20191132 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_FINAL_DRAFT_AllMerged_20200327

ID#* 20191132 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 03/27/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 3/27/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r` Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Andrea Eckardt
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20191132
Existing IDY
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*1
Existing Version
r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Little Tennessee - East Buffalo Mitigation
Site
Graham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: 45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo Mitigation
87.43M6
Plan_FINAL_DRAFT_AII Merged_200326. pdf
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Andrea Eckardt
Signature:*

MITIGATION PLAN 
Draft for IRT Review 

March 25, 2020 

LITTLE TENNESSEE UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site 
Graham County, NC 

Little Tennessee River Basin 
HUC 06010204 

USACE Action ID No. SAW‐2019‐01296 
NC DWR No. (Not Assigned) 

USACE Project Manager:   
Steve Kichefski  
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office  
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208  
Asheville, NC 28801  
(828)‐271‐7980 Ext. 4234  

PREPARED BY: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
167‐B Haywood Rd 
Asheville, NC 28806 
Phone: [phone] 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page i 
Executive Summary 
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC (Bank Sponsor) proposes to develop the East Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site), 
under the Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (Bank). Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC is 
wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) and was developed for the sole purpose of 
holding this Bank. The Site is located in Graham County within the Little Tennessee River Basin 
Hydrologic Unit 06010204. Figure 1 shows the general Site location. The Site will be planned and 
designed in one phase encompassing land along East Buffalo Creek and seven unnamed tributaries on 
one parcel. The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate 
for impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State Waters within the following Hydrologic Units of 
the Little Tennessee River Basin: 06010202, 06010203, and 06010204 (Figure 2). This work is proposed 
to generate 4,511.5 cold stream credits and 1.75 wetland credits. 
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the 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).    

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page ii 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i 
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1 
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .................................................................................... 1 
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 2 
3.1 Watershed .................................................................................................................................... 2 
3.2 Existing Vegetation ....................................................................................................................... 5 
Pasture Areas.......................................................................................................................................... 5 
Forested Areas ........................................................................................................................................ 5 
3.3 Project Resources ......................................................................................................................... 5 
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential ...................................................................................................... 13 
4.1 Wetland Functional Uplift Potential ........................................................................................... 13 
4.2 Stream Functional Uplift Potential ............................................................................................. 14 
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 16 
5.1 Waters of the US (401/404) ........................................................................................................ 17 
5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species ......................................................................................... 17 
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 18 
5.4 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas ........................................... 18 
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives ....................................................................................... 18 
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ............................................................................ 19 
7.1 Design Approach Overview ........................................................................................................ 20 
7.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 20 
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 23 
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 26 
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 27 
7.6 Wetland Design .......................................................................................................................... 31 
7.7 Project Implementation .............................................................................................................. 32 
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan ..................................................................................................... 39 
7.9 Invasive Vegetation Species Control Plan ................................................................................... 40 
7.10 Site Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 40 
7.11 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 41 
8.0 Site Protection Instrument ...................................................................................................... 42 
9.0 Determination of Credits ......................................................................................................... 43 
10.0 Credit Release Schedule .......................................................................................................... 44 
10.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .......................................................................................... 46 
10.2 Subsequent Credit Releases ....................................................................................................... 46 
11.0 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................... 46 
11.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 46 
11.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 47 
11.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 48 
12.0 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 49 
12.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 50 
13.0 Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan ........................................................................ 54 
14.0 Long‐Term Management Plan ................................................................................................. 55 
14.1 Ownership and Long‐Term Manager .......................................................................................... 55 
14.2 Long‐Term Management Activities ............................................................................................ 55 
14.3 Funding Mechanism ................................................................................................................... 56 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page iii 
15.0 Financial Assurances ............................................................................................................... 57 
16.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 59 

TABLES 
Table 1: Project Information ......................................................................................................................... 1 
Table 2: Watershed Summary Information .................................................................................................. 2 
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions ........................................................................................... 3 
Table 4: Existing Wetland Summary ............................................................................................................. 6 
Table 5: Project Site Streams – Preservation ................................................................................................ 8 
Table 6: Project Site Streams – Enhancement and Restoration ................................................................... 8 
Table 7: Project Site Streams – Enhancement and Restoration ................................................................... 9 
Table 8: Regulatory Considerations ............................................................................................................ 16 
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Wetlands and Ditches ................................................................................ 17 
Table 10: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Graham County, NC .......................................... 18 
Table 11: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................. 19 
Table 12: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters ........................................ 21 
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters ..................................................................................... 24 
Table 14: Summary of Morphological Parameters ..................................................................................... 25 
Table 15: Summary of Morphological Parameters ..................................................................................... 25 
Table 16: Summary of Morphological Parameters ..................................................................................... 26 
Table 17: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis ......................................................................... 27 
Table 18: Results of East Buffalo Creek, UT2 and UT5 Existing Conditions Sediment Sampling and 
Competence Analyses ................................................................................................................................. 29 
Table 19: Results of UT3 and UT4 Existing Conditions Sediment Sampling and Competence Analyses .... 30 
Table 20: Functional Impairments and Mitigation Approach ..................................................................... 33 
Table 21: Summary of Site Easement Crossings and Breaks ...................................................................... 41 
Table 22: Site Parcel .................................................................................................................................... 43 
Table 23: Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 43 
Table 24: Credit Release Schedule ‐ Stream Credits ................................................................................... 45 
Table 25: Credit Release Schedule – Wetland Credits ................................................................................ 45 
Table 26: Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 49 
Table 27: Monitoring Components – East Buffalo Creek, UT1, UT2 ........................................................... 51 
Table 28: Monitoring Components – UT3, UT4, UT4a, and UT4b .............................................................. 52 
Table 29: Monitoring Components – UT5, UT6, and UT7 ........................................................................... 53 
Table 30: Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan .......................................................................... 54 
Table 31: Long‐term Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 55 
Table 32: Management Funding ................................................................................................................. 56 
Table 33: Financial Assurances Table .......................................................................................................... 58 
FIGURES 
Figure 1 Vicinity Map 
Figure 2 Service Area Map 
Figure 3 NCDOT STIP FY 2018‐2027 
Figure 4 Watershed Map 
Figure 5 USGS Topographic Map 
Figure 6 Soils Map 
Figure 7 Existing Conditions Map 
Figure 8 FEMA Floodplain Map 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page iv 
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map 
Figure 10 Concept Design Map 
Figure 11 Monitoring Components Map 

