILL MATERIAL
3 3
1 1
10' MIN.
GROUND
EXISTING
CHANNEL
STREAM
24" CMP
20'
SCALE: NTS
-UT3-
-UT4-
-UT6-
INVERT
CHANNEL
CHANNEL CONFLUENCE
NOTE 4
SEE
FRENCH BROAD RIVER.
AND 0.5' MINIMUM OF GRAVEL MATERIAL ON WEST FORK
MINIMUM OF 0.2' OF GRAVEL MATERIAL ON THE TRIBUTARIES
4. CONTRACTOR SHALL LINE CHANNEL SIDE SLOPE WITH A
MINIMUM OF 1.0' AND BACKFILL WITH NATIVE GRAVEL.
3. CONTRACTOR SHALL OVER EXCAVATE CHANNEL INVERT A
ON PROFILE DATA SHEETS) WITH NATIVE GRAVEL MATERIAL.
"TOP OF RIFFLE" AND "BOTTOM OF RIFFLE" AS DEPICTED
2. CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED ALL RIFFLES (LENGTH BETWEEN
FOR USE AS RIFFLE SEEDING.
THE EXISTING CHANNELS ON ALL RESTORED STREAMS
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL EXCAVATE GRAVEL MATERIAL FROM
NOTES:
24" CMP
24" CMP GROUND
EXISTING
PLAN VIEW
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
FLOW
CROSS-SECTION VIEW
10' SOIL PATH
PROFILE ALONG CULVERT
FILL MATERIAL
3 3
1 1
10' MIN.
CHANNEL
STREAM
36" CMP
20'
SCALE: NTS
INVERT
CHANNEL
36" CMP
36" CMP
GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND
EXISTING
W/ 36" CMP
CROSSING NO. 1
PERMANENT STREAM
W/ 24" CMP
CROSSINGS NO. 2,3 & 4
PERMANENT STREAM
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE2A
11-14-19
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALE$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$DETAILS

CROSS-SECTION
FLOW
SCALE:NTS
A
A
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
FLOW
SECTION A-A
FABRIC
FILTER
POOL
SCOUR
PLAN VIEW
FABRIC
FILTER
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
OF CLASS B RIP RAP
3' TO 5' DOWNSTREAM
INTO TOP OF BANK
WING STONE TIES
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
W/ CLASS B RIP RAP
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
CHANNEL'S BANKS
AT SAME RATE AS
WING STONE RISE
TOETOEBRUSH MATERIAL
(MIN 3' IN LENGTH)
BRUSH MATERIAL
(MIN 3' IN LENGTH)
BRUSH MATERIAL
ELEVATION
BELOW SCOUR POOL INVERT
BOTTOM OF ROCK IS MIN 1 FT
PLAN VIEW
CROSS-SECTION
FLOW
(2' WIDE x 6" DEEP)
CHANNEL
WATER DIVERSION
(2' WIDE x 6" DEEP)
CHANNEL
WATER DIVERSION
PERMANENT FORD CROSSING
SCALE: NTS
TO 10' OUT
BANKFULL
TO 10' OUT
BANKFULL
5:1
5:15 FT
MIN
5 FT
MIN
TO 10' OUT
BANKFULL
TO 10' OUT
BANKFULL
BANKFULL WIDTH
FLATTER.
FORD APPROACH TO BE 5:1 OR
NOTE:
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASCALE: NTS
MATERIAL
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP/
LOG SILL FLOWBANK
CHANNEL
BANK
CHANNEL
PLAN VIEW
SECTION A-A
FLOW
A
A2%-5% RISE2%-5% RISE
INVERT INVERT
BANKFULL
LOG 2%-5% RISE
15'
LOG SILL LENGTH
5'
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
5'STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEB
B
FABRIC
FILTER
EXISTING GROUND
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
24"MIN.
SECTION B-B
MATERIAL
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP/
MEDIAN AXIS.
GREATER. MATERIAL TO BE MEASURED ALONG THE
MATERIAL HAS AN ADVERAGE SIZE OF 2" OR
5. CHANNEL MATERIAL CAN BE USED TO BACKFILL IF
DIRECT FLOW AWAY FROM EACH BANK.
4. LOGS SHALL BE SLOPED BETWEEN 2% - 5% TO
INTO EACH BANK.
5' (MEASURED PERPENDICULAR TO BANKLINE)
3. LENGTH OF LOG SHALL EXTEND A MINIMUM OF
BY DESIGNER.
PLAN VIEW WITHIN THE PLANS OR DIRECTED
THE ANGLE OF THE LOG AS SHOWN ON THE
2. ANGLE OF LOGS IN CHANNEL SHALL MATCH
SUBSTITUTED WITH PINE).
ALONG THE LOG (FOOTER LOG MAY BE
IN DIAMETER, MEASURED AT ANY POINT
SPECIES, AND SHALL BE A MINIMUM 18"
1. LOG SILL LOGS SHALL BE OF A HARDWOOD
NOTES:
FILTER FABRICO45
O45
POOL
6" COIR LOG
CLASS B RIP RAP
HAND PLACED
MATERIAL MIXTURE
AND NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP
BACKFILL W/
CLASS B RIP RAP
HAND PLACED
MATERIAL MIXTURE
AND NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP
BACKFILL W/
CLASS B RIP RAP
HAND PLACED
30"(L) X 30"(W) X 24"(D).
3. BOULDER SIZE SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF
BED AND 1.5' PROTRUDING OUT OF THE BANK.
OF 3' LONG WITH A MINIMUM OF 1.5' IN THE CHANNEL
THAN 6" CENTERS. BRUSH MATERIAL SHALL BE A MINIMUM
NO LESS THAN 0.25" DIAMETER, SPACED NO GREATER
2. BRUSH MATERIAL SHALL CONSIST OF WOODY DEBRIS
MATERIAL MIXTURE (AS APPROVED BY DESIGNER).
WITH CLASS A RIP RAP AND NATIVE CHANNEL
BEHIND CLASS B RIP RAP AND BACKFILLED
1. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AT LEAST 5'
NOTES:
BANKFULL WIDTH
COMPACTED/ROLLED
MIN DEPTH 8 "
NATIVE GRAVEL/COBBLE
CLASS B RIP RAP &
2B
11-14-19
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALECROSS-SECTION
SCALE:NTS
A
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
FLOW
SECTION A-A
FABRIC
FILTER TOE OF SLOPEHEADER BOULDER
PLAN VIEW
FABRIC
FILTER
BOULDER
WING
BOULDER
HEADER
OF HEADER BOULDER
3' TO 5' DOWNSTREAM
INTO TOP OF BANK
WING BOULDERS TIE
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
BOULDER
HEADER
CHANNEL'S BANKS
AT SAME RATE AS
WING BOULDERS RISE
(BANKFULL)TOP OF BANKDETAILS
MATERIAL MIXTURE
& NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP
MATERIAL MIXTURE
& NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP(BANKFULL)TOP OF BANKPOOL
1.0' BELOW INVERT ELEV.
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
WOODY MATERIAL
BOTTOM OF
BANKFULL DEPTH
‚ TO • OF TT
10' MINIMUM
(UPSTREAM) TOWARDS THE FLOW
ANGLE WOODY MATERIAL 25°-30°
PC PT
2.0'
SPACED AT 5' CENTERS
WOODEN STAKES
2' X 2" X 2"
1.0'
MATTING(PULLED TIGHT)
COIR FIBER WOVEN
LAYERS OF 900 G/SM
WRAP SOIL IN TWO
INSTALLATION CROSS SECTION VIEW
MATERIAL FROM ON SITE
FILL GAPS WITH SOIL
PLAN VIEW
TYPICAL INSTALLATION HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEPLAN VIEW
SCALE: NTS
A
A
HELLBENDER HABITAT
SECTION A-A
1.0' MAX
FOOTER BOULDERTOE OF SLOPEBOULDER
FOOTER
FABRIC
FILTER
4'x2'x1'
ROOF ROCK
1'
6"
4'
16'
AND HELLBENDER HABITAT
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE W/ BOULDERS
SCALE: NTS
AND HELLBENDER HABITAT
SOIL LIFT W/ BRUSH TOE
FLOW
POOL
SCOUR
P
O
O
L
2'x2'1'
FOOTER ROCK
BASEFLOW
(SEE NOTE 4)
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
FROM ON-SITE
FILL MATERIALBANK ABOVE BRUSH TOE
MINIMUM OF 3.0' INTO
KEY COIR FIBER MAT A
(SEE NOTE 12)
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
(SEE NOTE 12)
HELLBENDER HABITAT
BRUSH TOE AND
SOIL LIFT W/
(SEE NOTE 4)
HELLBENDER HABITAT
W/ BOULDERS AND
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
HABITAT.
12. CONSTRUCT GAPS IN BRUSH TOE FOR HELLBENDER
COMPLETED.
FACE OF THE ENTIRE SOIL LIFT AFTER IT IS
11. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO BRUSH SEED ONTO THE
FILL MATERIAL UPON COMPLETION OF EACH LIFT.
10. THE CONTRACTOR IS TO MECHANICALLY COMPACT
OBTAINED ON SITE AND APPROVED BY DESIGNER.
9. FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COMPOSED OF MATERIALS
MATTING TO WRAP SOIL LIFTS.
8. CONTRACTOR IS TO USE 10' WIDE COIR FIBER
TO FILL AND PROTECT STREAMBANK TOE.
7. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL BE DENSLY PACKED
DIAMETER AND A MINIMUM OF 10' IN LENGTH.
6. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3"
5. WOODY MATERIAL SHALL OVERLAP.
TO FILL GAPS.
STREAMBED. SOIL MATERIAL SHALL BE USED
GAP BETWEEN BOTTOM OF WOODY MATERIAL &
CONNECTIONS AND GAPS. THERE SHOULD BE NO
MATERIAL PACK FIRMLY TO SECURE ALL
4. WHEN BACKFILLING OVER AND AROUND WOODY
OF INSTALLATION.
AND SHOULD NOT BE DETERIORATED AT THE TIME
3. BRUSH TOE MATERIAL SHALL BE HARDWOOD SPECIES,
AT THE TOP OF SLOPE.
2. WOODEN STAKES SHALL BE SPACED AT 5' CENTER
MATTING IN PLACE.
ROOFING NAIL INSERTED AT THE TOP TO HOLD
1. WOODEN STAKES SHALL HAVE A 2" GALVANIZED
NOTES:
NEEDED ON UT5 SOIL LIFT.
HELLBENDER HABITAT IS NOT
NOTE:
DIMENSIONS OF 30"(L) X 30"(W) X 24"(D).
5. BOULDER SIZE SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM
HELLBENDER HABITAT.
4. CONSTRUCT GAPS IN FOOTER BOULDER FOR
MATERIAL MIXTURE.
WITH CLASS A RIP RAP & NATIVE CHANNEL
BEHIND HEADER BOULDERS AND BACKFILLED
3. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED AT LEAST 5'
RECTANGULAR THEN CUBICAL.
NATURE. WING BOULDERS MAY BE MORE
OR SHOT ROCK, CUBICAL OR RECTANGULAR IN
2. BOULDERS SHALL BE NATIVE STONE
1. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONE.
NOTES:
DIMENSIONS OF 30"(L) X 30"(W) X 24"(D).
2. BOULDER SIZE SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM
SEE PLAN SHEETS.
1. FOR LOCATIONS OF HELLBENDER HABITATS
NOTES:
2C
11-14-19
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALEDETAILS
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$CHROMATED COPPER ARSENATE (CCA)
AMONIACAL COPPER ARSENATE
ACID COPPER CHROMATE
PENTACHLOROPHENO
CREOSOTE COAL TAR
0.4
0.4
0.5
0.3
6.0
RETENTION LB/FT

POST
DIA. = 5 IN. MIN.
WOOD:
WOOD:
BRACE
MAX. SPACING =
POST REQUIREMENTS ALONG LINE
POST REQUIREMENTS AT CORNER OR GATE
STAY REQUIREMENTS
SCALE: NTS
LINE POSTS
LINE PANEL
PINE & OAK POSTS
TREATMENT FOR
3
FT. MIN.•L = 6
D = 24 IN. MIN.
DIA. = 3 IN. MIN.
WOVEN WIRE FENCE