APPENDICES 
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument 
Appendix 2 DWR Stream Identification Forms 
NC SAM Forms 
Appendix 3 USACE Wetland Forms 
Appendix 4 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination 
Appendix 5 Agency Correspondence 
Appendix 6 Supplementary Design Information 
Appendix 7 Photograph Log 
Appendix 8 Financial Assurance Letter from UP2Save 
Appendix 9 Preliminary Plans 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 1 
1.0 Introduction 
The proposed Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank) shall include the towns of Franklin, 
Robbinsville, Sylva, Bryson City, Lake Santeetlah, and Fontana Dam as shown in Figure 2. The site 
described in this mitigation plan is the East Buffalo Mitigation Site (Site) which is in Graham County near 
Lake Santeetlah, NC. The project area is located within the Little Tennessee River Basin Hydrologic Unit 
06010204 and the North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) Sub‐basin 04‐04‐04, with 
Santeetlah Lake central to the sub‐basin. The Site was selected to provide stream and wetland 
mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to Waters of the United States and/or State Waters within 
the Little Tennessee service area. Predicted future impacts in and around the service area are depicted 
in Figure 3. The project involves the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of 14,951 existing 
linear feet of stream on East Buffalo Creek and ten unnamed tributaries to East Buffalo Creek, as well as 
1.75 acres of existing wetland. Development of the Site will also include the restoration and protection 
of riparian buffers throughout the project area. 
The Bank Sponsor is Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC, a North Carolina limited liability company operated by 
member‐manager Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). The project attributes are shown in Table 1. 
The Site Protection Instrument detailing the 259.84‐acre easement is included in Appendix 1. 
Restoration, enhancement, and preservation of project streams are proposed to provide 4,494.5 cold 
stream mitigation credits. Re‐establishment and rehabilitation of wetland areas are proposed to provide 
1.75 riparian wetland credits. This Site will also include the restoration and protection of riparian buffers 
of 150 feet or greater throughout site. 
Table 1: Project Information  
Project Name  East Buffalo Mitigation Site 
County Graham 
Project Area (acres) 259.84 
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 35°21′56″N, 83°48′16″W 
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems to be planted) 20.6 
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection 
The Little Tennessee River Basin (Hydrologic Unit 06010204), as described in the North Carolina Division 
of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) 2007 and 2012 Little Tennessee River Basinwide Water Quality Plans, 
is located in NCDWQ Subbasin 04‐04‐04. The headwaters of the 04‐04‐04 subbasin originate within the 
Nantahala National Forest and are thus protected; but the areas downstream of the National Forest, 
including the Site, are more at risk for land disturbing activities. The North Carolina Division of 
Mitigation Services (NCDMS) 2008 (amended 2018) Little Tennessee River Basin Restoration Priorities 
(RBRP), describes the basin as mostly forested but facing increased development of forested and 
agricultural land to construct vacation homes. Many mainstem drainages and peripheral tributaries, 
located in proximity to Lake Santeetlah and within the lower valleys of the 06010204020030 14‐digit HU 
in general, have non‐forested or impacted buffers. 
The Site was selected with a focus on RBRP goals, including the reduction of sediment from agricultural 
activities, improved riparian communities, and offsetting habitat degradation within the watershed. The 
location of the Site adheres to the prescribed recommendations of the RBRP (implementation of good 
land use management practices) by protecting additional land from being developed and includes valley 
bottoms that are desirable for development as well as peripheral headwater tributaries. Protecting this 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 2 
Site with a conservation easement will add to land already protected by a NCDMS conservation 
easement in the headwaters of the East Buffalo Creek watershed and will enhance habitat connectivity 
across the ridgetop landscape and protect mature forested headwaters on the site. Restoration and 
enhancement of streams on the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP 
by building stable stream banks, protecting stable headwater streams, reducing agricultural non‐point 
source pollution through cattle exclusion, and restoring a forest to agriculturally maintained buffer 
areas. The reaches slated for restoration will also restore natural riffle‐pool sequences and natural step 
pool sequences. The project will slow surface runoff, increase retention times, provide shade to streams, 
and reconnect the streams to their historic floodprone areas. Each of these effects should reduce 
sediment and nutrient loads while improving instream and terrestrial (riparian) habitats and stream 
stability. 
The expected customers for the Bank credits include a combination of private enterprises and public 
entities including NCDOT and the various municipalities located in the Little Tennessee service area 
(06010202, 06010203, and 06010204 8‐digit HUCs). Figure 3 depicts the potential projects set forth by 
NCDOT for fiscal years 2020‐2029 within the Little Tennessee River Basin. This includes transportation 
projects along various interstate, state, regional, and division highways. 
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions 
3.1 Watershed  
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 4) is located approximately 3 miles north of Robbinsville and 4 
miles northwest of Cheoah, in Graham County. It is situated in a rural area where the surrounding land 
cover is mostly agricultural and woods.  
In general, the Site includes streams from four primary drainage areas that are comprised of smaller 
valleys. The four primary drainage areas are East Buffalo Creek, UT3, UT6 and UT7. East Buffalo Creek is 
the largest of these primary drainage areas on Site and includes UT1, UT2, and UT5. UT3 is the next 
largest drainage area and includes UT4, UT4a, UTb, and UT4b1. UT3, UT6 and UT7 drainages all flow into 
East Buffalo just downstream of the Site before emptying into Santeetlah Lake about one mile further 
downstream. Project stream reaches mostly originate from steep, forested, headwater valleys before 
transitioning to open pastureland situated in wider valley bottoms further downstream. East Buffalo’s 
valley begins upstream of the Site as a steep, colluvial, V‐shaped valley, which gradually widens and 
gains an alluvial bottom moving downstream. All unnamed tributaries to East Buffalo Creek flow 
through steep, colluvial, V‐shaped valleys for their entire project length except the downstream reaches 
of UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 which transition to broader valley bottoms within the mainstem floodplain. 
There is extensive land protection in the upstream watershed of East Buffalo Creek, along with 
connectivity to the Cheoah Mountain Natural Heritage Area. 
The following section describes the existing conditions of the watershed and watershed processes. 
Table 2: Watershed Summary Information  
Physiographic Province Blue Ridge 
Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains‐Southern Metasedimentary Mountains 
River Basin Little Tennessee River 
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit) 06010204, 06010204020030 
NCDWR Sub‐basin 04‐04‐04 
Project Drainage Area (acres) 600 (East Buffalo Creek), 156 (UT3), 21 (UT6), 23 (UT7) 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 3 
Project Drainage Area Percentage of 
Impervious Area 1.5% 
2016 NLCD Land Use Classification 97% forested, 2% cultivated crops and hay, 1% developed land 
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics 
Physiography and Topography 
The Site is located within the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The Blue Ridge 
Province is characterized as a mountainous area with steep ridges and valleys and elevations ranging 
from 1,500 to over 6,000 feet above sea level. The Site topography, as indicated on the Robbinsville, NC 
USGS 7.5‐minute topographic quadrangle, shows steeply sloped valleys generally running west to 
southwest throughout the Site (Figure 5). The Site topography and relief are typical for the region, as 
illustrated in Figures 4 and 5. 
Geology and Soils 
The Site is located in the Western Blue Ridge terrane within the Blue Ridge physiographic province. The 
Western Blue Ridge terrane is composed of a group of over one‐billion‐year‐old gnesiss and younger, 
deposited sediment rocks. The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as part of the Late Proterozoic 
(570 to 900 million years in age) Copper Hill (Zch) Formation. The unit is described as metagraywacke, 
massive, common graded bedding that contains dark‐gray slate, mica schist, and nodular calcsilicate 
rock (NCGS, 1985). 
The predominant floodplain soils on Site are described in Table 3 below and depicted on Figure 6. Soil 
mapping units are based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation 
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey for Graham County. All soils listed are characterized as well drained soils 
except for the following two units mapped along the valley bottom which are listed as moderately well 
drained: Thurmont‐Dillard complex (ThB) and Dillard loam (DrB). Minimum depth to bedrock for 
floodplain soils listed in Table 3 ranges between two to three feet. Bedrock was rarely observed within 
riparian corridors situated in the lower valley bottom of the Site and is not expected to affect stream 
reach design approaches. 
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions  
Soil Name Description 
SpE – Spivey‐Santeetlah complex, 30‐
50 percent slopes, very bouldery 
These soils are found within intermediate mountains, especially near 
the Cherokee County line. The soils are well drained with a low shrink‐
swell potential and severe erosion potential.  
SvC – Spivey Whiteoak complex, 8‐15 
percent slopes, bouldery These soils are found in low/intermediate mountain areas. They are 
well drained soils with low shrink‐swell potential, severe potential for 
erosion and strongly sloping.  SvD – Spivey‐Whiteoak complex, 15‐
30 percent slopes, bouldery 
ThB‐ Thurmont‐Dillard complex, 2‐8 
percent slopes 
These soils are found in the valleys of intermountain hills and low 
mountains. They are well drained to moderately well drained soils. 
They are gently sloping with moderate erosion potential and low 
shrink‐swell potential. 
DrB – Dillard loam, 1‐5 percent 
slopes, rarely flooded 
These soils are found in mountain valleys of low and intermediate 
mountains. They are moderately well drained, gently sloping, 
moderate erosion potential, with a low shrink‐swell potential.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 4 
Soil Name Description 
Junaluska‐Brasstown complex, 30‐50 
percent slopes 
These soils are found in the side slopes of low and intermediate 
mountains. They are well drained with a low shrink‐swell potential, 
steeply sloping, and a very severe potential for erosion. 
3.1.2 Land Use/Land Cover 
Land use and land cover, both past and present, were 
investigated throughout the Site and its watershed using 
historical aerials from 1963 to 2019 and a watershed 
reconnaissance survey. The review of historic aerials shows 
that the East Buffalo Creek mainstem valley bottom, and 
lower valley side slopes of adjacent tributaries (north of East 
Buffalo Road), have been in agricultural production (either 
hay or pasture) since at least 1963 with little change in land 
use configuration to date. The remainder of the Site has 
generally remained forested. The current pasture areas 
appear to have alternated between cattle pasture and active 
row crops over the observed years. Riparian buffers are 
largely absent from one or both banks of Site streams 
located within the lower valley bottom of the East Buffalo 
project watershed. Except for a narrow strip of vegetated stream buffer, aerial imagery from 1963 
reveals that the floodplain along the entire length of East Buffalo Creek, UT3 Reaches 2 and 3, UT4 
Reach 2 and the area between UT1 and UT2 Reach 2, was completely cleared of trees; as was the lower 
subwatersheds of UT5, UT6, and UT7 that border the valley bottom of East Buffalo Creek. By 1993, 
successional vegetation growth had begun to re‐establish in these cleared areas except for the 
floodplains in the lower valley bottoms of East Buffalo Creek, UT3 and UT4 that were maintained as 
pasture and for cultivation.  
Stream configurations on the Site appear to have changed 
very little over the past 60 years although channel alteration 
and relocation (natural and artificial) prior to that timeframe 
is evident from the assessment of existing geomorphic 
conditions.  
The lower valley bottom of the East Buffalo project 
watershed had up to six buildings on‐site as late as 1998 that 
appeared to be houses along with structures used for 
farming activities. In addition to the spring house currently 
located on UT4 Reach 2 by East Buffalo Road, there were 
other buildings located in the lower valley bottom. To date, 
the spring house is the only structure remaining on‐site.  
Throughout the watershed, there are no signs of impending 
land use changes that would impact the project, but 
development pressure has increased in this region in the 
form of secluded resort communities and low‐density second home developments (NCDMS, 2018). 
Buildings in the lower valley bottom of the 
East Buffalo Creek project watershed in 1993.  
Cleared forested areas and denuded riparian 
buffers within the lower valley bottom of the 
East Buffalo Creek project watershed in 1973.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 5 
3.2 Existing Vegetation 
Pasture Areas 
Along East Buffalo Creek and the downstream reaches of UT2, UT3, and UT4, the Site is currently used 
for cattle pasture. Open pasture areas are dominated by fescue grasses (Fescue spp.) and other grasses, 
golden rod (Solidago spp.), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trillium 
(Trillium spp.), and soft rush (Juncus effusus) in low areas. Along the stream banks, dense thickets are 
common with invasive plant species including multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet 
(Ligustrum sinense), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). In these lower areas where tree 
canopy exists, commonly observed species include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black walnut 
(Juglans nigra), black cherry (Prunus serotina), willow (Salix spp.), and hickory (Carya spp.).  
Forested Areas 
The remainder of the Site is dominated by forested areas. These areas are well established consisting of 
mature deciduous species. The canopy is primarily tulip poplar, maples (Acer spp.), and American beech 
(Fagus grandifolia). The understory consists of American holly (Ilex opaca), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), 
and common elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).  
3.3 Project Resources 
On June 25 and 26, 2019, Wildlands investigated on Site jurisdictional waters of the United States within 
the proposed project area. Potential jurisdictional areas were delineated using the US Army Corps of 
Engineers (USACE) Routine On‐site Determination Method presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers 
Wetlands Delineation Manual, the subsequent Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement, 
and the evaluator’s best professional judgement. Streams were classified using NCDWR Classification 
Forms. All jurisdictional waters were located by sub‐meter GPS for inclusion on plans and figures. The 
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted on August 30, 2019 and is 
currently under review. NCDWR stream identification forms, USACE wetland determination forms, and 
PJD package are attached in Appendices 2, 3, and 4, respectively.  
3.3.1 Jurisdictional Wetlands 
The results of the on‐site field investigation indicate there are 10 jurisdictional wetland features located 
within the proposed easement (Wetlands A‐J). These existing wetlands are shown on Figure 7 and 
summarized below in Table 4. Jurisdictional wetland features on Site exhibit prolonged saturation within 
the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, maintained hydrophytic vegetation, and a depleted matrix or 
darkened surface horizons. Common vegetation species present in wetlands include Juncus ssp. and 
jewel weed (Impatiens capensis). 
Existing wetland areas were classified and evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment 
Method (NCWAM). The rapid assessment method evaluates field conditions relative to reference 
condition to generate function ratings for a specific wetland type. Existing wetlands were classified as 
seeps and bottomland hardwood forest with a low overall functional ratings. The surface and subsurface 
hydrology of existing wetlands are impaired by previous stream manipulation and current agricultural 
activities including cattle grazing and mowing/hay maintenance. Habitat quality varies among wetlands 
depending on vegetation composition and structure. NCWAM field assessment forms and rating 
calculator output is attached in Appendix 3.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 6 
Table 4: Existing Wetland Summary  
Wetland Summary Information 
Parameter Wetland A Wetland B Wetland C Wetland D 
Size of Wetland within CE 
(acres) 0.07 0.03 0.01 1.28 
Wetland Type (NCWAM 
Classification) Seep Seep Seep Seep 
Mapped Soil Series 
Spivey‐
Whiteoak/Thurmont‐
Dillard 
Thurmont‐
Dillard Thurmont‐Dillard Thurmont‐
Dillard/Dillard 
Drainage Class WD/WD WD WD WD/MWD 
Soil Hydric Status No/No No No No/No 
Source of Hydrology Groundwater 
Discharge 
Groundwater 
Discharge 
Groundwater 
Discharge 
Groundwater 
Discharge 
Wetland Summary Information 
Parameter Wetland E Wetland F Wetland G Wetland H 
Size of Wetland within CE 
(acres) 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.01 
Wetland Type (NCWAM 
Classification) Seep 
Bottomland 
Hardwood 
Forest 
Seep Seep 
Mapped Soil Series Dillard Dillard Dillard Dillard 
Drainage Class MWD MWD MWD MWD 
Soil Hydric Status No No No No 
Source of Hydrology Groundwater 
Discharge Overland flow Groundwater 
Discharge 
Groundwater 
Discharge 
Wetland Summary Information 
Parameter Wetland I Wetland J 
Size of Wetland within CE 
(acres) 0.02 0.05 
Wetland Type (NCWAM 
Classification) Seep Bottomland 
Hardwood Forest 
Mapped Soil Series Spivey‐Whiteoak Spivey‐Whiteoak 
Drainage Class WD WD 
Soil Hydric Status No No 
Source of Hydrology Groundwater 
Discharge Overland flow 
Note: Spivey‐Whiteoak, Thurmont‐Dillard, and Dillard are classified as non‐hydric soils by the NRCS. However, these soils are 
found to be hydric by the NRCS 1‐32% of the time. 
3.3.2 Project Site Streams 
The results of the on‐site field investigation indicate there are eleven potential jurisdictional streams 
within the proposed easement—East Buffalo Creek and ten unnamed tributaries: UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, 
UT4a, UT4b, UT4b1, UT5, UT6 and UT7. All the project stream reaches are perennial for their entire 
length except for UT7, which is intermittent mid‐reach, but resumes a perennial flow regime within the 
downstream third of its reach length. The existing alignments of the Site streams have been estimated 
through mapping and site reconnaissance and are shown on Figure 7. Reach specific cross sections and 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 7 
geomorphic summaries for stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement are provided in 
Appendix 6. Photos of the Site are included in Appendix 7.  
The upstream reaches of UT2, UT3, UT4 (including UT4a, UT4b, and UT4b1), UT5, UT6 and UT7 are 
generally stable and bordered by mature forest with diverse vegetation structure and are mostly free of 
non‐native invasive species. Evidence of historic landslide activity is present on many of these 
headwater tributaries. Old logging roads are present, and the primary road on the south (southeastern) 
slope has several stream crossings inhibiting aquatic passage and resulting in on‐going erosion. At the 
south ridge, the parcel adjoins Nantahala National Forest.  
As the tributaries flow into lower part of the valley, the multiple tributaries converge with East Buffalo 
Creek and the valley becomes less confined. Project stream reaches in the lower valley of the Site have 
been historically manipulated through ditching and relocation and their adjacent floodplains have been 
altered by various agricultural practices resulting in impacted riparian buffers. Bank erosion, excess fine 
sediment loading and poor in‐stream habitat are symptoms of these impairments. 
The North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) evaluation was performed on each project 
reach proposed for restoration or enhancement. The rapid assessment methodology evaluates field 
conditions to generate qualitative function ratings (Low, Medium, High) for the overall reach relative to 
reference conditions for the specific stream type. Generally, project reaches proposed for restoration or 
enhancement 1 scored as low to medium functioning systems when compared to reference conditions 
due to impairment to two or all three of the primary functions (habitat, hydrology, and water quality). 
Low to medium‐scoring functions are the result of channel instability and managed buffers. Although 
Reach 2 of UT2 and East Buffalo Creek received an overall score of high, they consistently scored low to 
medium for parameters related to in‐stream and streamside (vegetative) habitat function, and 
streamside area attenuation; stream baseflow and channel stability parameters overshadow the overall 
score and underrate the underlying fundamental functional need of these two reaches. Also, East 
Buffalo Reach 2 scored high for floodplain access when in fact the channel is perched, undersized, and 
prone to avulsion in the lower valley due to excessive overbank flows. Overall ratings for Reaches 1 and 
3 of East Buffalo and UT1 were high; however, reduced function was still evident for streamside buffer 
and habitat related parameters. While not formally assessed using NC SAM, reaches proposed for 
preservation (listed in Table 5) generally exhibited high functional rating scores in habitat, hydrology, 
and water quality due in large part to wide, intact vegetated buffers that help to bolster all functions. NC 
SAM Field Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets are enclosed in Appendix 2. 
Tables 5, 6, and 7 provide a summary of water resources within the project limits. Existing conditions of 
individual project stream reaches are described in more detail below. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 8 
Table 5: Project Site Streams – Preservation 
Parameter UT2 Reach 
1 
UT3 Reach 
1 
UT4 Reach 
1 UT4a UT4b UT5 Reach 
1 UT6 UT7 
Length of Reach 
(LF) 1,797 2,179 2,993 744 505 1,343 196 799 
Valley 
Confinement Confined Confined Confined Confined Confined Confined Confined Confined 
Drainage Area 
(acres) 48 45 77 6 17 47 21 23 
Perennial, 
Intermittent, 
Ephemeral 
P P P P P P P I/P 
NCDWR Water 
Quality 
Classification 
C 
Stream 
Classification  Not classified 
Evolutionary 
Stage (Simon 
and Rinaldi, 
2006)1 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
I: 
Premodified 
NC SAM Rating N/A 
FEMA 
Classification N/A2 
Table 6: Project Site Streams – Enhancement and Restoration 
Parameter 
East Buffalo 
Creek Reach 
1 
East Buffalo 
Creek Reach 
2 
East Buffalo 
Creek Reach 3 UT1 UT2 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3 
Length of Reach (LF) 574 817 325 396 596 976 380 
Valley Confinement Mod. Conf. Mod. Conf. Mod. Conf. Mod. Conf. Mod. Conf. Conf.to 
Mod. Conf. Mod. Conf. 
Drainage Area (acres) 490 596 600 52 51 64 156 
Perennial, 
Intermittent, 
Ephemeral 
P 