LINE
GROUND
GATE
WOVEN WIRE FENCING DETAIL
12'
BARBED WIRE 5" MAX4" MIN47" MAX39" MINLDAND SHALL BE SPACED 6 TO 12 INCHES APART.
VERTICAL WIRES SHALL BE 12• GAUGE STEEL
FILLER WIRES SHALL BE 12• GAUGE STEEL
8'
L = 8 FT. MIN.
D = 3• FT. MIN.
MIN LENGTH 1•" FOR SOFTWOODS
STABLES SHALL BE 9 GAUGE GALVANIZED WIRE
IS TO USE A LATCH DEVICE AS APPROVED BY DESIGNER.
AS SHOWN IN CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. CONTRACTOR
CONTRACTOR IS TO INSTALL 5 BAR 16 FT TUBE GATES
MAX. SPACING =
BRACE ASSEMBLY
SINGLE SPAN
"H" BRACE ASSEMBLY
WIRE (2 WIRES TOP TO BOTTOM)
(4 WIRES TOP TO BOTTOM) OR 1 ROUND OF 9 GAUGE
BRACE WIRE SHALL BE 2 ROUNDS OF 12• GAUGE WIRE
OR EQUAL AT BOTTOM AND TOP OF POST
TWITCH STICK SHALL BE …" DIAMETER DOWEL
DIA. = 5 IN. MIN.
WOOD:L = 8 FT. MIN.
POST REQUIREMENTS PULL AND BRACE POST
WOOD:L = 8 FT. MIN.
POST REQUIREMENTS HORIZONTAL BRACE
DIA. = 4 IN. MIN.
SHALL BE USED TO ATTACH BRACE TO POST
6" AND 12" X …" DIA DOWELS OR EQUIVALENT
FENCE.
ALL CORNERS, GATES, AND AT ALL DEFINITE ANGLES IN THE
LOCATION OF BRACES AND/OR END ASSEMBLIES ARE REQUIRED AT
TO STRENGTH OF FENCE WIRE.
WIRE CLIPS OR FASTENERS MUST BE GALVANIZED AND SIMILAR
WITH GALVANIZATION OR RUST-RESISTANT PAINT OR COATING.
STEEL ASSEMBLY AND POST ASSEMBLY MUST BE PROTECTED
UNTIL AT LEAST 24 HOURS AFTER CONCRETE IS POURED.
POST BACKFILLED WITH CONCRETE SHALL HAVE NO STRESS APPLIED
MINIMUM DEPTH OF TWO FEET.
LINE POSTS MUST BE SET SOLIDLY IN THE GROUND A
NOTES
WOOD: 1•" DIA. MIN. OF DURABLE WOOD
STEEL
THE TOP AND BOTTOM WIRE SHALL BE 10 GAUGE
2 TWISTED STRANDS WITH 15• GAUGE
CENTERS.
TWO-POINT BARBS ON APPROX. 5 INCH
HIGH TENSILE AND 15• GAUGE BARBED WIRE
MIN CLASS 3 ZINC-COATING FOR 12• GAUGE
ABOVE THE WOVEN WIRE
OF BARBED WIRE PLACED 4 TO 5 INCHES
WOVEN WIRE FENCE SHALL HAVE 1 STRAND
WOVEN WIRE
MIN CLASS 1 ZINC-COATING 12• GAUGE
BARBED WIRE
WIRE
BARBED
5" MAX4" MIN47" MAX39" MINL4"9"GROUND
EXISTING HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITESCALE: NTS
KISSING GATE
2'PINE OROTHER WOOD OF EQUAL LIFE AND STRENGTH.
TREATED POSTS SHALL BE MADE OF BLACK LOCUST, TREATED
TO PERMIT STAPLING OF THE TOP WIRE WITHOUT SPLITTING.
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF AT LEAST A 42 INCH-HIGH FENCE
INCHES LARGER. LENGTH MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO PROVIDE
POST (TWO INCHES ABOVE THE TOP WIRE) MUST BE THREE
NINETY-FIVE PERCENT OF TOP DIAMETERS OF WOODEN LINE
2E
11-14-19
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALEHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$DETAILS
CONTROL
EROSION
T
T
2'
6"
COIR FIBER MATTING
OVERLAP
T

FLOWFLOW
SEE NOTE 2
BANKFULLFLOW(TYP)
5'
MATTING STAKING VIEW
SECTION A-A
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF SLOPE
SCALE: NTS
TYPICAL MATTING LOCATION DETAIL
HOLD MATTING
AT THE TOP TO
ROOFING NAIL
w/ 2" GALVANIZED
WOOD STAKES
2' LONG 2" x 2"
BACKFILL
TRENCH AND
BACKFILL
TRENCH AND
HOLD MATTING
AT THE TOP TO
ROOFING NAIL
w/ 2" GALVANIZED
WOOD STAKES
2' LONG 2" x 2"
PLAN VIEW
SEE NOTE 2
(BANKFULL)
TO BEYOND TOP OF BANK
FROM TOE OF CHANNEL
COIR FIBER MATTING
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
FIBER MATTING
WITH STRAW MULCH UNDER COIR
PLACE TEMP/PERM SEED ALONG
FIBER MATTING
WITH STRAW MULCH UNDER COIR
PLACE TEMP/PERM SEED ALONG

FLOW
A A
B
B
SEDIMENT CONTROL STONE
2' MIN
L=3xH
TEMPORARY ROCK SILT CHECK, TYPE A
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
SCALE: NTS
PLAN VIEW
WIDTH
2/3 CHANNEL
2
1
2
1
6IN.
2
1
2'
1' MIN
2' MIN
CHECKED HEIGHT.
REACHES ONE-THIRD OF THE ORIGINAL
- REMOVE SEDIMENT ACCUMULATION WHEN IT
NOTES:
NO. 57 STONE
STRUCTURAL STONE
CLASS B
CLASS B STONE
CLASS B STONE
NO. 57 STONE
CHANNEL TOE
PROPOSED
CHANNEL TOE
PROPOSED
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED
(BANKFULL)
TOP OF BANK
PROPOSED

RIVER IS OPTIONAL.
6. MATTING OF POINTBAR ON WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD
LIFTS ARE SPECIFIED.
5. DO NOT PLACE COIR MATTING OVER BANKS WHERE SOIL
MAXIMUM 5' SPACING.
SLOPE, AND DOWN THE CENTER OF THE BANK WITH A
ALONG THE OUTER EDGES (TOP OF BANK), TOE OF
4. 2' X 2" X 2" HARDWOOD STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED
DOWN THE CENTER .
JUNCTIONS, OUTER EDGES, TOE OF SLOPES, AND
3. INSTALL STAKES ACROSS MATTING AT ENDS,
2. USE WOOD STAKES (NOT METAL) FOR MATTING.
BOTH BANKS THROUGHOUT THE PROJECT.
1. COIR FIBER MATTING SHALL BE PLACED ALONG
NOTES:
SEE NOTE 6
POINTBAR
MATTING
SEE NOTE 6
POINTBAR
MATTING
2F
11-14-19
FLOW
FLOW
PUMP-AROUND PUMP
DEWATERING PUMP
FLEXIBLE HOSE
TEMPORARY
CHANNEL
EXISTING STREAM
FLOWPUMP-AROUND OPERATION
WITH ROCK PAD
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
SCALE:NTS
GEOTEXTILE LINER
PLASTIC LINER OR
P-1
PDA-1
NOTE: PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET
SILT BAG
EXISTING GROUND
25' MIN.
15'-20'
CLASS A STONE
OPTIONAL 6"
CHANNEL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
AA
15'-20'
OR GEOTEXTILE LINER
CLEAN PLASTIC LINER
FLEXIBLE HOSE
TEMPORARY
INLET
PUMP AROUND
SAND BAGS
SECTION A-A
STABILIZED PUMP-AROUND INLET
STILLING BASIN WITH ROCK PAD
TOE OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
FLOW
15'-20'
SAND BAGS
INLET
PUMP AROUND
OR GEOTEXTILE LINER
CLEAN PLASTIC LINER
FLEXIBLE HOSE
TEMPORARY
PLAN VIEW
STABILIZED PUMP-AROUND INLET
PLAN VIEW
PUMP-AROUND OPERATION
INLET
PUMP-AROUND
STABILIZED
IF PUMPING CLEAN WATER.
OF A SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
A STABILIZED OUTLET INSTEAD
SPECIAL PROVISIONS) UTILIZE
WITH ROCK PAD (SEE PROJECT
SPECIAL STILLING BASIN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
IMPERVIOUS
HIGH TENSILECHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
TEMPORARY
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
TEMPORARY
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
TEMPORARY
STABILIZE DISTURBED AREA WITH SEED AND MULCH.
8. REMOVE SPECIAL STILLING BASIN(S) AND BACKFILL.
CHANNEL PLUG FOR EACH DAY'S WORK.
FOR DETERMINING THE LOCATION OF THE IMPERVIOUS
FOR EACH STREAM SEGMENT. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
THIS SHEET ONLY SHOW THE UPPER AND LOWER EXTENT OF WORK
IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUG LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON
AREAS BETWEEN THE IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUGS. THE
THE END OF EACH WORK DAY WITHIN THE PUMP AROUND
7. ALL GRADING AND STABILIZATION MUST BE COMPLETED AT
PLUG FIRST).
FLEXIBLE HOSE.(DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL
IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUGS, PUMPS, AND TEMPORARY
REMOVAL OF IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUGS. REMOVE
6. EXCAVATE ANY ACCUMULATED SILT AND DEWATER BEFORE
WITH THE PLANS.
5. PERFORM STREAM RESTORATION WORK IN ACCORDANCE
DEWATERED SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE DAY'S WORK.
PUMPING APPARATUS. DEWATER ENTRAPPED AREA. AREA TO BE
4. PLACE DOWNSTREAM IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUG AND
AND BEGIN PUMPING OPERATIONS FOR STREAM DIVERSION.
3. PLACE UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUG
PUMP, AND TEMPORARY FLEXIBLE HOSE.
2. INSTALL STABILIZED PUMP AROUND INLET, UPSTREAM
1. INSTALL SPECIAL STILLING BASIN(S).
SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION FOR TYPICAL WORK AREA
PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.
EMPTIED OF ACCUMULATED MATERIAL SPREAD OUT AND
10.ALL SEDIMENT BAGS (GEOTEXTILE SILT BAG) MUST BE
PARTICLES.
CONTRACTOR MAY UTILIZE FLOCCULANTS TO SETTLE OUT
TO PREVENT DISCHARE FROM EXCEEDING 10 NTU'S.
INTO A GEOTEXTILE SILT BAG AND SHALL PROVIDE MEASURES
9.WATER PUMPED FROM EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE DISCHARGED
THE PROPER SIZED PUMP.
8.CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR DETERMINING & AQUIRING
MATTING LOCATION DETAIL.
PRIOR TO TURNING WATER INTO CHANNEL. SEE TYPICAL
7.SIDESLOPES OF RESTORED CHANNEL SHALL BE MATTED
DEWATER THE WORK AREA.
6.PUMPS AND HOSES SHALL BE OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO
SHEETING, DIVERSION PIPES, PUMPS AND HOSES.
INCIDENTAL TO THE WORK. THIS INCLUDES POLYETHYLENE
5.MAINTENANCE OF STREAM FLOW OPERATIONS SHALL BE
4.ALL GRADED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 24 HOURS.
OR CLEAN #57 STONE.
3.SAND BAGS SHALL BE FILLED WITH CLEAN MASONRY SAND
ISOLATE WORK FROM STREAM FLOW WHEN NECESSARY.
2.IMPERVIOUS CHANNEL PLUGS ARE TO BE USED TO
ISOLATED SECTIONS OF CHANNEL.
1.ALL EXCAVATION SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ONLY DRY OR
NOTES:
SHEET EC-
SEE DETAIL
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
TEMPORARY
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALEHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEDETAILS
CONTROL
EROSION
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$2G
11-14-19
STEEL POSTS
6IN.
8IN.
SECTION
WATER
FLOWFLOWWATER
SCALE: N.T.S.
STANDARD TEMPORARY SILT FENCE

IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED.
OF POSTS. WOOD POSTS 4IN.
TRENCH UPHILL ALONG THE LINE
GROUND AND EXCAVATE A 6IN.x 6IN.
DRIVE STEEL POSTS 18IN. INTO
STEP 1:
POSTS
BETWEEN
MAX. 8'
2' MIN.
3' MAX.
HEIGHT:OR EQUAL
(BLACK) MIRIFI FILTER FABRIC
ULTRAVIOLET RESISTANT
EXCAVATION TRENCH.
FILTER FABRIC BURIED 8" IN
BOTTOM OF WIRE FENCE AND
18" INTO GROUND
STEEL POST DRIVEN
OF 6" ABOVE GROUND LEVEL.
TAMPING TO A HEIGHT OF A HEIGHT
FILLING WITH SOIL MATERIAL AND
IN TRENCH AND SECURED BY BACK-
BOTTOM OF FILTER MUST BE PLACED
NOTE:
WITH A MINIMUM LENGTH OF 4'.
6. IF USING WOOD, POST IS TO BE 4" DIAMETER PINE
INHIBITORS AND STABLIZERS.
FABRIC SHOULD CONTAIN ULTRAVIOLET RAY
A FLOW RATE OF AT LEAST 0.3 GAL./FT / MINUTE.
STRENGTH-50LB/ LIN. IN. (MINIMUM) AND WITH
PROPYLENE OR ETHYLENE YARN WITH EXTRA
5. FILTER FABRIC TO BE ON NYLON, PLOYESTER,
THE NEXT POST.
THE FABRIC AT A SUPPORT POST WITH OVERLAP TO
4. WHEN JOINTS ARE NECESSARY, SECURELY FASTEN
TO PREVENT UNDERCUTTING.
3. BURY TOE OF FENCE APPROXIMATELY 8" DEEP
SUPPORT FENCING.
2. LOCATE POSTS DOWNSLOPE OF FABRIC TO HELP
STOCKPILE.
APPROXIMATELY 70% OF THE PERIMETER OF THE
SYSTEM. FENCE TO EXTEND AROUND
FROM BEING WASHED INTO THE DRAINAGE
OF TOPSOIL STOCKPILE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT
1. CONSTRUCT SEDIMENT FENCE ON LOW SIDE
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
WATER
FLOW
FLOWWATER
TRENCH.
OF THE FABRIC 8IN. INTO THE
THE POST AND EXTEND THE BOTTOM
ATTACH THE FILTER FABRIC TO
STEP 3:
GO UNDER IT.
TO GO THROUGH THE FENCE AND CANNOT
THE SILT FENCE SO THAT RUNOFF IS FORCED
SOIL FIRMLY TO ANCHOR THE BOTTOM OF
BACKFILL THE TRENCH AND COMPACT THE
STEP 4:
EXCAVATED TRENCH.
THE FENCE 8IN. INTO THE
AND EXTEND THE BOTTOM OF
ATTACH WIRE FENCE TO POSTS
STEP 2:$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALEHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEDETAILS
CONTROL
EROSION
2H
11-14-19
FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTOR
SCALE: NTS
DATE:
SHEETNOT TO SCALEDETAILSHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$SCALE:NTS
SECTION A-A
PLAN VIEW
BELOW BANKFULL
ARM TIE-IN DEPTHVANE ARM LENGTH
S
E
E NOT
E
7
BANKFULL
BANKFULL
BY DESIGNER
AS DIRECTED
SILL
ROCK
SECTION B-B
PAD
SPLASHB
B
A
A
ELEVATION
STREAMBED 2%-7%

S
L
O
P
E
DIAMETER
MINIMUM OF THE BOULDER
EXISTING SUBTRATE A
BE PLACED INTO THE
FOOTER BOULDERS WILL
VARIES
SLOPE
ARM TIE-IN
ELEVATION
BANKFULL
FABRIC
FILTER
POOL
SCOUR
HELLBENDER HABITAT
ROCK CROSS-VANE W/
(SEE NOTE 8)
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
SHALL BE PLACED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF STRUCTURE.
BOULDER TO THE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATION AND
SHALL EXTEND FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE FOOTER
SEDIMENT THROUGH BOULDER GAPS. FILTER FABRIC
SIDE OF THE STRUCTURE TO PREVENT WASHOUT OF
10. FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED ON THE UPSTREAM
30"(L) X 30"(W) X 24"(D).
9. BOULDER SIZE SHALL MEET THE MINIMUM DIMENSIONS OF
HELLBENDER HABITAT.
8. CONSTRUCT GAPS IN FOOTER BOULDER FOR
MAY BE ADJUSTED AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER.
ADDITIONALLY, THE VANE ARM'S ANGLE OF DEPARTURE
THAN 7% AT THE DIRECTION OF THE DESIGNER.
BUT THE ARM'S SLOPE MAY BE INCREASED TO GREATER
SHALL CONTINUE UP TO THE BANKFULL ELEVATION
AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER. THE VANE ARM
RISE AT 2-7% FROM THE CHANNEL INVERT AT AN ANGLE
PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY DESIGNER. THE ARM SHALL
7. VANE ARM SHALL TIE INTO THE BANK AS SHOWN ON
RECTANGULAR IN NATURE.
NATIVE STONE OR SHOT ROCK, CUBICAL OR
6. FOOTER BOULDERS AND VANE BOULDERS SHALL BE
TIGHTLY.
5. CONTRACTOR WILL BE REQUIRED TO FIT BOULDERS
IN SAND BED MATERIAL.
4. A DOUBLE FOOTER BOULDER SHALL BE UTILIZED
FIT BY THE ENGINEER.
3. DIMENSIONS AND SLOPES MAYBE ADJUSTED TO
FABRIC.
WITH RIP RAP AND LINING WITH FILTER
BY FITTING BOULDERS TOGETHER, PLUGGING
2. GAPS BETWEEN BOULDERS SHALL BE MINIMIZED
1. ALL STONES ARE TO BE STRUCTURE STONE.
NOTES:
FLOW
POOL
TO TOP OF BANK SHALL BE 2-7%
SLOPE OF VANE FROM CENTERLINE
STONE
FOOTER
ELEVATION
STREAMBED
FABRIC
GEOTEXTILE
MIN.
10'
MIXTURE
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP &
BACKFILL WITH
BOULDERS
BOULDERS
MIXTURE
NATIVE CHANNEL
CLASS A RIP RAP &
BACKFILL WITH
SPLASH PAD
3' MIN.
A
A
B
B
FLOW
VAR
GROUND LINE
PROPOSED
GROUND LINE
EXISTING
SECTION A-A
SECTION B-B
PLAN VIEW
GROUND
EXISTING
INVERT (THALWEG)
PROPOSED CHANNEL
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
VARIES
5' MIN
TOP OF BANK
5' MIN
CLASS B RIP RAP
6" MIN
GEOTEXTILE FABRICGEOTEXTILE FABRIC
2D
11-14-19
IN DEPTH.
MINIMUM OF 1 FT
ROCK SHALL BE A
W/ GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NATIVE CHANNEL MATERIAL
NATIVE CHANNEL MATERIAL IS UNAVAILABLE.
CLASS B RIP RAP MAY BE UTILIZED IF
SIMILAR IN SIZE TO CLASS B RIP RAP.
2. NATIVE CHANNEL MATERIAL SHALL BE
PLANS AND/OR ONSITE BY DESIGNER.
PLACED ON-SITE AT AREAS SPECIFIED IN
1. FLOODPLAIN INTERCEPTORS SHALL BE
NOTE:
FPIFPIFPI
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
E
R
R
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$3HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601PIPE CULVERT
EEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
TB
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
FLOODPLAIN BENCH
PROPOSED
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
LOG SILL
CROSSING
PROPOSED FORD SILV
ER
STE
IN
R
OA
D
FPIINTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN *
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALEPLANS MAP
OVERVIEW
CONDITIONS
PROPOSED
11-14-19STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITETRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINABE REMOVED DURING FENCE INSTALLATION.
2. MATURE, EXISTING TREES NOT TO
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
W/ CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP
HELLBENDER HABITAT
W/ BOULDERS AND
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
REMOVAL
SPOIL
HELLBENDER HABITAT
TOEWOOD AND
SOIL LIFT W/
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
HABITAT
W/ HELLBENDER
ROCK CROSS VANE
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND 300150150WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
BARBED WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED 3-STRAND
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
GATE
PROPOSED
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
PROTECTION
PROPOSED FILL