P P P P P P 
NCDWR Water 
Quality Classification 
 C 
Stream Classification1  B3a A3/B3a B3/E3b B4a E4b A4a B4 
Evolutionary Stage 
(Simon and Rinaldi, 
2006)1 
VI: Quasi‐
equilibrium  
II: 
Channelized VI: Quasi‐
equilibrium 
VI: Quasi‐
equilibrium 
II: 
Channelized 
II: 
Channelized 
V: 
Aggradation 
& Widening 
NC SAM Rating High High High High High Low Medium 
FEMA Classification N/A Zone AE Zone AE N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 N/A2 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 9 
Table 7: Project Site Streams – Enhancement and Restoration 
Parameter UT4 Reach 2 
Length of Reach (LF) 164 
Valley Confinement Mod. Conf. 
Drainage Area (acres) 78 
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral P 
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C 
Stream Classification1  A4/B4 
Evolutionary Stage (Simon and Rinaldi, 2006)1 IV: Degradation & Widening 
NC SAM Rating Medium 
FEMA Classification N/A2 
1. Many of these channels have been anthropogenically manipulated and may not precisely fit the classification category 
developed for natural streams using the Rosgen classification system (Rosgen, 1994). Results of the Rosgen stream 
classification system and the Simon Channel Evolution Model (Simon, 1989) are both provided for illustrative purposes only.  
2. Only East Buffalo Creek from Reach 2 down is FEMA‐mapped. Some of the other tributaries flow through the East Buffalo 
Creek mapped floodplain 
Note: UT5 Reach 2 is not included in the above existing conditions summary table since it is proposed as an extension (of 
additional channel length) of UT5 Reach 1 for enhancement. 
East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 
East Buffalo Creek originates from headwater seeps in a steep confined valley near Deep Gap, which is 
located within Nantahala National Forest approximately 1.2 miles northeast of the Site. Down valley of 
the national forest, East Buffalo Creek flows through a conservation easement established by DMS and 
then a mix of agricultural and rural residential areas before entering the property. 
As East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 enters the Site, it flows west along the edge of a wood line that borders 
the left bank and a mowed field of grass that borders the right bank. The wooded area along the left 
bank is an old field that is now inundated with privet thickets and the right bank, along the edge of the 
mowed field, lacks deep‐rooted vegetation and appears to have been trampled in the past by cattle. The 
downstream limits of the reach terminate approximately 45 linear feet upstream from the UT2 Reach 2 
confluence.  
The stream was likely relocated toward the left side of the valley in the past as the left bank is steeper 
and taller than the right bank. Spoil piles of rock and soil line portions of the left bank as well. The 
channel is mostly stable but suffers from intermittent bank erosion, mid‐channel bar development and a 
lack of stream shading. Throughout the reach, the channel slope is moderate (5.6%) with variable riffle‐
pool and step‐pool morphology. The reach classifies as a Rosgen B3a type channel. 
East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 
East Buffalo Reach 2 begins just upstream of the UT2 Reach 2 confluence and flows across the field to 
the right edge, or opposite side, of the valley. The channel remains perched alongside the right valley 
wall and wood line for the remainder of its reach length terminating approximately 240 linear feet 
downstream of the UT5 confluence. In the vicinity of UT2, where East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 crosses the 
field, both banks are bordered by narrow, but dense thickets of Chinese privet. The pasture alongside 
the right floodplain extends nearly to the top of bank in areas. Two old stream ford crossings were 
observed just before the channel reaches the wood line along the right edge of valley. For the remainder 
of the reach length downstream the channel has a wide buffer along the right bank composed of mature 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 10 
trees and invasive vegetation such as privet and multiflora rose. An old soil road paralleling UT5 crosses 
over East Buffalo Reach 2 into the open pasture in the left floodplain via an abandoned culvert.  
Valley and channel slope for East Buffalo Reach 2 decrease by approximately one percent compared to 
that of East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 due in part to the perched channel condition across the valley. The 
difference in bankfull 
cross‐sectional area 
between Reaches 1 and 2 
of East Buffalo is minimal 
when Reach 2 is predicted 
to be approximately 1.5 
times larger in area (like 
Reach 3) due to an 
additional 100 acres of 
drainage area. In‐other‐
words, the bankfull 
channel for Reach 2 is 
undersized for a channel 
with a drainage area of 
approximately 100 more 
acres. As a result, flows 
exceeding the 2‐year 
storm event overtop the left bank and drain into the main valley toward UT3. 
Reach 2 of East Buffalo is the only section of the mainstem of East Buffalo within the entire East Buffalo 
watershed (from the East Buffalo Creek headwaters to Lake Santeetlah) that is currently relocated 
outside of the natural low point in the valley. 
East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 
East Buffalo Reach 3 is similar to Reach 2 upstream in that the channel continues to flow in its perched 
condition alongside the right valley wall and woodline. Infestations of non‐native species (privet and 
multiflora rose) persist in the riparian buffer along both banks although conditions improve downstream 
along both banks due to an increase in buffer width and native species. Localized erosion is evident 
along portions of the left bank bordering the pasture and the channel is overwide in select areas. The 
left bank is bermed in the upstream half of the reach as a means to minimize overbank flooding into the 
pasture. Unlike East Buffalo Reach 2, the bankfull cross‐sectional area for Reach 3 (17.2 SF) is the 
expected size given the corresponding drainage area (per the regional curve). 
UT1  
UT1 originates off‐site and flows through an area that was previously farmed and is presently infested 
with privet. The reach is difficult to access due to privet infestation. Historic manipulation from farming 
was apparent in areas that could be accessed during the preliminary assessment. It is anticipated that 
old crossings and intermittent erosion from incision may be present in the reach, which appears 
moderately steep with gravel and cobble bed material and a mixed riffle‐pool and step‐pool 
morphology.  
UT2 Reach 1 
UT2 Reach 1 originates on Site from a forested, headwater seep and confined valley on the southeast 
side of the property. The valley is steep with an average slope of approximately 28%, and the channel is 
a stable step‐pool system. The headwaters include areas of subsurface flow and evidence of 
Oblique aerial (left) and shaded relief (right) imagery looking eastward down the 
mainstem valley showing the relocation and perched channel condition of East 
Buffalo Creek Reach 2 alongside the right valley wall.    

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 11 
sedimentation, likely the result of old landslides. Prior landslides and/or logging have resulting in a less 
mature forest in some areas, but vegetation is still mature with minimal invasive species. There is a 
logging road crossing that has localized erosion and head‐cutting within the downstream reach limits of 
this reach near East Buffalo Road, but logging has not occurred within the period of available aerial 
photography (which dates back to 1963). Patches of invasive English ivy (Hedera helix) were observed in 
the left floodplain of the lower valley of UT2 Reach 1 within proximity to the road crossing. The English 
ivy extends up to and beyond the ridge separating the valleys of UT2 and UT3. The culvert crossing at 
East Buffalo Road constitutes the downstream limits of UT2 Reach 1.  
UT2 Reach 2 
UT2 Reach 2 starts below East Buffalo Road in a thriving patch of English ivy. The channel flow becomes 
subsurface within the upstream limits for approximately 20 linear feet before flowing through two short, 
tight meander bends and dropping grade over a steep, headcutting riffle directed toward an eroding left 
bank (the base of the East Buffalo Road embankment). The channel is pinched against the left valley wall 
upstream and perched above its natural low point further downstream as it nears the center of the 
mainstem valley. UT2 Reach 2 may likely have been historically altered for farming, and until the last 
couple decades it was in active agricultural production. Portions of the reach are affected by berms and 
drainage features that adversely affect stream‐floodplain interaction. There are a few select areas 
where the channel is heavily aggraded or filled with sediment, causing intermittent subsurface flow 
conditions. Riffles are embedded and pools are shallow and sparse. Minor areas of erosion are present, 
but the bank is generally locked in place by privet at bank height ratios less than 2. The riparian corridor 
is heavily infested with invasive species and has only a few scattered native trees. In the lower half of 
the reach, the left bank borders an existing cattle pasture with only a few feet of buffer between the 
stream and cattle fencing.  
UT3 Reach 1            
UT3 Reach 1 originates on Site from a forested, headwater seep and confined valley on the southeast 
side of the property. The valley is steep with an average slope of approximately 28%, and is 
predominantly vegetated in mature native forest cover. The top of UT3 Reach 1 has significant 
subsurface flow as a result of historic landslide activity. The same forest road that intersects the 
downstream reach limits of UT2 Reach 1 also crosses UT3 Reach 1 up valley from East Buffalo Road and 
is widely bordered by English ivy. The forest road crossing is locally eroding and head‐cutting. The 
culvert crossing at East Buffalo Road constitutes the downstream limits of UT3 Reach 1.  
UT3 Reach 2 
UT3 Reach 2 is a channelized reach that has been relocated from its natural valley to parallel East 
Buffalo Road along the toe of the road embankment. Since the left bank coincides with the road 
embankment within the upper half of the reach, the vegetated buffer conditions are poor and limited. 
Further downstream, UT3 Reach 2 is routed into an active cattle pasture where it flows through a 
culvert used as a crossing to access the pasture from East Buffalo Road. Overall the reach is incised, 
eroding in areas, and degrading in habitat as a result of past channel/buffer manipulation and active 
cattle trampling. The lower project reach has few trees and a poor‐quality buffer within the pasture and 
is infested with multiflora rose.  
UT3 Reach 3 
UT3 Reach 3 begins at the UT4 Reach 2 confluence. The majority of the project reach is confined against 
the left valley wall. The left bank is steep and eroding in areas and the channel is overwide from past 
and present cattle impacts. Due to the lack of entrenchment in such a steep valley from a combination 
of past cattle wallowing and sediment aggradation, portions of the existing channel are prone to 
avulsion as evidenced by a few lengths of muti‐threaded channel observed on this reach. UT3 Reach 3 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 12 
lacks bedform diversity and stabilizing streamside vegetation due to cattle access and agricultural 
practices. 
UT4 Reach 1 
UT4 Reach 1 originates from a forested, headwater seep and confined, colluvial valley (22% slope) near 
the southeast corner of the Site. Similar to Reach 1 of UT2 and UT3, the ridge above UT4 Reach 1 adjoins 
Nantahala National Forest. The stream and watershed conditions are high quality with mature 
vegetation and minimal invasive species. The stream channel is composed of cobble and gravel bed 
material and exhibits a steep, stable step‐pool morphology. The same soil road that intersects Reach 1 
of UT2 and UT3 also crosses UT4 Reach 1 twice—at midreach and further up valley near the upstream 
project limits. The lower crossing is locally eroding and head cutting. 
The channel alignment in the lower fourth of the valley appears to have been naturally (landslide) 
and/or artificially (ditching) altered. The channel seems to have been diverted through a smaller 
adjacent valley just east of the wider, previously mainstem valley of UT4 Reach 1. A combination of 
remnant forest roads, landslide signatures, and plastic drain piping are evident within the area of 
channel/valley realignment. The culvert crossing at East Buffalo Road constitutes the downstream limits 
of UT4 Reach 1.  
UT4 Reach 2 
UT4 Reach 2 begins downstream of East Buffalo Creek Road as it outlets from a perched culvert (24 inch 
corrugated metal pipe) and terminates at its confluence with UT3. Non‐native invasive species, such as 
multiflora rose and privet, are present throughout the riparian corridor of this reach and although not 
invasive, a proliferation of blackberry was also observed. In general, the buffer is narrow, of poor‐quality 
vegetation, and lacking deep rooted vegetation along the stream banks. The reach is incised (bank 
height ratio of 2.9) and overwide in areas impacted by active cattle crossings. Cattle crossing areas along 
this reach are devoid of woody vegetation along the banks and therefore lack tree canopy to shade the 
channel. A small seep originating on Site at an existing spring house joins UT4a, and UT4a joins with the 
existing alignment of UT3 Reach 2 in the pasture. 
UT4a 
UT4a originates on Site at the base of a steep slope, just west of and in close proximity to, the sharp 
outer bend of the lower valley of UT4 Reach 1. The channel immediately transitions to a multi‐threaded, 
or anastomosing stream, for the majority of its length upstream of East Buffalo Road and eventually 
drains into UT3 Reach 3 on‐site after crossing under East Buffalo Road in a perched culvert. The stream 
outlets the perched culvert and enters a grazed pasture impacted by cattle wallows and crossing and 
lacking a woody buffer. The valley for UT4a appears to have originally been the mainstem valley for UT4 
Reach 1 prior to past valley/channel alteration. Remnant drain pipes potentially used for this purpose 
were observed in proximity to the junction of both valleys and the anastomosing (UT4a) channel is 
aligned with an old building site along East Buffalo Road. While this reach will be preserved and 
protected by the proposed conservation easement, it is not proposed for credit. Average valley slope for 
this project reach is approximately 17%. 
UT4b and UT4b1 
UT4b is a small headwater tributary to UT4 Reach 1 and originates high on the same slope in the 
southeast corner of the Site. After flowing approximately 500 linear feet down valley, UT4b joins UT4 
Reach 1, and shares similar stable vegetation and morphology conditions as described above for UT4 
Reach 1. Average valley slope of this short project reach is approximately 30%, the steepest throughout 
the Site. UT4b is intersected by a soil road crossing approximately midreach. Immediately upstream of 
and bordering the soil road is UT4b1, a small perennial stream (approximately 50 feet in length) that 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 13 
flows into UT4b from the right bank. While UT4b1 will be preserved and protected by the proposed 
conservation easement, it is not proposed for credit. 
UT5 (Reaches 1 and 2) 
UT5 originates from a forested, headwater seep just upstream of the northeastern corner of the Site. 
Part of the headwaters consists of a low‐density residential development located above the project 
parcel. UT5 flows on Site through a moderately steep, confined valley and drains into East Buffalo Creek 
near the edge of the cattle pasture area. Average valley slope throughout the project stream reach 
ranges between 11% and 17%. The colluvial stream contains bedrock and other large bed material and 
exhibits a stable step‐pool morphology. Throughout its length on Site, UT5 is predominantly bordered by 
a mature forest until it nears East Buffalo Creek, where there is an old clearing in the left floodplain that 
is regenerating with saplings and invasive vegetation such as privet and multiflora rose. An old forest 
road intersects the clearing along the left floodplain and traverses the east rim of the subwatershed 
boundary, ultimately joining up with the abandoned culvert crossing on Reach 2 of East Buffalo Creek, 
located just upstream of the confluence of UT5 and East Buffalo Creek. 
UT5 is geomorphically stable and proposed for stream preservation. The channel will be extended down 
valley to tie into the proposed realigned and restored East Buffalo Reach 2. This additional downstream 
channel length of UT5 is proposed for Enhancement II credit and constitutes UT5 Reach 2. The 
downstream reach of the existing UT5 channel is channelized and artificially confined between two old 
forest road embankments before emptying into East Buffalo Creek. A stable representative cross‐section 
of UT5 was surveyed just upstream from the channelized subreach and classifies as a Rosgen A4/B4a 
stream type. Unlike the short, channelized subreach of UT5, much of the existing UT5 project reach 
upstream is characterized by a channel with a high entrenchment (2.7) and width‐to‐depth (18.3) and 
ratio. 
UT6 
UT6 originates on Site downstream of an abandoned forest road crossing and flows through a 
moderately steep colluvial valley bordered by a mature forest. Average valley slope throughout the 
project stream reach is approximately 7%. There is low density residential development located further 
up valley above the project parcel. UT6 is piped just before exiting the Site and flows beneath a large, 
mowed field down valley before it eventually outlets into East Buffalo Creek (downstream of the 
project). The UT6 watershed contains high quality vegetation and stable stream conditions and habitat.  
UT7 
UT7 originates on the property approximately 50 linear feet upstream of an abandoned forest road 
crossing and is confined in a moderately steep colluvial valley bordered by a mature forest. Average 
valley slope throughout the project stream reach is approximately 13%. It shares similar characteristics 
as UT6 in that it has a stable step‐pool morphology, a mature wooded buffer composed of high‐quality 
vegetation, and minimal invasive species. Channel baseflow transitions from perennial to intermittent 
midreach for approximately 200 linear feet before resuming as perennial flow again until the 
downstream reach limits which coincides with the property boundary. 
4.0 Functional Uplift Potential 
4.1 Wetland Functional Uplift Potential 
The field north of Reach 1 of East Buffalo that is proposed for wetland re‐establishment is currently 
lacking physical, chemical, and biological characteristics typically associated with functional jurisdictional 
wetland systems. This area is hydrologically drained with a historic clay drain tile that was located during 
a December 2020 field visit, on the right floodplain of East Buffalo Creek immediately below the down‐