E=822278.0322
N=545678.1038
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT8- E=822726.4083
N=545022.5103
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT4-
E=822599.8982
N=545155.2051
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT3-
E=822623.4194
N=545164.3694
STA 10+25.24
END -UT3-
E=822290.8912
N=545566.3716
STA 11+36.80
END -UT8-
E=822843.5281
N=545040.5113
STA 11+36.08
END -UT4-
E=823205.2313
N=544519.3635
STA 10+27.56
END -UT6-NC HWY 281BLUE RIDGE ROADE=1163787.2273
N=776921.5322
STA 10+00.00
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
BEGIN RESTORATION
E=823482.5394
N=545357.2890
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT5-
E=822845.4716
N=545055.9506
STA 18+99.09
END -UT5-
E=822447.9769
N=544648.6226
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT4A-
E=822506.8867
N=544671.2994
STA 10+71.56
END -UT4A-
E=823391.3103
N=544501.0886
STA 29+86.17
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
END PROPOSED RESTORATION
E=823938.6303
N=544835.2432
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT7-
E=823954.5358
N=544556.9968
STA 14+17.41
END -UT7-
E=824009.0378
N=544488.7701
STA 36+91.02
FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END ENHANCEMENT II WESTE=823141.4783
N=544508.0166
STA 9+59.71
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT6-
LEGEND
0GRAPHIC SCALEPLANS $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$150300150TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITESILV
E
R
STEIN
R
OA
D
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601 DATE:
3A
SHEET
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
FENCE & BEGIN
BARBED WIRE
END 3-STRAND
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
E
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
(2) 12' GATES
GATE
12'
GATE
12'
GATE
PROPOSED
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
BARBED WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED 3-STRAND
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
EASEMENT.
BE CONSTRUCTED ALONG CONSERVATION
3. PROPOSED WOVEN WIRE FENCE WILL
BE REMOVED DURING FENCE INSTALLATION.
2. MATURE, EXISTING TREES NOT TO
BE REMOVED BY HAND.
1. FENCING WITHIN WOODED AREAS WILL
NOTES:
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
GATES
(2) 12'
GATE
16'
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
FENCE
STRAND BARBED WIRE
WIRE FENCE & BEGIN 3-
END PROPOSED WOVENGATE
16'
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
FENCE
STRAND BARBED WIRE
WIRE FENCE & BEGIN 3-
END PROPOSED WOVEN
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
FENCE & BEGIN PROPOSED
END 3-STRAND BARBED WIRE
BARBED WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED 3-STRAND
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING FENCE
FENCE
STRAND BARBED WIRE
WIRE FENCE & BEGIN 3-
END PROPOSED WOVEN
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
LAYOUT
FENCE
PROPOSED
PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 24
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2E
11-14-19 NC HWY 281BLUE RIDGE ROAD-UT5-
FRENCH BROAD RIVERWEST FORK
-UT2A--UT2B--UT2--UT1--UT4A--UT4B--UT4--UT4--UT3-
-UT4-
-UT6-
-UT7-
-UT8-
LEGEND
BEDROCK BEDROCK
BEDROCK
BE
D
R
O
C
K
10+00
10+0015+00
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
2680
2690
2700 1240
1230
1220Dir
e
cti
o
nFl
o
wHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601DirectionFlow
FRENCH BROAD RI
VERWEST FORK-UT8-
E=1163787.2273
N=776921.5322
STA 10+00.00
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION
E=822278.0322
N=545678.1038
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT8-
+50
E
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED LOG SILL
10+26.85
STA
10+47.76STA
E=822290.8912
N=545566.3716
STA 11+36.80
END -UT8-
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
TB
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
PIPE CULVERT
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 504
11-14-19STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITETRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA-UT8- STA 10+00 - STA 11+36.80WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD STA 10+00 - STA 16+50STRUCTURE LOCATIONSPROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
MATERIAL FROM
REMOVE SPOIL
THALWEG
PROPOSED
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
HABITAT (TYP)
HELLBENDER
PROPOSED
SEE SHEET 7
FOR -UT8- PROFILE
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
THALWEG
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
15+71.32STA13+40.48STAMATCHLINE SEE SHEET 11HELLBENDER HABITAT
W/ BOULDERS AND
ROCK CROSS VANE
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
HELLBENDER HABITAT
TOEWOOD AND
SOIL LIFT W/
REMOVAL
SPOIL
SEE SHEET 5MATCHLINE STA 16+50
LEGEND
PROFILE
PLAN &
WOVEN WIRE FENCE
FENCE & BEGIN PROPOSED
END 3-STRAND BARBED WIRE
CLASS "1" RIP RAP
PROTECTION
PROPOSED FILL
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
PROTECTION
PROPOSED FILL
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED -UT8-STA 10+00.00
BEGIN MAIN
BK ELEV = 2697.31
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT8- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2,696.442
2,695.754
2,694.684
LOG STEP STRUCTURE 10+17.37 545,660.7351 822,278.2477
10+42.05 545,638.5267 822,268.9110
10+59.19 545,624.9135 822,258.4966
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
2,694.367ROCK CROSS VANE 10+36.05 545,528.3649 822,189.5203
FPIFPI
BEDROCK
BEDROCKBEDROCK10+0010+00 20+00DATE:
SHEETGRAPHIC SCALEPLANS 52680
2690
2700 2700
2690
2680
Direction
Flow HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601DirectionFlowDirectionFlowDirectionFlowFRENCH BROAD RIVERWEST FORK-UT5--UT4--UT3-17 18 19 20 21 22 23+50
E
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
E=822843.5281
N=545040.5113
STA 11+36.08
END -UT4-
TB
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
PIPE CULVERT
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
FPI
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50PROFILE
PLAN &
11-14-19STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITETRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA-UT5- 17+50 - 18+99.09-UT4- STA 10+00 - 11+36.08-UT3- STA 10+00 - 10+25.24WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD STA 16+50 - STA 22+80S
EE
S
HEET
6MATCHLINE
S
TA
2
2
+
8
0
MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 9
MATCHLINE STA 16+50 SEE SHEET 4
MATCHLINE STA 17+50 SEE SHEET 11
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
E=822720.6396
N=545014.3419
STA 9+90.00
BEGIN -UT4-
E=822623.4194
N=545164.3694
STA 10+25.23
END -UT3-
E=822584.4048
N=545145.9992
STA 9+80.00
BEGIN -UT3-
E=822845.4716
N=545055.9506
STA 18+99.09
END -UT5-LEGEND
POSSIBLE (TYP)
PROTECTION & RE-USE IF
REMOVE EXISTING BOULDER
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
10" FIBERGLASS PIPE
REMOVE EXISTING
THALWEG
PROPOSED
W/ 36" CMP
CROSSING NO. 1
PROPOSED STREAMCONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
HELLBENDER HABITAT
TOEWOOD AND
SOIL LIFT W/
HELLBENDER HABITAT
W/ BOULDERS AND
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
18+00.15STA
SEE SHEET 11
FOR -UT5- PROFILE
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
16' GATE
16' GATE
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
CONVERGENCE
PROPOSED -UT3-
CONVERGENCE
PROPOSED -UT4-
CONVERGENCE
PROPOSED -UT5-
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
2,691.666
2,690.827
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
17+04.67 545,229.3873 822,605.2371
19+16.58 545,155.6222 822,756.6809
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT5- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
18+39.79 545,098.4260 822,886.8528
18+51.62 545,089.9525 822,878.5976
18+63.46 545,081.4719 822,870.3354
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2692.560
2691.997
2691.284
EEENORTHINGEASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT3- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE 2691.809+92.96 545,152.2895 822,593.5046
BEDROCK
BEDROCK BEDROCKBEDROCK10+0030+0025+00DATE:
SHEETGRAPHIC SCALEPLANS 2680
2690
11-14-19
2700
2690
2680
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAD
i
recti
onFl
ow
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601DirectionFlowFRENCH BROAD RIVERWEST FORK
23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30DirectionFlowDi
r
e
c
t
i
onFl
ow626+86.27STAEEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTINGCROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
CROSSING
PROPOSED FORD
TB
HABITAT
HELLBENDER
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
PIPE CULVERT
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
POWER POLE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING *
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED HELLBENDER HABITAT
TOEWOOD AND
SOIL LIFT W/
HABITAT
AND HELLBENDER
W/ CLASS B RIP RAP
ROCK CROSS VANE
W/ CLASS B RIP RAP
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
BEGIN ENHANCEMENT II
FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END RESTORATION WEST
E=823391.3103
N=544501.0886
STA 29+86.17
E=823141.4783
N=544508.0166
STA 9+59.71
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT6-
E=823205.2313
N=544519.3635
STA 10+27.56
END -UT6-
POSSIBLE (TYP)
PROTECTION & RE-USE IF
REMOVE EXISTING BOULDER
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
FORD CROSSING
PROPOSED
POSSIBLE (TYP)
PROTECTION & RE-USE IF
REMOVE EXISTING BOULDER
HABITAT (TYP)
HELLBENDER
PROPOSED
THALWEG
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
-UT
6--UT6B--UT6A-23+01.78STAS
E
E
S
HE
E
T 7MATCHLINE S
T
A 30
+25
S
E
E
S
HE
E
T

5MAT
C
HLI
NE
S
T
A
2
2
+
8
0
PROFILE
PLAN &STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE-UT6- STA 9+59.71 - 10+27.56WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD STA 23+00 - STA 30+25GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
GA
TE
S2 -
12'
GA
TE
S
2
-
12'
BK ELEV = 2690.08
STA 29+86.17
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END WEST FORK
CONVERGENCE
PROPOSED -UT6-
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
E
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
WEST FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
2,687.423ROCK CROSS VANE 29+55.00 544,499.1088 823,360.2023
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT6- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE 2689.00
2688.00
9+71.60 544,513.0471 823,152.0898
9+97.15 544,509.6618 823,176.9527ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
BEDROCK
BEDROCK BEDROCK BEDROCKBEDROCKBEDROCK35+00DATE:
SHEET
11-14-19
PROFILE
PLAN &TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINADirection
Flow HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601Directio
n
Flo
w
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK
7
2690
2700
10 11
2700
2690
EEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITETB
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
PIPE CULVERT
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R RREHABILITATION
WETLAND
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50-UT7- STA 12+00 - 14+17.41EXISTING WEST FORK FRENCH BROADSEE SHEET 4
FOR -UT8- PLAN VIEW
-UT8-
LEFT BANK GRADING/STABILIZATION.
MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE ALONG
2. PRESERVE EXISTING TREES TO THE
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:SEE SHEET 6MATCHLINE STA 30+2511+87.47
STA
12+91.04STAE=823954.5358
N=544556.9968
STA 14+17.41
END -UT7-
E=824009.0378
N=544488.7701
STA 36+91.02
FORK FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END ENHANCEMENT II WEST
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
THALWEG
PROPOSED
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
NC HWY 281BLUE RIDGE ROAD-UT7-CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
HELLBENDER HABITAT
TOEWOOD AND
SOIL LIFT W/
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
MATCHLI
NE STA 12+00 SEE SHEET 12PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
KISSING GATE
PROPOSED
LEGEND
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 8
BK ELEV = 2697.90
BK ELEV = 2694.90
STA 11+36.80
END UT 8
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT7- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2,690.142
2,689.147
2,688.185
2,687.310
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2,686.451ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
12+31.91 544,686.2764 823,862.4166
12+99.90 544,642.9599 823,887.4965
13+42.26 544,608.8059 823,906.5238
13+63.77 544,592.2215 823,918.9225
13+74.75 544,586.2349 823,928.1269
E
E
E
E E
E
E
E
E
E
E
DATE:
SHEET0GRAPHIC SCALEPLANS HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601PROFILE
PLAN &
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA10050508 -UT2B-, -UT4A-, -UT4B--UT1-, -UT2-, -UT2A--W1-
11-14-19
PIPE CULVERT
EEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
TB
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
WETLANDS
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$ STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEPOWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
LEGEND
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
-UT2A--UT2B--
UT2-
-UT4A--UT4B--W7--UT1--W9-
W/ 24" CMP
CROSSING NO. 4
PROPOSED STREAM
MATCHLINE SEE SHEE
T
9
GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
STRAND BARBED
PROPOSED 3-
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
TO BE RETAINED
EXISTING FENCE
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
TO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
15" CMP
REMOVE EXISTING
W/ 24" CMP
CROSSING NO. 2
PROPOSED STREAM
GATE
16'GATE
16'
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
W/ 24" CMP
CROSSING NO. 3
PROPOSED STREAM
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
BARBED WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED 3-STRAND
FENCE
STRAND BARBED WIRE
WIRE FENCE & BEGIN 3-
END PROPOSED WOVEN
GATE
16'
GATE
16'
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
BEDROCK10+00
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT4A- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2,726.802
2,726.032
2,725.262
2,724.492
2,723.722
2,722.952
2,722.182
2,721.412
2,720.642
2,719.872
2,719.102
S39 544,648.6226 822,447.9769
S40 544,654.7890 822,454.4022
S41 544,657.8907 822,458.2257
S42 544,657.8907 822,458.2257
S43 544,661.1984 822,461.9720
S44 544,664.4912 822,465.7251
S45 544,667.9509 822,469.2207
S46 544,669.1063 822,474.0854
S47 544,670.0685 822,478.9472
S48 544,668.7703 822,483.7757
S49 544,670.5022 822,488.3393
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE 2,718.332
2,717.562
2,716.792
2,716.022
S52 544,672.5841 822,492.8852
S53 544,675.3705 822,497.0287
S54 544,675.3770 822,501.8009
S55 544,672.1243 822,505.5623
E
DATE:
SHEET
11-14-19
PROFILE
PLAN &
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601D
irec
tion
F
low
-U
T
4-MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 59MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 8-UT4-
-UT4
A-
DirectionFlowDir
ecti
onFl
owSTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE-UT4A- STA 10+00.00 - 10+71.56-UT3-, -UT4- &-W2-
-W7-
-W6-
EEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
BANKFULL
PROPOSEDLEGEND
THALWEG
PROPOSED
E=822506.8867
N=544671.2994
STA 10+71.56
END -UT4A-
E=822447.9769
N=544648.6226
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT4A-
TB
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
PIPE CULVERT
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
POWER LINE
OVERHEAD
EXISTING
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
10
2720
2730
11
-UT4A-
2720
2730
27102710
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
BK ELEV = 2727.80
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 4A OF BANK
EXISTING TOP
STA 10+71.00
END UT 4A
BK ELEV = 2716.31
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
BEDROCK10+0015+00THALWEG
PROPOSED
Di
r
ecti
onFl
ow
DATE:
SHEET
2710
11-14-19
2710
2700 PROFILE
PLAN &
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 2760110 11 12 13 14-U
T
5-CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
-UT5- 10+00 - 14+60+60
8" PVC
EXISTING
REMOVE
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITE12+31.62STA11+14.90STACLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
LEGEND
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
TB
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
PIPE CULVERT
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
E=823482.5394
N=545357.2890
STA 10+00.00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT5-
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:
E
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
SE
E SHE
E
T
11
MATCHLINE STA 14+60
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
DATE:
SHEET
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 5010
2700
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
GATE
PROPOSED
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
SIL
VERSTEI
N R
O
A
D
GATE
12'
GATE
12'
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 5
BK ELEV = 2713.53
TO BE REMOVED
EARTHEN DAM
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT5- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
10+04.07 545,357.2890 823,482.5394
10+27.95 545,360.4432 823,454.9042
10+41.15 545,358.1027 823,441.9782
10+61.44 545,353.0095 823,422.3379
10+78.78 545,354.8112 823,405.3599
10+97.53 545,359.8839 823,387.3092
11+09.39 545,360.5044 823,375.5230
11+25.93 545,360.0437 823,358.9894
11+58.80 545,348.6434 823,328.3165
11+92.40 545,359.3899 823,299.2208
12+17.65 545,377.4923 823,281.6178
12+50.60 545,378.4213 823,251.6068
12+65.62 545,370.8119 823,238.6570
12+80.64 545,363.2025 823,225.7072
13+06.54 545,364.0298 823,200.8902
13+29.53 545,371.6430 823,179.1974
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2712.748
2712.297
2711.734
2710.987
2710.239
2709.495
2708.783
2708.095
2707.193
2706.408
2705.714
2705.029
2704.449
2703.829
2703.206
2702.583
FPI15+00THALWEG
PROPOSEDDirectionFlow
SHEET
2690
2700
11-14-19
2700
2690 PROFILE
PLAN &
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 2760115 16 17 18
-UT5-MATCHLI
NE SEE SHEET 4CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
11
19+60
STA 16+98.05
STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEE
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
LEGEND
TB
PIPE CULVERT
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:SEE SHEET 10M
ATCHLI
NE STA 14+60
MATCHLINE
STA
17+50
SEE
SHEET
5
-UT5- 14+60 - 17+50CHANNEL
EXISTING
FILL IN
FPIINTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
BANKFULL CHANNEL
PROPOSED HALF
TOEWOOD
SOIL LIFT W/
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
DATE:
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
FENCE
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
POWER POLE
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL PLUG
IMPERVIOUS
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
STA 18+99.09
END UT 5
BK ELEV = 2691.23
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
GRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULLALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUND
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT5- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
17+19.22 545,187.7778 822,943.6222ROCK STEP STRUCTURE 2693.955
RR
FPI
10+00 35+00DATE:
SHEET
2680
2690
2700
11-14-19
2700
2690
2680
PROPOSED ALIGNMENT AND STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINAHDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601DirectionFlow
10 11 12 13 14
-UT7A--UT7A-, -UT7B--UT7- STA 10+00 - 12+00E=823938.6303
N=544835.2432
STA 10+00
CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN -UT7-
E
EASEMENT
CONSERVATION
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
CLASS B RIP RAP
STRUCTURE W/
ROCK STEP
LOG SILL
CROSS-SECTIONS
SELECTED
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
BOULDER TOE
EXISTING
WETLANDS
EXISTING
BEDROCK
EXISTING
POWER POLE
EXISTING
TB
TOP OF BANK
EXISTING
GUARDRAIL
EXISTING
FENCE
EXISTING
PIPE CULVERT
BODY OF WATER
STREAM OR
POWER LINE
EXISTING OVERHEAD
FPI
*
*
*
*
**
*
**
*
*
E E
R R
OF $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$0GRAPHIC SCALE2525PLANS 50STREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEPROFILE
PLAN &
12
NOTED.
SHALL BE REMOVED UNLESS OTHERWISE
INSIDE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
1. ALL EXISTING FENCE LOCATED
NOTE:10+59.67STA1
1
+8
7
.
4
7STA
11+25.88STA-UT7-
-UT7B-SEE SHEET 7MATCHLINE STA 12+00THALWEG
PROPOSED
CHANNEL
FILL IN EXISTING
BANKFULL
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
SI
L
VE
R
S
T
E
I
N
R
OADNC HWY 281
BLUE RIDGE ROAD
LEGEND
RE-ESTABLISHMENT
WETLAND
BENCH
FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED
CONSTRUCTION
LIMITS OF
INTERCEPTOR
FLOODPLAIN
ENHANCEMENT
WETLAND
REHABILITATION
WETLAND
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVEN
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING FENCE
FOR PLANTING PLAN SHEET SEE SHEET 13
FOR PLANS & PROFILES SEE SHEETS 4 THRU 12
FOR PROPOSED FENCE LAYOUT MAP SEE SHEET 3A
FOR PROJECT OVERVIEW MAP SEE SHEET 3
FOR STREAM DETAILS SEE SHEETS 2 THRU 2H
WIRE FENCE
PROPOSED WOVENTO EXISTING FENCE
TIE PROPOSED FENCE
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN UT 7
STA 14+17.41
END UT 7
BK ELEV = 2695.10
BK ELEV = 2686.29
ALONG THALWEG
EXISTING GROUNDGRADELINE
PROPOSED BANKFULL
THALWEG INVERT
PROPOSED
NORTHING EASTINGSTR. TYPE ELEV (FT)STATION
-UT7- STRUCTURE LOCATIONS
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
ROCK STEP STRUCTURE
2,694.068
2,693.263
2,692.298
2,691.281
LOG STEP STRUCTURE 10+19.97 544,836.2700 823,918.6867
10+66.60 544,803.4691 823,893.9175
11+01.71 544,782.1890 823,869.0510
11+65.50 544,736.3655 823,878.6687 EEEEEEE
0GRAPHIC SCALEPLANS $$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$100200100TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINASTREAM & WETLAND RESTORATION PROJECTOWEN FARMS MITIGATION SITEEEASEMENT
CONSERVATION
WETLANDS
EXISTINGSILVERSTEIN
R
OA
D
HDR Engineering, Inc. of the CarolinasN.C.B.E.L.S. License Number: F-0116555 Fayetteville St, Suite 900 Raleigh, N.C. 27601SHEET
07-22-19 DATE:
PLAN
PLANTING
7,813 LF
ASSEMBLAGE
STREAMSIDE
PLANTING PLAN
1.99 AC
BOG COMPLEX
SWAMP FOREST/
5.06 AC
ALLUVIAL FOREST
MONTANE
7.21 AC
BOTTOMLAND HARDWOOD
PIEDMONT/MOUNTAIN
13
NC HWY 281BLUE RIDGE ROADSTA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT5-
UTILITY
ELECTRICAL
EXISTING
UTILITY
ELECTRICAL
EXISTING
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT8-
STA 10+00.00
BROAD RIVER
WEST FORK FRENCH
BEGIN RESTORATION
STA 11+36.80
END -UT8-
STA 10+25.24
END -UT3-
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT6-
STA 10+71.56
END -UT4A-
STA 11+36.08
END -UT4-
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT4A-
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT4-
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT3-
STA 19+76.57
END -UT5-
STA 10+00.00
BEGIN -UT7-
STA 29+86.17
FRENCH BROAD RIVER
END WEST FORK
STA 10+27.56
END -UT6-
STA 14+17.41
END -UT7-
LEGEND
00
00
55
55
1010
1010
1515
1515
2020
2020
2525
2525
3030
3030
3535
3535
4040
4040
4545
4545
5050
5050
5555
5555
6060
6060
6565
6565
7070
7070
7575
7575
8080
8080
8585
8585
9090
9090
9595
9595
100100
100100
105105
105105
110110
110110
115115
115115
120120
120120
125125
125125
130130
130130
135135
135135
140140
140140
145145
145145
150150
150150
155155
155155
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$8/23/99PROJ. REFERENCE NO.SHEET NO.0
2695 2695
2700 2700
2690 2690
13+40.48
2695 2695
2700 2700
2690 2690
15+71.32
2690 2690
2695 2695
2700 2700
2685 2685
23+01.78
2690 2690
2695 2695
2685 2685
26+86.27
X-1-WFFB-
-WFFB-
2.5 5
00
00
55
55
1010
1010
1515
1515
2020
2020
2525
2525
3030
3030
3535
3535
4040
4040
4545
4545
5050
5050
5555
5555
6060
6060
6565
6565
7070
7070
7575
7575
8080
8080
8585
8585
9090
9090
9595
9595
100100
100100
105105
105105
110110
110110
115115
115115
120120
120120
125125
125125
130130
130130
135135
135135
140140
140140
145145
145145
150150
150150
155155
155155
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$8/23/99PROJ. REFERENCE NO.SHEET NO.0
2710 2710
2715 2715
2720 2720
2725 2725
2730 2730
2735 2735
2705 2705
11+14.90
2705 2705
2710 2710
2715 2715
2700 2700
12+31.62
2695 2695
2700 2700
2690 2690
16+98.05
2695 2695
2700 2700
2690 2690
X-2-WFFB-
-UT5-
2.5 5
18+00.15
00
00
55
55
1010
1010
1515
1515
2020
2020
2525
2525
3030
3030
3535
3535
4040
4040
4545
4545
5050
5050
5555
5555
6060
6060
6565
6565
7070
7070
7575
7575
8080
8080
8585
8585
9090
9090
9595
9595
100100
100100
105105
105105
110110
110110
115115
115115
120120
120120
125125
125125
130130
130130
135135
135135
140140
140140
145145
145145
150150
150150
155155
155155
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$8/23/99PROJ. REFERENCE NO.SHEET NO.0
2695 2695
2700 2700
2690 2690
10+59.67
2690 2690
2695 2695
2700 2700
2685 2685
11+25.88
2690 2690
2695 2695
2700 2700
2685 2685
11+87.47
2690 2690
2695 2695
2685 2685
12+91.04
X-3-WFFB-
-UT7-
2.5 5
00
00
55
55
1010
1010
1515
1515
2020
2020
2525
2525
3030
3030
3535
3535
4040
4040
4545
4545
5050
5050
5555
5555
6060
6060
6565
6565
7070
7070
7575
7575
8080
8080
8585
8585
9090
9090
9595
9595
100100
100100
105105
105105
110110
110110
115115
115115
120120
120120
125125
125125
130130
130130
135135
135135
140140
140140
145145
145145
150150
150150
155155
155155
$$$$$$SYSTIME$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DGN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$USERNAME$$$$8/23/99PROJ. REFERENCE NO.SHEET NO.0
2695 2695
2700 2700
2705 2705
2710 2710
2715 2715
2690 2690
10+26.85
2695 2695
2700 2700
2705 2705
2710 2710
2715 2715
2690 2690
10+47.76
X-4-WFFB-
-UT8-
2.5 5
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix H – Data and Supplementary Information