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 14 
gradient limits of the proposed re‐establishment area. Additionally, evidence of historic overburden in 
varying depths placed within the proposed re‐establishment area was observed and is outlined in 
Section 7.6 of this report. The proposed wetland re‐establishment area is currently being maintained in 
grass through mowing.  
Wetlands proposed for rehabilitation and enhancement currently have enough function to be 
considered jurisdictional aquatic resources, however historic manipulation, including stream relocation, 
and ongoing agricultural use and maintenance has reduced wetland function and impaired natural 
processes. The majority of areas proposed for wetland rehabilitation are located in pasture and are 
being actively grazed; the remaining area (Wetland J) is being maintained in grass.  
Functional uplift to proposed restoration and enhancement wetland areas is expected as a result of the 
proposed activities on Site. Removal of the existing clay drain tile and excavation of overburden material 
within the re‐establishment area will restore the natural toe of slope seep groundwater regime. The 
relocation and restoration of UT3 Reach 2 to the low point in the valley from its current incised and 
ditched location along the road will reconnect stream and wetland hydrology and restore the natural 
flooding regime of the system within the proposed wetland rehabilitation area. Fescue will be removed 
from wetland re‐establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement areas, and these areas will be 
replanted with native herbaceous seed mix and permanent woody vegetation to create an appropriate 
forested riparian wetland community. Together, these activities will result in uplift of overall wetland 
functions including increased water storage, increased groundwater recharge, water quality treatment 
through retention, and increased habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species. It is anticipated that uplift 
may also occur along East Buffalo Creek in existing pocket wetlands, or in other areas adjacent to these 
pockets. 
4.2 Stream Functional Uplift Potential 
The potential for functional uplift is discussed in this section according to the terms described by the 
Stream Functions Pyramid (Harman, et al., 2012). The Stream Functions Pyramid describes a hierarchy of 
five stream functions, each of which supports the functions above it on the pyramid (and sometimes 
reinforces those below it). The five functions in order from bottom to top are hydrology, hydraulics, 
geomorphology, physicochemical, and biology. Each of these functions is described below. 
4.2.1 Hydrology 
Site watersheds have historically been subject to intensive agriculture which led to past manipulation 
and relocation of many of the project stream segments. Within the project limits, lower valley bottoms 
are used for hay and livestock grazing, and upper elevation areas are typically wooded with limited 
livestock access. The alteration in land cover which facilitates this land management typically results in 
less rainfall interception and evapotranspiration which leads to runoff and water yield increases (Dunne 
and Leopold, 1978) producing elevated peak flows and reduced base flow. The majority of the upper 
watersheds on Site (including the headwaters of East Buffalo Creek) have been wooded for many 
decades but have been deforested in the past. The management of the riparian stream corridors within 
a conservation easement and planting, as well as preservation of the high elevation stream channels, 
will improve natural hydrologic conditions that buffer against flooding and drought. Because most of the 
project streams are headwater drainages, the implementation of the project will improve downstream 
hydrology in the immediate project area and downstream before the project size is overshadowed by 
inputs from other subwatersheds. Easements will fully protect entire watersheds on the southeast side 
of East Buffalo Road (UT2, UT3, and UT4) and a large proportion of drainage area of peripheral 
tributaries across the road while protecting the entire lower valley bottom with substantial buffers 
against future forestry practices. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 15 
4.2.2 Hydraulics 
Stream reaches proposed for restoration and enhancement are hydraulically impaired to some extent 
due to prior channel manipulation, relocation, and the resulting loss of stream morphology influenced 
by cattle trampling. Daylighting subsurface portions of streams on select reaches and creating a stable 
dimension and profile within these steep step‐pool systems, will restore hydrology, help establish a 
bankfull channel that is free‐to‐form through the transport of sediment and wood, and help establish 
diverse bedforms. The reduction in bankfull and greater flow velocities and channel shear stresses will 
help to provide a lift in hydraulic function. Storm flows at or greater than bankfull in incised channels, 
like Reach 2 of UT2, UT3, and UT4, are contained within the channel resulting in reduced hydraulic 
functioning of the channels as described by Harman, et al. (2012). There is significant potential for 
improving the hydraulic function as the restored stream channels will be reconstructed to restore the 
natural flooding regime of the system and reconnect the stream channels to floodplain wetland systems 
where applicable. The channels will be designed to experience out of bank events at a recurrence 
interval typical of a naturally functioning stream system. 
4.2.3 Channel Geomorphology 
Previous anthropogenic manipulation and watershed impacts have degraded the lower valley streams to 
Stage II‐V of the Simon Channel Evolution model. Riparian buffers are minimal in width, of poor quality 
(invasive vegetation and/or lacking rooting depth) and are bordered by either active pastureland or 
invasive infestations extending well into the floodplain. The reaches on Site generally lack pool habitat 
and exhibit signs of instability including channel incision, bank erosion, mid‐channel bar formation, and 
overly aggraded areas with subsurface flow. 
There is a significant opportunity to improve the geomorphology function on the Site. Channel 
dimension will be stabilized on restoration and enhancement reaches. Aquatic habitat will be added to 
the system through construction of instream log structures, bank revetments, riffle‐pool cascade 
sequences, and step‐pools. Invasive vegetation will be treated and riparian buffers will be planted or 
supplemented along all the project reaches. The geomorphology function will be restored throughout 
the project reaches.  
4.2.4 Physicochemical 
No water quality sampling has been conducted on the Site, and no water quality monitoring stations 
exist within the East Buffalo Creek watershed. The 2008 (amended 2018) Little Tennessee RBRP noted 
the importance of reducing sediment input from agricultural activities, improving riparian communities, 
and offsetting habitat degradation. Examples of sediment and nutrient impacts evident on the Site 
include eroding banks and trampled streams from grazing, manure and associated bacterial and nutrient 
runoff to streams, sediment contributions from unpaved roads, and stream bank erosion resulting from 
prior stream manipulation.  
The proposed project will reduce the stressors identified. The reduction of sediment and nutrient inputs 
from agricultural activities will be achieved through easement establishment, cattle exclusion, and 
buffer planting. Wildlands is obtaining easement acreage in areas which are outside of the required 
buffer in order to protect seeps and additional resources that would otherwise remain accessible for 
potential future impact. The design streams will be restored to minimize bank erosion and profile 
instability. Daylighting subsurface portions of stream that have aggraded will increase the aeration of 
the surface water, not to mention the aeration provided by the proposed installation of successions of 
step‐pools and riffle‐pool cascade in‐stream structures. Trees planted in the riparian zone will create 
shade to reduce thermal impacts and help filter runoff. Streams will be reconnected to floodplains and 
wetlands to provide storage and treatment of overbank flows. Streambank erosion will be greatly 
reduced to nearly eliminate a major source of sediment and nutrients. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 16 
The wetland‐stream complex afforded by the proposed rerouting of UT3 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 will 
allow more anerobic processing to occur both in and around the stream channel that would not occur if 
the channel is left in the perched position. This wetland‐stream restoration will likely reduce the amount 
of nitrogen exported from these first‐order streams. Studies have documented nutrient‐based chemical 
source functions provided by streams and riparian wetlands to downstream waters. Alexander et al. 
(2007) found approximately 65% of the nitrogen mass in second‐order streams, and approximately 40% 
of the nitrogen mass in fourth‐ and higher‐order streams had been transported from first‐order 
headwater streams. 
Physicochemical improvements will not be explicitly monitored for success, although visual observations 
should show that the improvements are in place and achieving the benefits described above. 
4.2.5 Biology 
There are no available biological data for the Site; however, the habitat conditions on the Site have been 
impacted by historic and ongoing agricultural practices that have removed a large amount of riparian 
buffer and manipulated the project streams. Bed material within project streams generally consists of 
sand, gravel, small cobble, and some bedrock, but fines from bank erosion are evident throughout the 
project reaches. Many of the project reaches lack woody debris and organic material necessary to 
support diverse macroinvertebrate and fish communities. The absence of buffers along most project 
streams has resulted in little to no downed trees or other large woody debris (LWD) that would create 
habitat features.  
There is opportunity to improve the instream and riparian habitat in addition to the physicochemical 
function described in Section 4.2.4. Habitat will be improved by adding instream structures with a 
variety of rock and woody materials, adding woody bank revetments, restoring or improving riparian 
buffers to shade the streams and improve terrestrial habitat, creating pools of variable depths, creating 
habitat through the use of floodplain vernal pools and wetlands, and reducing sources of fine sediments. 
By relocating Reach 2 of UT2 and East Buffalo from a perched valley position and allowing these 
channels to flood regularly on both floodplains (left and right bank), the resulting reduction in fines in 
the bedform will help maintain clean gravel necessary for trout to reproduce. 
However, until the physicochemical function is significantly improved, the response in the biology 
function may be slow. The ultimate level of improvement in biology may not occur until after the 
completion of the seven‐year monitoring period. Biological improvements will not be included in the 
project success criteria for the seven‐year monitoring period. 
5.0 Regulatory Considerations 
Table 8, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are 
discussed in this Section. All agency correspondence discussed below is included in Appendix 5.  
Table 8: Regulatory Considerations 
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 404 Yes No PCN1 
Water of the United States ‐ Section 401 Yes No PCN1 
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 5  
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 5 
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A 
Floodplain Compliance Yes No No‐rise Certification 
prior to construction 
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A 
1. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 17 
5.1 Waters of the US (401/404) 
As part of the existing conditions assessment at the Site, Wildlands documented and classified on Site 
wetlands. Classifications were applied based on wetland function and potential for wetland 
improvement through the stream design approach. Based on these classifications, Wildlands designers 
used this information to prioritize higher quality wetlands for avoidance and minimization and to 
incorporate stream design approaches to improve hydrologic and vegetative conditions of impaired 
wetlands. Wetlands within the conservation easement or limit of disturbance will be denoted in the final 
construction plans. Floodplain grading will result in temporary impacts to wetlands while channel 
realignment and ditch filling will result in permanent impacts. Wildlands expects a net gain of wetland 
function as a result of construction of the new channels, wetland re‐establishment and rehabilitation 
and through the realignment of the utility easement (to minimize intersection of coincident wetlands). 
Table 9 estimates the anticipated impacts to wetland areas. The Pre‐Construction Notification, including 
these data, will be provided in the Final Mitigation Plan. 
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Wetlands and Ditches 
Jurisdictiona
l Feature Classification Acreage 
Permanent (P) Impact Temporary (T) Impact 
Type of Activity 
Impact 
Area 
(acres) 
Type of Activity Impact Area 
(acres) 
Wetland A Seep 0.07 
Conversion to 
stream 
resource 
0.02 Minor floodplain grading 0.05 
Wetland B Seep 0.03 ‐  ‐ Minor floodplain grading 0.03 
Wetland C Seep 0.01 ‐  ‐ Minor floodplain grading 0.01 
Wetland D Seep 1.28 
Conversion to 
stream 
resource 
0.20 
Minor floodplain 
grading/road 
naturalization, overhead 
utility installation 
0.69 
Wetland G Seep 0.01 ‐  ‐ Stream bank grading 0.01 
Wetland H Seep 0.01 ‐  ‐ Stream bank grading 0.01 
Wetland I Seep 0.02 ‐  ‐ 
Building removal/minor 
grading 0.02 
   Total P Impact 0.22 Total T Impact 0.82 
5.2 Threatened and Endangered Species 
Wildlands utilized the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) 
databases to search for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Graham 
County. 
Per the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) website, there are nine species 
federally listed as threatened or endangered for this specific county which could potentially be affected 
by activities in the project area. The species identified are listed in Table 10 and include the Carolina 
northern flying squirrel (Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus), gray bat (Myotis grisescens), Indiana bat (Myotis 
sodalist), northern long‐eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii), spotfin 
chub (Erimonax monachus), Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Virginia spiraea (Spiraea 
virginiana), and the rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare). A pedestrian survey conducted on April 
18, 2019, indicated that the Site could provide suitable habitat for the Carolina northern flying squirrel, 
gray bat, Indiana bat, northern long‐eared bat, bog turtle, spotfin chub, Appalachian elktoe, and Virginia 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 18 
spiraea but no individual species were located at the time. Please refer to Appendix 5 for the Species 
Conclusion Table and IPaC resource list.  
Table 10: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Graham County, NC 
Species Federal Status  Common Name Scientific Name 
Carolina northern flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus Endangered 
Gray bat Myotis grisescens Endangered 
Indiana bat Myotis sodalist Endangered 
Northern long‐eared bat Myotis septentrionalis Threatened 
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii Similarity of Appearance (Threatened) 
Spotfin chub Erimonax monachus Threatened 
Appalachian elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana Endangered 
Virginia spiraea Spiraea virginiana Threatened 
Rock gnome lichen Gymnoderma lineare Endangered 
5.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass 
The Site is represented on the Graham County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 5662. East Buffalo Creek 
is mapped Zone AE (Figure 8), meaning that it there is a Special Flood Hazard Area (FEMA regulated 
floodplain) that has been established using limited detail methods for this stream. The backwater from 
East Buffalo Creek extends into areas of UT3, UT4 and UT4a under base flood conditions. Wildlands will 
coordinate with the floodplain administrator for Graham County to ensure that project activities comply 
with FEMA and local regulatory requirements, and that appropriate permits are obtained for work within 
FEMA‐regulated floodplains. The site will be designed so that hydrologic trespass does not occur.  
5.4 Cultural Resources / Conservation Lands / Natural Heritage Areas 
The North Carolina State Historical Preservation Office (SHPO) commented on the Site August 19, 2019. 
Due to the topographic and hydrological situation as well as recorded Cherokee history in the Buffalo 
Town area, SHPO recommended a comprehensive survey be conducted on the Site.  Archeological 
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) completed a survey of the Site in January 2020 and concluded 
that “based on the results of this investigation, no significant cultural resources will be impacted by the 
proposed restoration activities.”  A copy of the report was submitted to SHPO February 5, 2020. No 
additional comment from SHPO has been received at this time. 

The NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Managed Areas reference one NC Division of Mitigation 
Services Conservation Easement within 0.25 miles upstream of the Site. The Site is immediately adjacent 
to the Nantahala National Forest. See Figure 1 for locations of any nearby NC Historic Preservation 
Areas, Significant Natural Heritage Areas, and NC Natural Heritage Program Natural Areas. 
6.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives 
The Site will provide ecological benefits within the Little Tennessee River Basin. Project benefits include 
site specific improvements and watershed scale benefits. Once developed, the Bank Site will contribute 
to overall watershed uplift and promote the goals set forth in the RBRP.  
The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 11. Project goals are desired project 
outcomes and objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The Site will be 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 19 
monitored after construction to demonstrate success. Detailed performance standards and an 
associated monitoring plan related to project goals is described below in Sections 11 and 12. 
Table 11: Mitigation Goals and Objectives 
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Functions 
Improved 
Improve the 
stability of stream 
channels. 
Reconstruct stream channels slated for 
restoration with stable dimensions and 
appropriate depth relative to the existing 
floodplain. Add bank revetments and in‐
stream structures to protect restored/ 
enhanced streams. 
Reduce sediment inputs; 
Stabilize stream banks; 
Restore aquatic habitat. 
Hydraulic, 
Geomorphology, 
Physicochemical, 
Biology 
Improve instream 
habitat. 
Install habitat features such as constructed 
riffles, cover logs, and brush toes on 
restored reaches. Add woody materials to 
channel beds. Construct pools of varying 
depth. 
Restore aquatic habitat. 
Hydraulic, 
Geomorphology, 
Biology 
Restore wetland 
hydrology, soils, 
and plant 
communities. 
Restore and enhance riparian wetlands by 
raising stream beds, relocating streams to 
natural valley low point, removing 
agricultural drain tiles, removing overburden 
from relic hydric soils, and planting native 
wetland species. 
Improve terrestrial 
habitat.  
Hydrology, 
Geomorphology, 
Physicochemical, 
Biology 
Reconnect 
channels with 
floodplains and 
riparian wetlands. 
Reconstruct stream channels with 
appropriate bankfull dimensions and depth 
relative to the existing floodplain. Realign 
historically altered channels to natural valley 
low points.  
Reduce shear stress on 
channel; Hydrate 
adjacent wetland areas; 
Filter pollutants out of 
overbank flows.  
Hydraulic, 
Geomorphology, 
Physicochemical, 
Biology 
Restore and 
enhance native 
floodplain 
vegetation. 
Convert grassed fields and grazed pasture to 
forested riparian buffers along Site streams. 
Protect and enhance existing forested 
riparian buffers. Treat invasive species. 
Reduce sediment inputs; 
Reduce nutrient inputs; 
Restore riparian buffers. 
Hydrology (local), 
Hydraulic, 
Physicochemcial 
Preserve and 
enhance site 
streams, 
wetlands, and 
watershed. 
Extend conservation easements to the top 
of the ridge on many of the tributaries. 
Reduce sediment impacts from cattle and 
old logging roads, and remove culverts. 
Exclude livestock from Site streams. 
Protect and enhance 
aquatic habitat; Reduce 
sediment inputs; Protect 
any rare natural 
communities and 
species; add to existing 
protected lands in the 
vicinity. 
Hydraulic, 
Geomorphology, 
Physicochemical, 
Biology 
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan 
  This Site has a focus on preserving headwater streams in their current mature forested condition. 
Headwater forest land on the site has diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitat and connectivity with 
adjacent preserved lands and high quality resources. Activities are proposed along historic soil logging 
roads to enhance these values and mitigate erosion issues. Invasive species removal is proposed in areas 
that have a greater impact from historic land uses. In the valley bottom, the proposed design activities 
address prior and on‐going agricultural and land use impacts through enhancement and restoration 
design methods. The relocation of streams out of their valley low points, the presence and impacts of 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 20 
cattle on streams and buffers, and the widespread presence of non‐native invasive species infestations 
made these valley bottom streams targets for livestock removal, stream realignment, and buffer 
restoration activities. In addition, existing and relic wetlands areas on the site have been integrated into 
design plans that propose to reestablish, rehabilitate and enhance wetlands through removal of 
drainage features and overburden, restoration of streams to their natural topographic low points, and 
through planting native wetland vegetation. 
7.1 Design Approach Overview 
The design approach for this Site was developed to support the goals and objectives described in Section 
6 which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 4. The design is also 
intended to provide the expected outcomes in Table 11, though performance criteria are specified 
elsewhere. The project streams will be reconnected to an adjacent floodplain and the channels will be 
reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and sediment 
delivered to the system. The riparian buffer will be planted with native tree species. Instream structures 
will be constructed in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic 
habitat. The entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.  
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of reference reaches (analogous) and analytical 
approaches for stream restoration, and also relied on empirical data and prior experiences and 
observations. Reference reaches were identified to serve as the basis for design parameters. Channels 
were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis which used a combination of empirical and 
analytical data as described within this report. Designs were then verified and/or modified based on 
sediment transport analysis. These design approaches have been used on many successful mountain 
restoration projects and are appropriate for the goals and objectives for this Site. 
7.2 Reference Streams  
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform 
design of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Eight reference 
reaches were used to support the design. Selected reference reach data from publications that include 
stream sites located in the nearby Joyce Kilmer‐Slickrock Wilderness and eastern Tennessee were also 
used in the development of design parameters. These reference reaches were chosen because of their 
similarities to the Site streams including drainage area, valley slope, channel slope, and bed material, 
and used to formulate design parameters related to channel dimension and/or profile.  
The reference reaches are all located within the Blue Ridge physiographic province or the eastern Blue 
Ridge foothills of North Carolina which is located along the border of the mountain and piedmont 
provinces. Reference reaches located in the North Carolina foothills, such as Ironwood Tributary and UT 
to South Fork Fishing Creek, warranted inclusion for this project since they are steep, high gradient 
systems functioning more like step‐pool channel despite being characterized by a finer channel 
substrate (coarse to very coarse sand) than project streams on the Site. A description of each reference 
reach is included below. Geomorphic parameters for reference reaches are summarized in Appendix 6 
and Figure 9 illustrates the geographic locations of these reference reaches. The reference reaches to be 
used for the specific streams are shown in Table 12.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 21 
Table 12: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters 
Design Stream  
East 
Buffalo 
Creek 
UT2 UT3 UT3 UT4 UT5 
Reach 2  2 2 3 2 2 
Reference Stream Stream Type       
UT to Hampton Creek A4/B4a x  x x    
Ironwood Tributary  A5a+        x 
UT to Gap Branch B4a/A4  x x    x 
UT to South Fork Fishing Creek B5a  x      x 
UT to Austin Branch (upstream) A4/B4a  x x    x 
UT to Austin Branch (downstream) A4/B4a   x  x  
UT to Kelly Branch B4/B4a       x  
UT2 to East Buffalo Creek (from prior DMS 
mitigation project) A3a+        x 
TN Blue Ridge Reference Streams Varies x x x x x x 
Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness Sites Varies x x x x x x 

Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness Sites 
Zink et al. (2012) surveyed 14 stream reaches within the Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness in Graham 
County, in close proximity to the Site. Streams surveyed varied in contributing drainage area from 0.1 to 
16.1 square miles. The study validated cross‐sectional area and width relationships from the NC 
mountain regional curve for this suite of smaller drainage areas but found that mean depth for the 
studied streams was significantly less than the North Carolina mountains curve (Harman et al., 2000). 
Width‐to‐depth ratios ranged from 18.8 to 28.4, except for one of the sites which had a width‐to‐depth 
ratio of 8.8. Maximum depth ratios ranged from 1.3 to 1.9. Geomorphic relationships were also analyzed 
and included relationships of step height to channel width and slope, and riffle length and riffle slope 
ratios as a function of slope. The paper also found that pools occupied greater than 50% of length in all 
stream reaches with slopes less than 0.07 m/m. It found that about 50% of pools were preceded by a 
step and the others were preceded by a mix of riffles or riffle‐step combinations. Pools were found to 
have mean lengths between 0.2 and 1.0 channel widths. The steeper the stream, the higher the 
percentage of riffle and steps length as compared to pool length. Average riffle slope ratios ranged from 
0.4 to 1.9 with a maximum slope ratio of 2.5. Step height ratios were found to correlate highly (R2=0.92) 
to reach slope (the step height ratio is multiplied by the channel width to estimate average step height). 
Average pool spacing ratios ranges from 0.6 to 2.8.  
Tennessee (Blue Ridge) Reference Streams 
Jennings Environmental (2017) surveyed 21 reference reaches in the Blue Ridge physiographic region of 
eastern Tennessee. Based on an analysis of a step‐pool subset of these reference streams with drainage 
areas ranging from 0.18 to 8.96 square miles, several dimensionless design ratios were developed to 
evaluate step height, riffle and pool length, spacing, and slopes. Riffles were found to be 0.4 to 1.9 times 
their bankfull width and pools slightly shorter at the high end (1.4). Pool spacing ratio to bankfull width 
ranged from 0.8 to 2.8. Riffle slopes ranged from 0.7 to 1.8 times the average channel slope. Step 
heights range from 0.01 to 0.09 times the bankfull width. Some of the data collected overlaps with the 
Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock site data referenced above. Sinuosity for step pool (B and Ba) streams ranged 
from 1.04 to 1.10, and entrenchment ratios ranged from 1.3 to 2.4. Steeper streams with entrenchment 
ratios larger than 2.4 were classified as E4a despite their low sinuosity. Width‐to‐depth ratios ranged 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 22 
from approximately 12 to 29. For the purpose of discharge estimate, Manning’s n values were estimated 
to range from 0.045 to 0.07 with larger n values typically be associated with steeper streams. 
UT2 to East Buffalo Creek 
This reference reach is located further up valley on a prior East Buffalo mitigation site established by 
DMS. It is a small, steep, unnamed tributary to East Buffalo Creek located in the headwaters and has a 
drainage area of 0.04 square miles and a channel slope of 18%. The channel bed is primarily composed 
of a mix of cobble and gravel with some small boulders. Step features within this channel are well‐
defined and regularly spaced, ranging between 11 to 21 feet apart along the surveyed profile. Like many 
of the preservation reaches within the project area, the riparian buffer consists of a recovering forest 
with scattered mature trees and an herbaceous understory. UT2 is classified as an A3a+ type channel. 
UT to Gap Branch 
UT to Gap Branch is located in the Box Creek Wilderness in Union Mills, NC. This stream flows through a 
confined valley with an alluvial bottom, in similar fashion to several of the East Buffalo site streams. The 
overall stream slope is 6.8% and the width to depth ratio is 10.1. The entrenchment ratio is 3.4, and 
could be classified either as a slightly entrenched B4a or a slightly entrenched A4 within the Rosgen 
classification system. Habitats identified at UT to Gap Branch include boulder/cobble steps, pools, rock 
riffles, runs, root mats, and undercut banks.  
Ironwood Tributary 
Ironwood Tributary reference reach is approximately 175 ft in length and is located on Wildlands’ 
Critcher Brothers Mitigation Site in Wilkes County, NC. The reach is geomorphically described as a steep 
(11.4%) step‐like system and classifies as an A5a+ channel. It has a drainage area of 0.03 mi2 and is 
surrounded by dense canopy coverage. It has a channel sinuosity of 1.19 which is considerably high 
when thinking of high gradient systems. Several long gravel/cobble riffles were observed that cascaded 
into pools over root mass, woody debris or a boulder step at the tail of riffle. 
UT to Hampton Creek 
UT to Hampton Creek is located in Cherokee National Forest, near the North Carolina/Tennessee state 
line in northern Madison County, North Carolina (approximately five miles from the Site). The reference 
reach is a small, steep (6.5%) A4/B4a channel with a drainage area of approximately 0.25 square miles. 
Its entire watershed is forested with rhododendron, mountain laurel, American holly and various mature 
hardwoods (tulip poplar, white oak, bitternut hickory). The width to depth ratio is 10, the stream is 
moderately entrenched with an entrenchment ratio of 1.7, and sinuosity is 1.15. Habitats identified in 
UT to Hampton Creek include large cobble riffles, boulder/cobble steps, and plunge pools. 
UT to South Fork Fishing Creek  
UT to South Fork Fishing Creek reference reach is a small, locally steep (8.2%) B5a channel located on 
Wildlands’ Critcher Brothers Mitigation Site in Wilkes County, NC. It has a drainage area of 
approximately 0.02 square miles. UT to South Fork Fishing Creek is surrounded by a forested land cover. 
The bedform consists of bedrock slides and boulder steps at the tail of riffles that cascade into pools. 
The channel is confined so the banks are relatively high but well‐vegetated.  
UT to Kelly Branch 
The UT to Kelly Branch reference reach is a small, steep, headwater channel located in McDowell 
County. It has a drainage area of 0.08 square miles and is classified as an A4 step‐pool channel. The 
valley slope is 4.9% and the channel slope is 4.75%. The channel has a sinuosity of 1.19 with several long 
gravel/cobble riffles and cascade pools.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 23 
UT to Austin Branch (upstream) 
Located in Buncombe County on the West Range of the Biltmore property, this reference reach is 
drained by a small forested watershed (0.12 square miles) that empties into Austin Branch which flows 
directly into the French Broad River. Most of the watershed is wooded except for narrow patches of 
open, lightly used pastureland located around the upper periphery of the watershed. Surrounding plant 
communities included various mature hardwoods (white oak, tulip poplar) and understory shrubs 
(rhododendron, American holly). UT to Austin Branch is a step‐pool channel; it classifies as an A4/B4a 
stream with a channel slope of approximately 9.9%, a low sinuosity of 1.0, and a width to depth ratio of 
12.8. The stream exhibits adequate access to its flood‐prone area with an entrenchment ratio 2.6. 
Habitats identified in UT to Austin Branch include cobble riffles, boulder/cobble steps, and plunge pools.  
UT to Austin Branch (downstream) 
UT to Austin Branch (downstream) is located approximately 100 feet downstream of the UT to Austin 
Branch (upstream) step‐pool reference reach previously described. The increase in drainage area is 
nominal compared to the upstream reach, but the valley of this downstream reach becomes flatter, 
broader, and less confined. As a result, the channel transitions to more of meander pool system than a 
step‐pool system. Channel slope decreases to 4%, or half that of the upstream reach, and sinuosity 
increases to 1.2. Land use is uniform with that from the upstream reach of UT to Austin Branch. This 
lower reach of UT to Austin Branch classifies as an A4/B4a type channel with a width to depth ratio of 
8.8. Stream access to its adjacent flood‐prone area is ample reporting an entrenchment ratio of 4.3. 
Habitats identified in UT to Austin Branch (downstream) include cobble riffles, boulder/cobble steps, 
plunge pools, and meander pools.  
7.3 Design Channel Morphological Parameters 
Reference reaches were a primary source of information to develop dimension and profile design 
parameters for the streams. Due to the steep, confined valleys of proposed design reaches on Site, 
stream pattern parameters were not developed. Proposed channel slopes for design reaches range 
between 3 and 10 percent. Step‐pool channels, classified as B4 or B4a (and B3a for East Buffalo Reach 
2), are proposed for all design reaches. Proposed design parameters for channel dimension and profile 
were developed within the reference reach parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best 
professional judgement and knowledge from previous projects. Pool depths were designed to be 
between 2 and 4 times deeper than riffles to provide habitat variation. Cross‐section parameters such as 
area, depth, and width were designed based on the design discharge and stable bank slopes. In some 
cases, the width to depth ratio was increased beyond reference parameters to provide stable bank 
slopes prior to the development of a fully vegetated streambank. Key morphological parameters for the 
restoration and Enhancement I reaches are listed in Tables 13, 14, 15, and 16. Even though UT5 Reach 2 
is proposed for Enhancement II, it is included in the morphological parameter tables below (Table 16) 
since the design approach involves extending its channel to tie into the proposed realignment of East 
Buffalo Creek Reach 2. Complete morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions 
are included in Appendix 6. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 24 
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters 
Parameter 
East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 UT2 Reach 2 
Existing 
Reference: 
UT to 
Hampton 
Creek 
Proposed Existing 
Reference: 
UT2 to Gap 
Branch 
Reference: 
UT to South 
Fork Fishing 
Creek 
Reference: 
UT to Austin 
Branch (US) 
Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) Varies1 11.5 21‐36 10‐25 20.9 N/A 17.7 15‐20 
Contributing 
Drainage Area 
(acres) 
596 160 596 51 26 12.8 77 51 
Channel/Reach 
Classification A3/B3a2 A4/B4a B3a E4b A4/B4a B5a A4/B4a B4a 
Design Discharge 
Width (ft) 9.3 6.8 15.0 4.6 6.2 4.1 6.7 7.0 
Design Discharge 
Depth (ft) 1.3 0.7 1.0 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 
Design Discharge 
Area (ft2) 11.7 4.6 14.6 3.0 3.8 1.8 3.6 3.5 
Design Discharge 
Velocity (ft/s) 7.6 6.6 6.4 5.2 5.0 4.1 7.3 4.6 
Design Discharge 
(cfs) N/A 31 92 N/A 19 8 26 16 
Water Surface 
Slope (ft/ft) 0.045 0.0650 0.0490 0.0780 0.0680 0.0815 0.0986 0.0755 
Sinuosity 1.09 1.15 1.04 1.08 1.2 1.25 1.0 1.06 
Width/Depth 
Ratio 7.4 10 15.5 6.8 10.1 9.3 12.8 14.2 
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment 
Ratio >2.21 1.7 1.4 ‐ 2.4 4.4 3.4 1.7 2.6 1.4 ‐ 2.4 
1 Existing stream was relocated against valley wall for agriculture. A berm has been constructed to allow for this, 
but in most locations the berm is overtopped during high flows according to hydraulic modeling (and it is less than 
2 x maximum depth) so the valley width based on these conditions is much wider than the proposed valley. 
2 The existing stream has been moved against the valley wall and held in this perched location by a manmade 
berm. The existing stream does not fit within the Rosgen channel classification system. It functions similar to a B or 
Eb. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 25 
Table 14: Summary of Morphological Parameters 
Parameter 
UT3 Reach 2 
Existing 
Reference: 
UT to 
Hampton 
Creek 
Reference: 
UT to 
Austin 
Branch (US) 
Reference: 
UT to Austin 
Branch (DS) 
Reference: 
UT to Gap 
Branch 
Proposed Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 201 N/A N/A N/A N/A 15‐25 >100 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 64 160 77 77 26 64 64 
Channel/Reach Classification A4a A4/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a B4a E4b 
Design Discharge Width (ft) 4.8 6.8 6.7 6.2 6.2 8.0 9.1 
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.5 
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.9 4.6 3.6 4.4 3.8 4.5 5.0 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 8.9 6.6 7.3 6.2 5.0 4.8 4.4 
Design Discharge (cfs) N/A 31 26 27 19 22 22 
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0694 0.0650 0.0986 0.0400 0.0680 0.0694 0.0694 
Sinuosity 1.17 1.15 1.0 1.20 1.2 1.02 1.08 
Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 10 12.8 8.8 10.1 14.0 18.0 
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.7 2.6 4.3 3.4 1.4 – 2.42 >10 
1 Existing stream is pushed against valley wall and this parameter cannot be interpreted in a way that draws comparison 
between existing and proposed. The valley width at 2 x design discharge depth varies. 
2 In some locations, valley is locally wider and entrenchment ratio is in the range of 2.5 – 4. Final grading of the valley is 
still being developed. 

Table 15: Summary of Morphological Parameters 
Parameter 
UT3 Reach 3 UT4 Reach 2 
Exist‐
ing 
Reference: 
UT to 
Hampton 
Creek 
Proposed Exist‐
ing 
Reference: 
Kelly 
Branch 
Reference: 
UT to Austin 
Branch (DS) 
Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 10‐20 11.5 10‐20 201 N/A N/A 12‐20 
Contributing Drainage Area (acres) 150 160 150 78 51 77 78 
Channel/Reach Classification B4 A4/B4a B4 A4/B
4 B4/B4a A4/B4a B4a 
Design Discharge Width (ft) 10 6.8 11 7.4 7.9 6.2 8.5 
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.6 
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 7.4 4.6 7.6 6.5 5.7 4.4 5.2 
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s) 5.2 6.6 4.8 4.0 4.0 6.2 4.7 
Design Discharge (cfs) N/A 31 36 N/A 23 27 24 
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0330 0.0650 0.035 0.037
3 0.0475 0.0400 0.0497 
Sinuosity 1.07 1.15 1.06 1.56 1.19 1.20 1.05 
Width/Depth Ratio 13.6 10 16.0 8.3 10.9 8.8 14.0 
Bank Height Ratio 1.9 1.0 1.0 2.9 2.5 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 1.1 1.7 1.6–3.0 1.6 1.2 4.3 1.4–2.4 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 26 
Table 16: Summary of Morphological Parameters 
Parameter 
UT5 Reach 2 
Existing 
Reference: 
Ironwood 
Tributary 
Reference: 
UT to 
South 
Fork 
Fishing 
Creek 
Reference: 
UT2 to 
East 
Buffalo 
Reference: 
UT to 
Austin 
Branch 
(US) 
Reference: 
UT to Gap 
Branch 
Proposed 
Valley Width (ft) 10‐20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8‐15 
Contributing Drainage Area 
(acres) 47 19 12.8 26 77 26 47 
Channel/Reach 
Classification A4/B4a A5a+ B5a A3a+ A4/B4a A4/B4a B4a 
Design Discharge Width (ft) 7.3 5.0 4.1 5.6 6.7 6.2 5.8 
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 0.4 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.5 
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 2.9 2.7 1.8 3.0 3.6 3.8 2.7 
Design Discharge Velocity 
(ft/s) 4.5 4.9 4.1 5.2 7.3 5.0 5.0 
Design Discharge (cfs) N/A 13 8 16 26 19 13 
Water Surface Slope (ft/ft) 0.0975 0.1139 0.0815 0.1813 0.0986 0.0680 0.0975 
Sinuosity 1.13 1.2 1.25 1.06 1.0 1.2 1.07 
Width/Depth Ratio 18.3 9.1 9.3 10.7 12.8 10.1 12.0 
Bank Height Ratio 0.9 1.3 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 
Entrenchment Ratio 2.7 2.1 1.7 2.5 2.6 3.4 1.4 – 2.6 
7.4 Design Discharge Analysis 
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project restoration 
and Enhancement I reaches including published regional curve data, a site‐specific reference reach 
curve, existing bankfull indicators using Manning’s equation, and data from previous successful design 
projects. The resulting values were compared, and best professional judgment was used to determine 
the specific design discharge for each restoration reach. Plots of each data source showing the 
relationship of the data to the design discharge selections can be found in Appendix 6. 
7.4.1 Regional Curve Data 
Bankfull discharge was estimated using a combination of the three following regional curves: 
 Tennessee Blue Ridge (Jennings, 2017), 
 NC Mountain (Harman et al., 2000), and 
 NC Piedmont/Mountain or ‘Alan Walker’ curve (Walker, unpublished). 
7.4.2 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 
Eight reference reaches were identified for this project. Each reference reach was surveyed to develop 
information for analyzing drainage area‐discharge relationships as well as development of design 
parameters. Stable cross‐sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull 
discharge with the Manning’s equation for each reference reach. Plots of the resulting discharge values 
(Reference Reach Curve) and comparison to the other discharge estimation methods versus drainage 
area are included in Appendix 6. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 27 
7.4.3 Bankfull Discharge (Manning’s Equation) 
A riffle cross‐section was surveyed on each design reach on the Site. Bankfull indicators were field 
identified throughout Site streams and used for estimating a bankfull discharge. Manning’s equation 
was used to calculate a discharge associated with the field identified bankfull indicators for all project 
streams. Stream slope was calculated from the surveyed channel slope and roughness was estimated 
using guidelines from Chow (1959). Plots of the corresponding discharge (Qbkf – Existing Site Streams) 
can be found in Appendix 6 and were considered as potential bankfull discharge values throughout the 
Site. 
7.4.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary 
Main design goals at the Site include reconnecting streams with their natural valleys and reconstructing 
channels with stable bankfull dimensions and flood‐prone areas consistent with reference reach 
findings. Bankfull discharges calculated for surveyed riffle cross sections using Manning’s equation 
generally exceeded those predicted by all four of the aforementioned regional curves, but more closely 
matched discharges predicted by the TN Blue Ridge, NC Mountain, and reference reach curves (within 
11 cfs). Drainage areas and channel slope of stream reaches from the Alan Walker curve are not entirely 
representative of the very small and steep headwater streams found throughout the Site; stream 
reaches from this curve has much less slope and drainage areas in orders of magnitude larger than those 
found on Site, and thus tend to under predict bankfull discharge when using this curve. Therefore, 
proposed bankfull discharges for all design streams on the Site were selected primarily within the range 
of values predicted by Manning’s equation, the TN Blue Ridge, NC Mountain, and reference reach 
curves. Table 17 gives a summary of the discharge analysis. Plots of the selected design discharges 
displayed on these regional curves are included in Appendix 6.  
Table 17: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis 