Meeting Minutes
Project: Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site (DMS # 100064)
Subject: IRT Post Contract Site Visit
Date: Wednesday, August 01, 2018
Location: On-Site, Transylvania County
Attendees: Ryan Smith (HDR) Ben Furr (HDR)
Paul Wiesner (DMS) Matthew Reid (DMS)
Mac Haupt (DWR) Periann Russell (DMS)
David Brown (USACE) Steve Kichefski (USACE)
Todd Tugwell (USACE)
The IRT Post Contract Meeting for the Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site was held at
8:30am on Wednesday, August 1, 2018 at the project site in Transylvania County. The following
represents highlights of discussions that occurred during the site visit:
1. Ben Furr gave a synopsis of the project site:
a. Site consists of the West Fork French Broad River and multiple spring fed tributaries,
and associated wetlands. HDR conducted a delineation of streams and wetlands on
June 5th and 6th, 2018 and provided the IRT with updated figures depicting existing and
proposed conditions (see attached figures).
b. Cattle have access to the majority of streams and wetlands on-site. The property owner
reduced the number of cattle on the property following notification that DMS had
selected the Site.
c. Wetland restoration/rehabilitation is proposed for W3 and W5. Stream restoration is
proposed for West Fork French Broad River, UT 5, and UT 7. The remainder of streams
and wetlands on-site are proposed for enhancement or preservation.
Site Walk
2. The IRT asked what the restoration plan for UT 5 through the pond would be. The IRT noted
that they had concerns with previous stream restoration sites that had not adequately removed
pond dams and re-established a restored channel. HDR noted that the current intent of the
mitigation plan will be to remove the pond dam that is currently impeding flow of UT 5. If a
significant sediment wedge is discovered behind the dam then it would be removed. HDR
intends to restore a new channel through the pond bed. The IRT agreed that this was the
preferred method of restoration.
3. A discussion was held regarding the restoration of UT 5 through existing wetlands and if that
would be acceptable to the IRT. The general consensus was that if restoring UT 5 through
existing wetlands increases overall function of the wetlands and allows for wetland restoration
within the existing channel of UT 5, then the overall concept is acceptable. Generally, it was
understood that proposing the restoration of UT 5 through W3 would afford W3 greater access
to floodwaters associated with UT 5 and that the existing alignment of UT 5 (i.e. the ditched
section) would probably revert to a wetland based on landscape position and soils. A discussion
of how to show impacts in the permit was discussed. The IRT indicated that anticipated wetland
impacts would need to be identified in the permit application.
4. The IRT consensus was that a combination of rehabilitation and restoration seemed to be
appropriate for W3. No credit will be allowed for the area of W3 (or stream credits on the site)
within the existing power easement. The IRT mentioned that it may be possible to expand the
rehabilitation/restoration of W3 along the southwest boundary of the wetland. HDR has
already installed groundwater monitoring gauges in W3 and will coordinate with David Brown
(USACE) during the JD site visit to confirm potential wetland rehabilitation/restoration
boundaries.
5. The IRT asked what the proposed hydroperiod of W3 would be and made reference to the 2016
IRT guidance. HDR indicated that this has not been set to date but would be indicated within
the mitigation plan.
6. David Brown requested that tributaries with headwaters originating outside of the easement
boundary be shown extending outside of easement boundary on JD mapping.
7. UT 2 was viewed in several places as it flowed through W1 to confirm that a jurisdictional
stream channel was present throughout the wetland system. The IRT consensus was that a
stream channel with an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHW) was evident through W1 within the
easement. Cattle access and sedimentation associated with runoff from adjacent pasture was
also observed within UT 2/W1. HDR explained that beaver dams were present along UT 2
further downstream, which is affecting the UT 2/W1 system within the easement. The IRT
agreed that leaving the beaver dams in place and fencing out cattle would be the best approach
for this system.
8. Cattle appeared to be accessing UT 2a often, as hoof shear was evident in channel and overbank
areas. A discussion was held at UT 2a regarding the significant impact cattle were having on the
stream.
9. A discussion took place at UT 1 regarding the acceptable ratio for enhancement along UT 1 given
that woody vegetation was already established along both sides of the channel. Todd Tugwell
mentioned that the type of enhancement proposed for UT 1 may not warrant a 2.5:1 ratio. The
benefits of excluding cattle from the system would include reduction in direct fecal and nutrient
inputs as well as a reduction in sediment associated with runoff from the adjacent pasture. The
benefits of the existing woody vegetation include steam bank stability, shading, habitat, and
forage for aquatic invertebrates. There was discussion regarding studies that have shown
significant water quality improvements to streams systems through removal of cattle. A
discussion was held to suggest that collecting water quality samples in the existing condition of
the stream system could be completed to assist in showing levels of fecal coliform and nutrients.
Also, modeling could be completed to assist in determining what historic rates of fecal and
nutrients are which could assist in determining credit ratios. HDR will propose a ratio for UT 1
and other tributaries that is commensurate with the level of functional uplift provided by the
proposed enhancement measures. Justification for the proposed enhancement ratio will be
included in the Mitigation Plan. HDR will likely propose an average ratio for each tributary as
opposed to splitting out sections that may warrant a lower ratio from areas that may warrant a
higher ratio. This approach seemed to be preferred by the IRT.
10. UT 4 was viewed between the road crossings and cattle access was evident in several locations.
Cattle activity along UT 4 is similar to UT 2a. UT 4a, UT 4b, and W7 were not viewed during the
site visit but cattle routinely access these areas and the systems are degraded from reference
condition.
11. UT 6, UT 6a, and W4 were not viewed during the site walk. Photo documentation and
explanation of the existing condition of these systems will be provided in the Mitigation Plan.
12. A discussion took place regarding the method of restoration for West Fork French Broad River.
The consensus appears to be that the River displays significant degradation throughout the site,
with the exception of the right bank of the River in the downstream most portions. The IRT
asked HDR what the restoration plan for the River would be. In response HDR noted that the
restoration plan has not been started to date, however we would anticipate off-line restoration
of the River in some places (i.e. new pattern) where it is needed/required based on constraints,
but also using the existing pattern/location of the River as much as possible. The IRT consensus
was to maximize use of the existing channel when possible. The IRT agreed that a 1:1 ratio
would still be warranted given the level of functional uplift that would result from restoration of
West Fork French Broad River along the existing alignment.
13. HDR explained that the level of work required to stabilize portions of the West Fork French
Broad River through the enhancement section may warrant Enhancement I credit. Todd
Tugwell suggested analyzing the amount of work required to repair the left bank of West Fork
French Broad River through the enhancement section and, if warranted, propose justification in
the Mitigation Plan for using a blended Enhancement I/Enhancement II ratio (i.e. 2:1) for that
entire section.
14. The IRT consensus was that all preservation on-site would likely be credited at a 10:1 ratio.

UT 1
UT 2A
UT 2B
UT 2
UT 4A
UT 4B
UT 4
UT 3 UT 5
UT 7A
UT 7B
UT 7
W5
W3
UT 6A
UT 6
West Fork French
Broad River
W2
W1
W4
¬«281
¬«281
SilversteinRd
Silverstein
R
d
W9
W6
W6A
W5A
W5B
W8
W7
0 400200 Feet
O
Parcel Boundary
Proposed Easement
Existing Streams
Existing Wetland
Relic Wetland
Existing Culvert Crossings
Existing Ford Crossings
Pond to be removed
Existing Fence
CURRENT CONDITIONS MAP- REVISION (07-06-2018)OWEN FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
FIGURE 6
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
W
e
s
t

F
o
r
k

F
r
e
n
c
h

B
r
o
a
d
SilversteinRd
¬«281
¬«281
SilversteinRd
Silverstein
R
d
W7
W5B
W5A
W3
W2
W4
W1
W5
W9
W6
W6A
UT 2a UT 7b
W
e
s
t

F
o
r
k

F
r
e
n
c
h

B
r
o
a
d
UT 4aUT7aUT 5
UT 7UT 2bUT 3UT 6UT 4bU
T

6
aUT 1UT
2
UT 40 400200 Feet
O
LEGEND
Proposed Easement
Parcel Boundary
20' Proposed Culvert Crossings
50' Proposed Ford Crossings
Potential Buffer Restoration
Pond to be removed
40' Powerline ROW
Proposed Streams
Restoration
Enhancement II
Preservation
Proposed Wetlands
Re-establishement
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
No Credit
PROPOSED MITIGATION FEATURES MAP- OPTION 1- REVISION (07-06-2018)OWEN FARMS STREAM & WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
FIGURE 7A
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCCGIAEXISTING AND PROPOSED 2-YEAR STORM INUNDATION BOUNDARY MAP
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
(DISCLAIMER)
LEGEND
Stream
Existing 2 Year Inundation Boundary
Proposed 2 Year Inundation Boundary
Property Boundary
O
0 400Feet
NCCGIAEXISTING AND PROPOSED BANKFULL INUNDATION BOUNDARY MAP
TRANSYLVANIA COUNTY, NC
OWEN FARMS STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION SITE
(DISCLAIMER)
LEGEND
Stream
Existing Bankfull Inundation Boundary
Proposed Bankfull Inundation Boundary
Property Boundary
O
0 400Feet
WETS Table

WETS Station: LAKE
TOXAWAY 2 SW, NC
Requested years: 1981 -
2017
Month Avg Max
Temp
Avg Min
Temp
Avg
Mean
Temp
Avg
Precip
30%
chance
precip less
than
30%
chance
precip
more than
Avg number
days precip
0.10 or more
Avg
Snowfall
Jan 46.4 25.5 36.0 7.04 4.74 8.42 8 4.7
Feb 49.8 27.5 38.7 6.75 4.78 7.99 7 3.0
Mar 57.8 33.5 45.6 7.60 5.21 9.07 8 1.8
Apr 67.8 41.2 54.5 7.01 4.80 8.36 8 0.5
May 73.2 49.9 61.6 6.39 4.39 7.61 8 0.0
Jun 76.7 57.8 67.3 7.37 4.51 8.93 10 0.0
Jul 78.1 61.3 69.7 9.38 6.12 11.28 12 0.0
Aug 77.7 60.6 69.1 7.55 4.71 9.12 10 0.0
Sep 72.9 54.7 63.8 8.32 4.03 10.16 8 0.0
Oct 64.4 43.8 54.1 6.06 2.95 7.41 6 0.0
Nov 56.6 34.5 45.5 8.34 5.68 9.96 7 0.2
Dec 49.2 29.0 39.1 8.42 5.58 10.09 8 1.9
Annual:78.08 97.35
Average 64.2 43.3 53.7 -----
Total --- 90.23 99 12.1

GROWING SEASON DATES
Years with missing data: 24 deg =
17
28 deg =
17
32 deg =
17
Years with no occurrence: 24 deg =
0
28 deg =
0
32 deg =
0
Data years used: 24 deg =
20
28 deg =
20
32 deg =
20
Probability 24 F or
higher
28 F or
higher
32 F or
higher
50 percent *3/21 to
11/17:
241 days
4/7 to
10/30:
206 days
4/22 to
10/20:
181 days
70 percent *3/15 to
11/24:
254 days
4/2 to
11/4:
216 days
4/18 to
10/24:
189 days
* Percent chance of the
growing season occurring
between the Beginning and
Ending dates.

STATS TABLE - total
precipitation (inches)
Yr Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annl
1950        M1.87           1.87
1951                  
1952 6.21 6.30 18.50 6.46 4.72 6.00 M0.00 16.28 2.27 1.25 9.15 5.85 82.
99
1953 10.92 12.58 9.21 2.22 7.62 10.76 7.16 4.12 11.
89
0.68 6.03 11.
06
94.
25
1954 11.69 5.75 8.40 6.76 3.01 M2.54 2.79 2.36 M0.
03
1.79 5.68 11.
15
61.
95
1955 2.27 9.52 5.64 10.25 13.65 4.74 9.92 5.47 1.24 3.30 2.54 1.50 70.
04
1956 2.07 13.68 4.91 5.89 4.45 2.97 8.77 2.99 7.20 6.05 3.59 5.85 68.
42
1957 7.72 10.83 4.98 12.37 5.22 11.49 1.17 3.37 13.
40
11.
99
    82.
54
1958     M3.61 4.98 4.26 14.12 6.73 2.18 2.91 3.78 2.89 45.
46

1959 5.98    6.71 12.90 3.32      13.
06
    41.
97
1960          10.41 8.12 6.09 2.27 2.88 29.
77
1961 4.70 12.38 6.71 7.64 4.51 11.63 5.04 18.62 2.75 3.11 10.
36
14.
55
102.
00
1962 9.75 6.88 7.05 10.31 3.38 11.64 3.32 6.95 7.35 10.
23
5.52 3.87 86.
25
1963 4.19 2.93 11.49 7.08 4.83 6.03 9.16 3.11 5.26 0.04 11.
42
3.32 68.
86
1964 10.77 6.86 12.50 14.44 2.53 4.49 11.83 12.65 14.
77
14.
28
5.47 10.
24
120.
83
1965 4.51 10.76 7.90 5.15 4.67 9.99 6.05 8.04 5.05 13.
32
3.62 1.19 80.
25
1966 5.67 15.72 4.68 10.38 5.71 2.81 3.02 7.88 9.29 7.96 8.02 5.69 86.
83
1967 5.76 3.50 6.36 3.16 4.71 13.00 11.18 12.45 6.22 7.10 5.14 13.
58
92.
16
1968 5.04 1.11 9.34 5.78 5.72 4.95 3.83 5.26 9.18 8.12 5.65 6.84 70.
82
1969 7.57 7.31 5.21 9.61 8.25 14.75 3.61 21.61 9.87 5.70 12.
40
9.21 115.
10
1970 3.43 3.28 7.08 5.33 3.18 7.53 7.31 14.16 5.32 20.
28
4.46 3.80 85.
16
1971 5.86 8.80 6.72 2.91 6.70 4.95 11.21 8.34 8.72 8.30 8.09 11.
58
92.
18
1972 8.24   5.97 2.50 16.77 7.71 3.78 2.33 4.53 7.49 9.92   69.
24
1973 9.21   16.83 9.43 13.63 6.04 6.87 4.95 5.28 2.16 10.
72
15.
57
100.
69
1974 9.85 7.94 4.15 9.20 14.16 7.54 9.79 12.88 5.44 2.59 3.84 6.76 94.
14
1975 7.19 11.70 13.90 1.38 16.83 8.46 16.36 5.82 19.
57
12.
23
10.
50
8.23 132.
17
1976 8.78 3.11 9.83 3.11 20.09 11.85 2.94 6.65 4.90 12.
82
3.44 7.08 94.
60
1977 3.67 2.73 21.56 9.04 8.84 4.03 1.32 7.51 22.
54
9.88 8.41 8.10 107.
63
1978 14.17 0.64 7.66 2.71 8.82 5.13 6.15 16.57 3.23 0.61 5.30 9.63 80.
62
1979 10.02 9.36 21.00 12.76 7.31 5.25 13.00 11.61 17.
40
3.80 18.
26
2.03 131.
80
1980 7.17 2.17 16.12 12.34 9.99 7.06 2.41 6.44 9.18 3.32 6.29 0.76 83.
25
1981 0.57 10.27 5.82 2.27 15.96 3.48 13.26 2.43 3.49 5.78 2.03 7.31 72.
67
1982 10.46 12.99 4.32 9.51 5.34 9.37 10.09   2.20 4.66 10.
71
M16.
69
96.
34
1983 6.20 9.95 11.59 13.42 8.22 4.00 3.22 5.18 8.29 7.58 9.23 14.
33
101.
21
1984 5.32 10.14 8.17 9.82 9.27 5.98 11.97 7.97 0.11 6.85 5.82 2.88 84.
30
1985 4.86 7.97 1.86 5.27 4.02 4.59 9.40 11.24 2.31 4.08 13.
55
1.53 70.
68
1986 2.76 3.05 5.36 1.50 9.01 4.57 3.09 4.41 3.99 11.
36
11.
56
11.
19
71.
85
1987 5.54 5.93 9.79 6.07 5.25 5.32 4.62 2.55 9.79 0.40 7.85 5.73 68.
84
1988 7.08 3.48 3.29 6.81 1.81 4.63 7.83 4.10 3.97 4.42 9.60 2.91 59.
93
1989 4.13 6.40 8.27 5.36 9.64 19.13 18.73 8.43 9.70 9.10 6.88 M5.
28
111.
05
1990 M7.00 11.17 11.59 3.59 8.47 0.82 7.98 9.22 4.24 10.
86
3.34 11.
19
89.
47
1991 7.56   M7.47 11.26 9.07 8.82 15.14 8.79 3.94 1.24 8.47 9.37 91.
13
1992 6.44 9.06 8.44 6.82 6.78 12.01 5.06 19.43 9.84 8.13 20.
95
M8.
70
121.
66

1993 10.02 5.99 11.38 6.94 7.62 1.73 5.09 2.94 3.94 2.49 7.85 5.48 71.
47
1994 10.36 7.19 11.08 6.39 3.01 5.79 10.11 17.75 10.
52
9.74 6.63 7.03 105.
60
1995                 3.30 3.30
1996 16.28 5.68 7.21 5.13 5.50 9.35 9.51 12.25 15.
93
2.07 9.43 11.
39
109.
73
1997 8.31 9.21 13.14 9.81 4.86 8.36 6.16 0.92 7.76 6.60 3.28 M5.
73
84.
14
1998 21.86 13.06 9.56 13.45 3.66 5.15 3.71 4.86 2.80 8.88 6.17 5.68 98.
84
1999 M10.11 7.62 M4.58 7.59 3.44 6.70 6.02 3.43 6.69 M7.
48
10.
63
M5.
32
79.
61
2000 M5.70 3.39 3.68 7.39 5.17 6.22 6.63 6.31 7.47 0.04 M9.
80
4.20 66.
00
2001 5.22 5.03 M5.90 1.29 M5.01 7.76 6.90 4.23 7.99 4.79 4.65 4.63 63.
40
2002 M6.35 2.46 10.77 5.53 5.89 M4.81 4.38 6.55 22.
09
6.68 8.04 10.
77
94.
32
2003 7.12 8.43 8.23 8.53 14.19 14.01 16.01 13.60 18.
30
3.60 16.
67
8.68 137.
37
2004 3.00 8.60 3.16 4.73 8.15 10.54 23.56 5.69 31.
45
1.25 10.
84
9.93 120.
90
2005 4.56 4.67 M8.88 M5.66 3.46 M21.13 23.83 M9.14 1.65 3.36 M9.
27
7.02 102.
63
2006 8.79 4.99 M1.85 3.68 2.23 7.28 5.23 M8.81 M10.
64
M5.
25
7.92 M13.
11
79.
78
2007 M6.58 2.53 6.89 3.43 2.36 9.02 6.68 2.50 6.69 10.
14
3.26 M5.
35
65.
43
2008 4.42 8.22 14.52 M5.11 3.80 1.80 6.05 11.07 3.87 4.96 3.79 9.90 77.
51
2009 M4.63 5.21 9.98 7.21 M5.97 3.75 4.37 7.28 24.
52
12.
33
10.
33
14.
98
110.
56
2010 11.00 5.26 6.45 5.50 M8.65 6.50 6.13 5.65 4.40 7.54 M6.
89
6.42 80.
39
2011 3.48 4.39 19.73 M11.
28
2.06 3.16 10.71 4.23 15.
43
3.21 M13.
15
9.30 100.
13
2012 8.32 2.17 5.88 6.16 M4.77 5.21 12.08 M0.42         45.
01
2013 M6.40 6.65 5.43 13.85 6.84 19.19 26.50 9.23 4.57 3.13 8.83 18.
07
128.
69
2014 4.42 M5.70 4.26 8.09 7.46 6.86 7.33 6.77 6.16 8.69 6.85 6.05 78.
64
2015 5.48 5.12 4.41 11.70 5.34 7.36 4.06 5.14 6.18 9.65 12.
10
21.
76
98.
30
2016 5.47 12.15 3.51 2.51 4.67 2.34 8.19 19.36 2.07 0.71 4.37 5.25 70.
60
2017 7.05 2.01 7.18 9.59 12.54 M8.67 8.17 5.22 8.09 M15.
09
1.30 3.58 88.
49
2018 12.86 M12.77 4.71 7.89 23.50 4.30 9.10 M11.86 M4.
00
      90.
99
Notes: Data missing in any
month have an "M" flag. A
"T" indicates a trace of
precipitation.
Data missing for all days in
a month or year is blank.
Creation date: 2016-07-22
West Fork French Broad River Discharge Calculations
Drainage Area (mi 2)5.50
Width 28.78
Stream Type (Rosgen)B4
Cross-sectional Area (ft2)69.31
Wetted Perimeter (ft)31.85
Hydraulic Slope (ft/ft) (S)0.00337
Mean Depth (ft) (d)2.41
Hydraulic Radius (ft) ( R )2.18
Bed Material (ft) (D84)0.234
Maximum Depth (ft) (D)2.93
Gravitation Acceleration (ft/sec 2) (g)32.2
Mannings n 0.034
Velocity (fps)4.28
Discharge (cfs)296.45
On-Site Analysis
Drainage Area (mi2)5.5
Regional Curve Analysis Discharge (cfs)
Mountain (100.64*DA^0.76)367.7
Piedmont (89.04*DA^0.72)303.8
Design 300.0
West Fork French Broad Discharge Cross Section
UT 5 Discharge Calculations
Drainage Area (mi 2)0.07
Width 4.38
Stream Type (Rosgen)B4
Cross-sectional Area (ft2)2.9
Wetted Perimeter (ft)5.28
Hydraulic Slope (ft/ft) (S)0.01316
Mean Depth (ft) (d)0.66
Hydraulic Radius (ft) ( R )0.55
Bed Material (ft) (D84)0.013
Maximum Depth (ft) (D)0.95
Gravitation Acceleration (ft/sec 2) (g)32.2
Mannings n 0.033
Velocity (fps)3.48
Discharge (cfs)10.08
On-Site Analysis
Drainage Area (mi2)0.07
Regional Curve Analysis Discharge (cfs)
Mountain (100.64*DA^0.76)13.3
Piedmont (89.04*DA^0.72)13.1
Design 10.0
UT 5 Discharge Cross Section
UT 7 Discharge Calculations
Drainage Area (mi 2)0.064
Width 4.09
Stream Type (Rosgen)E4
Cross-sectional Area (ft2)2.44
Wetted Perimeter (ft)4.69
Hydraulic Slope (ft/ft) (S)0.045
Mean Depth (ft) (d)0.6
Hydraulic Radius (ft) ( R )0.52
Bed Material (ft) (D84)0.114757
Maximum Depth (ft) (D)0.77
Gravitation Acceleration (ft/sec 2) (g)32.2
Mannings n 0.038
Velocity (fps)5.38
Discharge (cfs)13.12
On-Site Analysis
Drainage Area (mi2)0.064
Regional Curve Analysis Discharge (cfs)
Mountain (100.64*DA^0.76)12.5
Piedmont (89.04*DA^0.72)12.3
Design 13.0
UT 7 Discharge Cross Section
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
36.6
32.1
83.00 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0034
2.41
2.18
1.65
1.14
2.27
0.0186 2
0.98 de/dr Stable
0.98 Se/Sr Stable
0.46
Information Input Area
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
West Fork French Broad River WFFBR Upstream
CLS, ADD, RVS 2/23/2018
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
2.45
2.41 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
0.0034 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0035 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
0.44 - 1.06 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
35 - 86 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
36.6
32.1
83.00 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0034
1.11
1.08
1.65
1.14
2.27
0.0186 2
0.45 de/dr Aggrading
0.45 Se/Sr Aggrading
0.23
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
West Fork French Broad River WFFBR Mid-Site
CLS, ADD, RVS 2/23/2018
Information Input Area
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
2.45
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
Existing Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0075 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
1.11 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
0.44 - 1.06 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
0.0034 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
17 - 51 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
36.6
32.1
83.00 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0034
3.01
2.73
1.65
1.14
2.27
0.0186 2
1.23 de/dr Degrading
1.23 Se/Sr Degrading
0.58
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
West Fork French Broad River WFFBR Downstream
CLS, ADD, RVS 2/23/2018
Information Input Area
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
2.45
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
Existing Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0028 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
3.01 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
0.44 - 1.06 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
0.0034 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
44 - 102 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Stream:Reach:
Designer:Date:
36.6
32.1
83.0 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0034
2.143
2.009
1.65
1.14
2.27
0.0186 2
0.88 de / dr Stable
0.88 Se / Sr Stable
0.432
Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
West Fork French Broad River WFFBR
CLS, ADD, RVS 2/23/2018
Information Input Area
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Proposed Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50 / D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di / D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
2.42 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
Design Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0039 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
2.14 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
0.44 - 1.06 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Design Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
32 - 82 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
0.0034 Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
14.0
11.5
40.00 0.13 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0080
0.52
0.46
1.65
1.22
2.86
0.0151 2
1.27 de/dr Degrading
1.27 Se/Sr Degrading
0.23
0.16 - 0.53 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
17 - 52 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0063 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
0.0080 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.41
0.52 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Information Input Area
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms-UT5 UT5 (Above Pond)
CLS, ADD, RVS 6/6/2018
Stream:Reach:
Designer:Date:
14.0
11.5
40.0 0.13 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0057
0.630
0.566
1.65
1.22
2.86
0.0151 2
1.09 de / dr Stable
1.09 Se / Sr Stable
0.201
0.16 - 0.53 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Design Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
15 - 47 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
0.0057 Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Design Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0052 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
0.63 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.58 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Proposed Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50 / D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di / D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms-UT5 UT 5
CLS, ADD, RVS
Information Input Area
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
14.2
3.4
42.00 0.14 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0196
0.60
0.52
1.65
4.17
2.96
0.0240 1
2.15 de/dr Degrading
2.15 Se/Sr Degrading
0.64
0.17 - 0.55 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
49 - 109 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0091 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
0.0196 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.28
0.60 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Information Input Area
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms-UT 7 UT7 (Upstream of Confluence w/ UT7B)
CLS, ADD, RVS 6/6/2018
Stream:Reach:
Designer:Date:
14.2
42.0 0.14 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0054
0.667
0.599
1.65
2.96
0.0146 2
1.08 de / dr Stable
1.08 Se / Sr Stable
0.202
0.17 - 0.55 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Design Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
15 - 47 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
0.0054 Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Design Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0050 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
0.67 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.62 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Proposed Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50 / D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di / D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms-UT 7 UT 7
CLS, ADD, RVS
Information Input Area
Stream:Reach:
Team:Date:
71.7
16.8
82.0 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0379
1.13
0.69
1.65
4.27
1.14
0.0235 1
4.10 de/dr Degrading
4.10 Se/Sr Degrading
1.63
0.43 - 1.05 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Existing Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
130 - 218 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0092 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
Di/D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
0.0379 Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft)
dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
R Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
D50/D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.28
1.13 de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Existing Stream Condition:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
Se Existing bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Existing bankfull mean depth (ft)
Information Input Area
EXISTING ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms UT 8
CLS, ADD, RVS 6/6/2018
Stream:Reach:
Designer:Date:
71.7
16.8
82.0 0.27 (feet)
304.8 mm/foot
0.0110
0.923
0.829
1.65
4.27
1.14
0.0235 1
0.97 de / dr Stable
0.97 Se / Sr Stable
0.567
0.43 - 1.05 lbs/sq ft
Predicted shear stress required to initiate movement of Di (mm) (based off trend line not confidence
interval) (see Revised Shields Diagram, Rosgen, 2002)
Design Stream Condition:
Sediment Transport Validation
Bankfull Shear Stress tc =gRS (lb/ft2) g = Specific Weight of water = 62.4 lbs/ft 3
43 - 100 mm
Moveable particle size (mm) at bankfull shear stress (based off trend line not confidence interval)
(Using Shields Diagram and Revised Shields Diagram by Rosgen, 2002)
0.0110 Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft)
Design Stream Condition:
Calculation of BKF Water Surface Slope Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.0113 Sr Required bankfull water surface slope (ft)Sr = t*cigsDi
de
0.92 de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
Calculation of Bankfull Mean Depth Required for Entrainment of Largest Particle in Bar Sample
0.95 dr Required bankfull mean depth (ft/ft)dr = t*cigsDi
Se
t*ci Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress Equation used:
D50 Riffle bed material D50 (mm)
D^50 Bar sample D50 (mm)
Di Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
R Proposed Hydraulic Radius of Riffle Cross Section (ft)
gs Submerged specific weight of sediment
Calculation of Critical Dimensionless Shear Stress
D50 / D^50 If value is between 3-7 Equation 1 will be used: t*ci = 0.0834(D50/D^50)-0.872
Di / D50 If value is between 1.3-3.0 Equation 2 will be used: t*ci = 0.0384(Di/D50)-0.887
Se Proposed bankfull water surface slope (ft/ft)
de Proposed bankfull mean depth (ft)
PROPOSED CONDITIONS ENTRAINMENT CALCULATION FORM
Owen Farms UT 8
CLS, ADD, RVS
Information Input Area
West Fork French Broad River Riffle Material
Total #Item %Cumulative %
Silt/Clay 0.00 - 0.062 0 0%0%
Very Fine 0.062 - 0.125 0 0%0%
Fine 0.125 - 0.25 0 0%0%
Medium 0.25 - 0.5 0 0%0%
Coarse 0.5 - 1 5 5%5%
Very Coarse 1 - 2 0 0%5%
Very Fine 2 - 4 0 0%5%
Fine 4 - 5.7 3 3%8%
Fine 6 - 8 2 2%10%
Medium 8 - 11.3 5 5%15%
Medium 11 - 16 7 7%22%
Coarse 16 - 22.6 12 12%33%
Coarse 23 - 32 10 10%43%
Very Coarse 32 - 45 20 20%63%
Very Coarse 45 - 64 14 14%76%
Small 64 - 90 15 15%91%
Small 90 - 128 8 8%99%
Large 128 - 180 0 0%99%
Large 180 - 256 1 1%100%
Small 256 - 362 0 0%100%
Small 362 - 512 0 0%100%
Medium 512 - 1024 0 0%100%
Large 1024 - 2048 0 0%100%
Very Large 2048 - 4096 0 0%100%
Bedrock BedrockCobble Pebble Count
Size (mm)Silt/Clay
SandGravelBoulder
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)West Fork French Broad River 100 Count Riffle: Percent Finer
0%5%10%15%20%25%0.0620.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 5.7 8 11.3 16 22.6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 4096Percent of TotalParticel Size (mm)West Fork French Broad River 100 Count Riffle: Total PercentageItem %
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.00.015625 0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)West Fork French Broad River Bar Sample: Percent Finer
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%6331.5168420.02Percent RetainedParticel Size (mm)West Fork French Broad River Bar Sample: Total Percentage
UT 5 Riffle Material
Total #Item %Cumulative %
Silt/Clay 0.00 - 0.062 0 0%0%
Very Fine 0.062 - 0.125 0 0%0%
Fine 0.125 - 0.25 10 8%8%
Medium 0.25 - 0.5 0 0%8%
Coarse 0.5 - 1 12 9%17%
Very Coarse 1 - 2 7 5%22%
Very Fine 2 - 4 2 2%23%
Fine 4 - 5.7 7 5%29%
Fine 6 - 8 4 3%32%
Medium 8 - 11.3 18 14%45%
Medium 11 - 16 25 19%64%
Coarse 16 - 22.6 29 22%86%
Coarse 23 - 32 11 8%95%
Very Coarse 32 - 45 4 3%98%
Very Coarse 45 - 64 1 1%98%
Small 64 - 90 2 2%100%
Small 90 - 128 0 0%100%
Large 128 - 180 0 0%100%
Large 180 - 256 0 0%100%
Small 256 - 362 0 0%100%
Small 362 - 512 0 0%100%
Medium 512 - 1024 0 0%100%
Large 1024 - 2048 0 0%100%
Very Large 2048 - 4096 0 0%100%
Bedrock BedrockCobble Pebble Count
Size (mm)Silt/Clay
SandGravelBoulder
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)UT 5 100 Count Riffle: Percent Finer
0%5%10%15%20%25%0.0620.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 5.7 8 11.3 16 22.6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 4096Percent of TotalParticel Size (mm)UT 5 100 Count Riffle: Total PercentageItem %
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.00.015625 0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)UT 5 Bar Sample: Percent Finer
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%6331.5168420.02Percent RetainedParticel Size (mm)UT 5 Bar Sample: Total Percentage
UT 7 Riffle Material
Total #Item %Cumulative %
Silt/Clay 0.00 - 0.062 0 0%0%
Very Fine 0.062 - 0.125 9 8%8%
Fine 0.125 - 0.25 6 6%14%
Medium 0.25 - 0.5 0 0%14%
Coarse 0.5 - 1 12 11%25%
Very Coarse 1 - 2 5 5%29%
Very Fine 2 - 4 1 1%30%
Fine 4 - 5.7 2 2%32%
Fine 6 - 8 3 3%35%
Medium 8 - 11.3 11 10%45%
Medium 11 - 16 9 8%53%
Coarse 16 - 22.6 15 14%67%
Coarse 23 - 32 15 14%81%
Very Coarse 32 - 45 14 13%94%
Very Coarse 45 - 64 4 4%97%
Small 64 - 90 3 3%100%
Small 90 - 128 0 0%100%
Large 128 - 180 0 0%100%
Large 180 - 256 0 0%100%
Small 256 - 362 0 0%100%
Small 362 - 512 0 0%100%
Medium 512 - 1024 0 0%100%
Large 1024 - 2048 0 0%100%
Very Large 2048 - 4096 0 0%100%
Bedrock BedrockCobble Pebble Count
Size (mm)Silt/Clay
SandGravelBoulder
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64 128 256 512 1024 2048 4096Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)UT 7 100 Count Riffle: Percent Finer
0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%0.0620.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 5.7 8 11.3 16 22.6 32 45 64 90 128 180 256 362 512 1024 2048 4096Percent of TotalParticel Size (mm)UT 7 100 Count Riffle: Total PercentageItem %
0.010.020.030.040.050.060.070.080.090.0100.00.015625 0.03125 0.0625 0.125 0.25 0.5 1 2 4 8 16 32 64Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)UT 7 Bar Sample: Percent Finer
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%6331.5168420.02Percent RetainedParticel Size (mm)UT 7 Bar Sample: Total Percentage
20