East Buffalo 
Creek Reach 2 
UT2 
Reach 2 
UT3 
Reach 2 
UT3 
Reach 3 
UT4 
Reach 2 
UT5 
Reach 2 
DA (acres) 596 51 64 150 78 47 
DA (sq. mi.) 0.93 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.07 
TN Blue Ridge Curve (cfs) 87 13 15 30 18 12 
NC Mountain Curve (cfs) 95 15 17 33 20 14 
Alan Walker Curve (cfs) 53 8 9 18 11 7 
Site Specific Reference Reach 
Curve (cfs) 77 20 23 36 25 19 
Bankfull Q from Manning's Eq. 
from XS survey (cfs) 89 16 26 39 26 13 
Final Design Q 92 16 22 36 24 13 
7.5 Sediment Transport Analysis 
The stream reaches at the Site are steep headwater streams whose bed material consists of a mix of 
alluvial material from upstream processing and transport, and colluvial deposits from hillslope 
processes, including landslides and debris flows, that have contributed both immobile and mobile 
sediment to the stream systems. These small boulder, cobble, gravel, and finer materials form riffles, 
cascades and step grade control features within these steep step‐pool channels. Incoming fine sediment 
from legacy sediment is being partially addressed through road decommissioning to reduce sources of 
fine sediment, and through reestablishment of flood relief benches as well as entrenchment ratios that 
can support movement of fine sediment through the restoration and enhancement streams.  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 28 
In general, restoration and enhancement streams are proposed to be relocated to their valley low points 
(East Buffalo Creek Reach 2, UT2 Reach 2, and UT3 Reach 2), the site of historic streambeds, where 
some amount of appropriately sized bed material will be encountered in‐situ. This material will be 
supplemented with appropriately sized material to form low‐mobility grade control features typical of 
step‐pool channels.  
To recreate this stability in enhancement and restoration reaches, in situ material will be supplemented 
from the following sources: harvested material from existing perched channels, on Site rock deposits of 
sufficient size as determined by competence analyses described below, and with supplemental quarry 
stone that will be imported as necessary. The plans and specifications will specify that both the size and 
mixture of materials is conducive to the formation of stable and diverse bedform representative of 
reference reach observations.  
In order to evaluate grade control particle sizes in East Buffalo Creek and other streams on‐site, existing 
stable particles forming grade control within the bed were measured. In existing streams, vegetative and 
moss growth are indicative of immobile or less mobile particle sizes within the bed. For East Buffalo 
Creek Reach 2, particle sizes of 12‐24 inches were common as part of riffle key grade control particles in 
riffles and as part of steps and cascades. Brush jams and wood were also found to provide grade control 
within the existing channel in areas exhibiting stable bedform. Using standard pebble count methods, 
the largest particle randomly picked was approximately 180mm, or 7 inches. 
Additionally, to refine the selection of 
sediment gradations appropriate for design 
streambed measures, sediment transport 
competency analyses were prepared for a 
range of design flows for the proposed channel 
and valley geometries, as described below. 
7.5.1 Competence Analysis 
A bed material competency analysis was 
performed during design for each of the 
restoration reaches by evaluating shear 
stresses associated with the design bankfull 
and statistically derived 10‐year flow 
discharges (Q). These stresses, based on the 
proposed channel and valley dimensions and 
channel slopes, were used to predict the 
mobile particle size using standard equations 
based on Shields curve (Leopold et al., 1964). 
The material size ranges specified on the 
design plans for riffles and grade control features were adjusted to ensure that sufficiently large 
particles are present in the bed matrix and grade control structures to provide long‐term vertical 
stability. Large particle sizes also form lateral stability in step‐pool channels bank creating a stable bank 
toe. The results of this analysis, along with the existing sampled particle size distribution and notes 
about the design particle sizes, are shown in Tables 18 and 19.  
Measurement of key particle sizes that form bed 
stability and grade control is one method that was 
used to prescribe restoration structure particle sizes for 
East Buffalo Creek 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 29 
Table 18: Results of East Buffalo Creek, UT2 and UT5 Existing Conditions Sediment Sampling and Competence 
Analyses 
 East Buffalo Creek UT2 UT5 
Reach 2 Reach 2 Reach 2 
Dbkf (ft) 1.0 0.5 0.5 
Channel Slope (Schan) (ft/ft) 0.049 0.075 0.098 
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 2.9 2.3 2.7 
Calculated movable particle size 
for bankfull Q, Shields Curve 
(mm) 
236 
(9.3 inches) 
185 
(7.3 inches) 
220 
(8.7 inches) 
Existing conditions particle sizes 
D16 / D35 / D50 / D84 / D95 / 
D100 (mm) 
8 / 45 / 66 / 197 / 
>2048 0.3 / 0.4 / 0.5 / 14 / 54 3 / 9 / 13 / 27 / 107 
Design material (equivalent 
NCDOT quarry stone size) 
Class A (2‐6”), and 
Class 1 (5‐17”) size 
material to constitute 
50‐60% or greater of 
riffle mix. Minimum 
structure or steeper 
cascade material shall 
be Class 2 (9‐23”), and 
should typically be 
2x2x1’ or greater for 
structures 
Class A (2‐6”), and Class 
B (5‐12”) size material 
to constitute 50‐60% or 
greater of riffle mix. 
Minimum structure or 
steeper cascade 
material shall be Class 1 
(5‐17”), and should 
typically be 2x1x1’ or 
greater for structures 
Class A (2‐6”), and 
Class B (5‐12”) size 
material to constitute 
50‐60% or greater of 
riffle mix. Minimum 
structure or steeper 
cascade material shall 
be Class 1 (5‐17”), and 
should typically be 
2x1.5x1’ or greater for 
structures 
10‐year Q 
Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 4.6 3.5 4.4 
Calculated movable particle size 
for 10‐year Q, Shields Curve (mm) 
383 
(15.1 inches) 
285 
(11.2 inches) 
365 
(14.4 inches) 

As a discussion of the above Table 18, East Buffalo 
Creek has a good mix of colluvial bed material in the 
existing perched creek channel. This material will be 
relocated to the restoration channel as prescribed 
within the plans. Such relocation has also been 
found to serve to repopulate the restoration 
channel with existing aquatic organisms that are 
present within the relocated substrate. UT2 Reach 2 
has a high sand load from upstream sediment 
sources and also has a finer substrate that reflects 
its prior manipulation (ditching). Sediment sources 
will be addressed within Reach 2 and a coarser bed 
will be constructed. The proposed particle size 
distribution will include encountered in‐situ 
substrate in the valley bottom where UT2 is being 
relocated, along with a mix of Class A & B material 
for riffles/cascades and small boulder steps. UT5 
Reach 2 is a somewhat steeper stream that will have larger and/or more frequent drops and that will 
Test pits were dug within the East Buffalo Creek 
valley low point. At typical proposed channel bed 
depths, a range of gravel and cobble substrate is 
present from the historic streambed. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 30 
have a need for slightly larger step material to resist movement and a similar mix of riffle/cascade 
material as UT2. Bed material mixture will target 30‐50% of the material as gravel and smaller size 
particles to maintain flow at the surface of the bed. 
Table 19: Results of UT3 and UT4 Existing Conditions Sediment Sampling and Competence Analyses 
 UT3 UT3 UT4 
Reach 21 Reach 3 Reach 2 
Dbkf (ft) 0.6 0.7 0.6 
Channel Slope (Schan) (ft/ft) 0.07 0.035 0.05 
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 2.4/2.1 1.5 1.8 
Dmax Bar or Subpavement sample (mm) N/A N/A N/A 
Calculated movable particle size, Shields 
Curve (mm) 
192/170 
(7.6/6.7 inches) 
116  
(4.6 inches) 
147 
(5.8 inches) 
Existing conditions particle sizes 
D16 / D35 / D50 / D84 / D95 / D100 
(mm) 
0.3 / 7 / 32 / 82 / 135 / 
180 
6 / 13 / 25 / 90 / 
158 / 256 0.2 / 0.7 / 12 / 59 / 139 / 256 
10‐Year Q Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 4.0 / 2.6 2.1 2.5 
Calculated movable particle size, 10‐
year Q, Shields Curve (mm) 
331/212 
(11.3/8.4 inches) 
172 
(6.8 inches) 
205 
(8.1 inches) 
Design bed material (equivalent quarry 
stone size) 
Class A (2‐6”), and 
Class 1 (5‐17”) size 
material to constitute 
50‐60% or greater of 
riffle mix. Minimum 
structure or steeper 
cascade material shall 
be Class 2 (9‐23”), and 
should typically be 
2x2x1’ or greater for 
structures 
Class A (2‐6”), and 
Class B (5‐12”) size 
material to 
constitute 50‐60% 
or greater of riffle 
mix. Minimum 
structure or steeper 
cascade material 
shall be Class 1 (5‐
17”), and should 
typically be 
2x1.5x1’ or greater 
for structures 
Class A (2‐6”), and Class B (5‐
12”) size material to constitute 
50‐60% or greater of riffle mix. 
Minimum structure or steeper 
cascade material shall be Class 
1 (5‐17”), and should typically 
be 2x1x1’ or greater for 
structures 
1 Upper and lower sections of UT3 Reach 2 reported. Lower section is less confined and shows correspondingly less shear. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 31 
As a discussion of the above Table 19, UT3 in its current ditched position along the roadside (Reach 2) is 
very bouldery with large colluvial and/or 
boulder fill material placed along the bank toe 
in many locations. Due to its location within the 
channel, this material was underrepresented by 
existing conditions pebble counts. Cobble, 
gravel and sand are also present. Reach 3 is also 
ditched, along the toe of slope, and has similar 
material with fewer large boulders. The 
proposed UT3 Reach 2 stream will be located 
within an existing draw adjacent to the existing 
channel towards the interior of the parcel. It is 
anticipated that insitu streambed material may 
be present in the new channel location, but as 
with East Buffalo Creek Reach 2, material from 
the existing UT3 channel will be relocated to the 
restoration channel to supplement and form the new channel bed. Large boulders will be selectively 
used to create step features. Reach 3 will be partially realigned to allow for benching along the left bank 
up against the valley wall. Existing streambed material will be relocated to the new channel and 
supplemented with material sizes indicated in the table. 
For all designed reaches, transport competency was considered for extreme events in the 100‐year 
range of recurrence interval. On the mainstem, the 100‐year discharge results in potential shear stresses 
of approximately 7 lb/sq ft. Intermittent steps will be construct with material that can withstand 
movement under these conditions. Shield’s curve approximates that a 24‐inch size material would be 
resistant to this type of flood event. Some movement under infrequent high flows should be viewed as 
acceptable as particles reorient and redistribute, so long as overall vertical stability is not compromised. 
In summary, fairly stable vertical profiles associated with existing streams offer the ability to consider 
existing conditions as data towards an analogous bed design approach. This approach has been 
validated and adapted based on the described sediment competency analysis that identifies the range of 
particle size mobility to be expected in each reach. Where suitable material is not encountered in‐situ, 
bed material will be supplemented with the size fractions of material that are absent from the desired 
bed mix. Favor will be given to the approach of reseeding streams with existing streambed material that 
will re‐populate aquatic organisms to the new stream. 
7.6 Wetland Design 
7.6.1 Wetland Design Overview 
Varying levels of wetland restoration and enhancement are proposed across the Site. Wetland re‐
establishment is proposed for a historically drained and filled wetland located along the toe of slope in 
the field north of Reach 1 of East Buffalo Creek. This area is drained by a historic agricultural clay tile and 
contains buried hydric soils which have been previously capped with overburden material. Wetland 
rehabilitation is proposed within the delineated aquatic resource (a portion of Wetland D) which is 
currently immediately north of UT3, in a concave valley where the relocated UT3 Reach 2 is proposed to 
be restored from its current location along East Buffalo Road. The area proposed for wetland 
rehabilitation is currently jurisdictional but has been hydrologically altered in the past via the relocation 
of UT3 and is currently in an active cattle pasture.  
In smaller channels, 3‐6” particle sizes were common 
particles making up the D84‐D100 size class and providing 
bed stability and habitat for aquatic organisms 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 32 
Wetland enhancement is proposed within wetland areas currently in an active cattle pasture on the 
downstream end of the Site, as well as Wetland J adjacent to East Buffalo Creek Reach 1.  
An outline of existing wetland conditions and the jurisdictional determination is included in Section 3.3.1 
of this report. A wetland crediting overview is provided with the preliminary design plans included in 
Appendix 9.  
7.6.2 Presence and Extent of Hydric Soils  
Wildlands evaluated the Site for the presence and extent of hydric soils as part of the jurisdictional 
determination and existing conditions assessment. Soil mapping for Graham County via the NRCS Web 
Soils Survey shows on Site soils within proposed wetland areas mapped as Dillard Loam (DrB), 
Thurmont‐Dillard (ThB), and Spivey‐Whiteoak complex (SvC) as shown in Figure 6. All three of these soil 
types are listed as hydric on the NRCS hydric soil list meeting Criteria 2 (NRCS Defines Criteria 2 as soils 
that will at least in part meet one or more Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States). Ela and 
Hemphill soil types (commonly mapped mountain hydric soils) are listed as complementary soil types to 
Thurmont‐Dillard and Dillard, respectively. Site soil investigations performed by Wildlands and 
corroborated by the USACE confirmed the presence of hydric soils within jurisdictionally delineated 
areas proposed for rehabilitation and enhancement. Site soils within the proposed wetland re‐
establishment area were not hydric at the surface, but relic hydric inclusions were observed in 
overburden material and a defined buried hydric soil horizon was observed below overburden indicating 
previous manipulation. Based on discussions with adjoining property owners, the area proposed for re‐
establishment was previously inundated seasonally prior to the field drain being installed. Additionally, 
it was noted that along with the drain installation, the southern portion of the field was crowned with 
overburden to reduce field hydrology for increased tobacco production. Wildlands has contracted a 
Licensed Soil Surveyor (LSS) to perform a gridded soil boring study between mitigation plan submittal 
and final design to further refine anticipated grading and overburden removal within the wetland re‐
establishment area.  
7.6.3 Proposed Wetland Hydrologic Conditions 
Surface hydrology observed within wetlands proposed for enhancement and rehabilitation were 
consistent with minimum requirements to meet jurisdictional designation. The proposed wetland re‐
establishment area is lacking sufficient inundation periods required for wetland processes due to 
previous manipulation. The lack of hydrology within the re‐establishment area is a direct result of the 
existing drain tile installed at the toe of slope. The current drain is catching crucial hillslope hydrology 
and routing it directly into drainage features preventing natural hydrologic processes. Wildlands believes 
that the combination of removing this field drain and reconnecting the hillslope hydrology, along with 
removing previously placed overburden, will increase hydrology adequately to support wetland 
processes. For further understanding of existing hydrology, Wildlands plans to install four groundwater 
gages throughout the Site prior to the 2020 growing season as shown in Figure 11 and in the preliminary 
design plans included in Appendix 3. The growing season is defined as April 2nd through November 5th 
(217 days) by the Tapoco, North Carolina WETS table for 50% probability of soil temperatures greater 
than 28 degrees Fahrenheit. 
7.7 Project Implementation 
The project implementation for the East Buffalo Creek Site includes stream, wetland, buffer and 
watershed preservation activities that address detrimental impacts to site resources from on‐going and 
historic land uses and restore natural stream and wetland hydrology as well as buffer integrity to the 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 33 
Site. The preservation of several headwater streams and ridgelines is a highlight of the project, and 
activities are being proposed to augment the value of this preservation, as discussed below. 
7.7.1 Overview of Stream Restoration, Enhancement, and Preservation 
The Site includes a combination of stream restoration, Enhancement I, Enhancement II, and 
preservation activities as well as a combination of wetland enhancement and restoration. These 
activities have been selected to provide the highest degree of ecological uplift relative to the existing 
conditions on the Site. Project reaches proposed for restoration scored as low functioning systems when 
compared to reference conditions due to impairment to one or more of the primary functions (habitat, 
hydrology, and water quality). Project reaches proposed for enhancement generally exhibited less 
instability relative to restoration reaches; however, reduced function was still evident.  
The watershed scale of this project makes it especially valuable for improving and protecting water 
quality because the proposed conservation easement extends up to the headwaters of the tributaries 
on the Site and a large portion of the East Buffalo Creek watershed will be protected in perpetuity. 
Figure 10 provides an overview of the proposed conservation easement boundary and proposed 
mitigation activities on the Site. Table 20 summarizes the functional impairments and mitigation 
approaches for each project reach proposed for restoration or enhancement. 
Table 20: Functional Impairments and Mitigation Approach 
Resource Functional Impairments Mitigation Approach 
East Buffalo Reach 1 Partially deforested buffers, poor buffer vegetation, 
intermittent bank erosion Enhancement II 
East Buffalo Reach 2 
Partially deforested buffers, poor buffer vegetation, 
intermittent bank erosion, channel perched/removed from 
valley low point, cattle access within buffer 
Priority 1 Restoration 
East Buffalo Reach 3 Poor/narrow buffer vegetation, intermittent bank erosion, 
cattle access within buffer Enhancement II 
UT1 Poor buffer vegetation Enhancement II 
UT2 Reach 2 
Partially deforested buffers, poor buffer vegetation, bank 
erosion, incision, channel perched/removed from valley low 
point 
Enhancement I 
UT3 Reach 2 Partially deforested buffers, erosion, incision, cattle access in 
buffer, channel ditched/removed from valley low point Priority 1 Restoration 
UT3 Reach 3 Cattle trampling of bed/banks, lack of pool habitat, poor 
buffer vegetation  Enhancement I 
UT4 Reach 2 Cattle trampling of bed/banks, partially deforested buffers, 
erosion, incision Enhancement I 
UT5 Reach 2 
 Poor/narrow buffer vegetation, intermittent bank erosion, 
cattle access within buffer (reach is being extended to new 
tie‐in with East Buffalo Reach 3) 
Enhancement II 