Table 1 - Wetland Saturation Threshold Table, Continued
Common Piedmont Soil Series
Series Name Taxonomic Subgroup
Wetland
Saturation
Range
Chewacla** Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts 10-12%
Wehadkee Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Nonacid, Thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts 12-16-%
Iredell* Fine, Mixed, Active, Thermic Oxyaquic Vertic Hapludalfs 6-8%
Kinkora Fine, Mixed, Semiactive, Mesic Typic Endoaquults 10-12%
Riverview* Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Thermic Fluventic Dystrudepts 7-9%
Hatboro Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Nonacid, Mesic Fluvaquentic Endoaquepts 12-16-%
Worsham Fine, Mixed, Active, Thermic Typic Endoaquults 10-12%
Helena* Fine, Mixed, Semiactive, Thermic Aquic Hapludults 6-8%
Congaree* Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Nonacid, Thermic Oxyaquic Udifluvents 7-9%
Meggett Fine, Mixed, Active, Thermic Typic Albaqualfs 10-12%
Coxville Fine, Kaolinitic, Thermic Typic Paleaquults 10-12%
Dorian* Fine, Mixed, Semiactive, Thermic Aquic Hapludults 6-8%
Oakboro** Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts 10-12%
Cordorus** Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts 7-9%
Common Mountain Soil Series
Alarka Fine-Loamy Over Sandy Or Sandy-Skeletal, Mixed, Active, Mesic Aeric
Epiaquults
7-9%
Nikwasi Coarse-Loamy Over Sandy Or Sandy-Skeletal, Mixed, Superactive,
Nonacid, Mesic Cumulic Humaquepts
12-16-%
Rosman* Coarse-Loamy, Mixed, Superactive, Mesic Fluventic Humudepts 10-12%
Toxaway Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Superactive, Nonacid, Mesic Cumulic Humaquepts 12-16-%
Ela Coarse-Loamy, Siliceous, Superactive, Acid, Mesic Fluvaquentic
Humaquepts
12-16-%
Reddies* Coarse-Loamy Over Sandy Or Sandy-Skeletal, Mixed, Superactive, Mesic
Oxyaquic Humudepts
10-12%
Arkaqua** Fine-Loamy, Mixed, Active, Mesic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts 7-9%
Wesser Sandy-Skeletal, Mixed, Mesic Humaqueptic Fluvaquents 12-16%
Biltmore* Mixed, Mesic Typic Udipsamments 7-9%
*These soil series are non-hydric soils that may appear in close association with other soil series that are
hydric.
**These soil series are all non-hydric soils that are similar taxonomically to the Chewacla soil series.
It should be noted that the presence of non-hydric series in this Table does not mean the NCIRT
endorses pursuing sites with these soils series for wetland mitigation. The soils identified with asterisks
are non-hydric soils. These soils often appear in association with other soils which are hydric. To
determine whether the soil on site is in fact the mapped soil series, you should consult a North Carolina
Licensed Soil Scientist.

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix I – Site Protection Instrument

Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix J –Credit Release Schedule

Appendix J – Credit Release Schedule
The following credit release schedule will apply to the Owen Farms Stream and Wetland Mitigation Site
as prescribed in the 2016 USACE Mitigation Update.
Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Wetlands
Credit Release
Milestone Release Activity
ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment 0% 0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 15% 65%
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 70%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 15% 85%
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 90%
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
performance standards have been met 10% 100%
* Please note that vegetation plot data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during
these monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.

Credit Release Schedule and Milestones for Streams
Credit Release
Milestone Release Activity
ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment 0% 0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation
Plan
30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%**)
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 10% 75%
(85%**)
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that
interim performance standards have been met 5% 80%
(90%**)
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that
performance standards have been met 10% 90%
(100%**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Owen Farms Mitigation Site | DMS Project No. 100064
Appendices

Transylvania County, NC January 31, 2020

Appendix K – Financial Assurance

Appendix K – Financial Assurance
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Service’s (DMS) In‐Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the NCDEQ
has provided the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides
financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.