Restoration 
Restoration is being proposed on East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and UT3 Reach 2. Both streams were 
previously relocated for agricultural purposes resulting in localized incision and erosion, and habitat and 
buffer degradation. Restoration will return the streams to their topographic low point in the valley and 
create stable, functional stream channels based on reference reach parameters, design discharge 
analyses, and sediment transport analyses. Restored dimension, pattern and profile will be designed to 
provide a cross‐sectional area sized for maintaining flood relief onto a flood prone bankfull bench, a 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 34 
stable bed with variable bed forms, well‐vegetated bank slopes, connectivity to adjacent wetlands 
where applicable, and improvements to aquatic habitat and water quality that promote biological lift. 
Priority 1 restoration will be designed where feasible, with short sections of Priority 2 restoration 
potentially necessary near the existing culvert under East Buffalo Road for UT3 Reach 2 and when tying 
into adjacent project stream reaches. Cattle will be excluded from the conservation easement. Existing 
culverts located in the pasture on both restoration reaches will be removed. A wide buffer, typically in 
excess of 150 feet, will be established along East Buffalo Creek Reach 2. A narrower vegetated buffer is 
proposed along UT3 Reach 2 due to the utility line easement and East Buffalo Road ROW that border 
either side of the project reach.  
Enhancement I 
Enhancement I is proposed for UT2 Reach 2, UT3 Reach 3, and UT4 Reach 2 where practices will include 
restoration of appropriate dimension and profile in locations where channel incision and bank erosion 
are advanced as well as enhancement of degraded habitat. To help achieve stream functional goals, 
select areas of all three reaches will be realigned away from a valley wall to the natural low point of the 
valley. Portions of Reach 2 of UT2 and UT4 will be raised from the current elevation to enhance 
floodplain interaction and connectivity. Cattle will be excluded from the conservation easement. Existing 
farm infrastructure, including barbed wire fencing, will be removed from within the conservation 
easement boundaries; the existing spring house is proposed to be removed from the Site. The existing 
perched condition of the pipe outlet will be reduced by raising the channel bed to match the outlet 
grade and transitioning the channel profile downstream over a series of grade control structures. In‐
stream enhancements will include installation of grade control and habitat structures. Wide buffers, 
typically in excess of 150 feet, will be established along UT2 Reach 2 and UT4 Reach 2. A narrower 
vegetated buffer is proposed along UT3 Reach 3 due to the utility line easement and East Buffalo Road 
ROW that border either side of the project reach. Privet, multiflora rose, and other invasive species will 
be treated within the easement to promote the growth of native woody species.  
Enhancement II 
Enhancement II activities are proposed for Reaches 1 and 3 of East Buffalo Creek, UT1, and UT5 Reach 2. 
These reaches are relatively stable over much of their length. Reaches 1 and 3 of East Buffalo Creek have 
limited areas of bank erosion along mowed banks and in on‐going channel response to historic 
manipulation. Channels have been impacted by historic and on‐going agricultural and vegetation 
maintenance activities, including construction of berms along fields and physical channel alterations. 
Enhancement will establish buffers of typically 150 feet or more and will establish high quality buffers 
and canopy in the areas currently impacted by mowing, cattle grazing, and competition from non‐native 
invasive species. Currently, cattle are fenced out from these four project reaches, but will be excluded 
from the entire conservation easement altogether. Existing barbed wire fencing will be removed from 
the perimeter of the grazed pasture. The pasture will be restored, improving several wetland features 
which will be protected within the easement. Buffers will be treated for invasive species and replanted 
with native riparian woody species. Spot treatment of bank erosion and mid‐channel deposition will be 
conducted to reestablish appropriate dimension, as well as the regrading of streambanks in locations 
where privet infestations are best addressed in this manner and where field berms are present.  
Preservation 
The Site will preserve 9,811 linear feet of high‐quality coldwater stream reaches and their headwater 
watersheds within the proposed conservation easement. Primary and secondary soil roads and related 
stream ford crossings along the southeastern slope of the project will be naturalized to eliminate 
remaining threats to water quality within the preservation areas. Stream profile restoration will be 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 35 
completed on stream ford crossings located along the primary soil roads to restore aquatic passage. 
Invasive species, where present within the conservation easement, will be treated.  
The Site is close to Robbinsville and Lake Santeetlah which have sufficient development pressure so as 
to warrant protection of the site from future development. Preservation values include supporting the 
Trout and Critical Habitat designation of downstream receiving waters. In addition to the stream 
preservation, the project will protect wetlands, seeps, and any other aquatic habitats located within the 
proposed conservation easement. Buffers of greater than 150 feet are proposed, and the headwaters of 
UT2, UT3, and UT4 are proposed to have their watersheds protected in their entireties above their 
jurisdictional limits up to the ridgeline providing significant functional value to the watershed and 
landscape ecology.  
Each of the project reaches and wetlands will be placed in a conservation easement to protect the Site 
in perpetuity. The streambanks, floodplains, and wetland resources will be planted with native tree and 
shrub species as described Section 7.8.  
7.7.2 East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 
Enhancement II is proposed for East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and will primarily include spot repairs to 
unstable portions of both banks, invasive species treatment/removal, and native buffer plantings. A 
constructed riffle, rock step, and angled log step are proposed for installation as grade control and to 
add variation to stream bedform in the downstream half of the reach.     
Lateral bank instability in select areas will be addressed through a combination of bank grading, live 
staking, installation of brush mattress, and vegetated stone toe to promote the growth of woody 
vegetation along the banks. At a few existing outer meander bends, cover logs or brush toe revetments 
are proposed for installation along the bank to reduce erosion potential, maintain pool depth, and 
provide habitat features. Minor realignment of the channel, involving straightening the thalweg through 
a series of tight meander bends midreach, will re‐establish a stable pattern and thereby reduce the 
potential for future bank erosion. An existing levy, bordering the right bank, will be removed and allow 
overbank flows to access the existing and proposed riparian wetlands. 
The buffer will be replanted with native species. Patches of multiflora rose and Japanese honesuckle will 
be removed from the right bank as well as thickets of privet along the wood line bordering the left bank. 
Cut‐stump treatment of these invasives is proposed for many areas of East Buffalo Reach 1 so as to not 
disturb and destabilize banks. 
7.7.3 East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 
East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 is proposed for Priority 1 restoration involving the relocation of the channel 
to the low point of its original valley which is beyond the existing left floodplain in the pasture. Channel 
dimension, pattern, and profile of the new offline channel will be restored and will accommodate a 
wider range of flows compared to the existing channel and reduce the risk of channel avulsion (since all 
large flows currently spill over the levy along the left bank down into the pasture). The proposed 
channel will be restored as a B3a Rosgen type stream with a larger bankfull cross‐sectional area and 
width‐to‐depth ratio than the old channel, but a lower entrenchment ratio due to the steeper and 
narrower valley to which it is being relocated. The constructed step‐pool channel will include various 
types of in‐stream structures such as cascading riffles, log and rock steps, and rock drops. Structures will 
reinforce channel stability and serve as habitat features.  
The existing perched channel along the right valley wall will be abandoned. Existing material from the 
stream bed of the abandoned channel will be harvested for reuse in the new offline channel; and before 
backfilling the abandoned channel, infestations of privet and multiflora rose proliferating the existing 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 36 
riparian corridor will be mechanically removed. Mechanical removal of invasives lining the abandoned 
channel reduces the need to apply herbicide within close proximity of the creek during invasive 
treatment since the channel will be relocated to the pasture in the lower valley which is devoid of such 
dense thicket. As part of construction, the old culvert crossing and barbed wire fence will be removed 
and the adjacent farm road decommissioned.  
7.7.4 East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 
Enhancement II is proposed for East Buffalo Creek Reach 3. Enhancement activities will consist of sloping 
stream banks to restore stable channel dimension, berm removal along portions of the top of left bank, 
and in‐stream structure placement to improve in‐stream habitat and bedform diversity while also 
providing grade control. A bankfull flood bench will be constructed on the left bank to reduce near bank 
stress and bank erosion. Cover logs will be used to provide refuge habitat for aquatic species. Unlike 
Reaches 1 and 2 of East Buffalo, Reach 3 has a forested buffer of ample width along both banks but is 
proliferated with privet and multiflora rose. Invasive vegetation infestations throughout the riparian 
corridor of the entire reach will be treated and/or removed, and replaced with native buffer plantings.  
7.7.5 UT1 
Enhancement II, involving the treatment of invasive vegetation and reestablishing a native buffer, is 
recommended for UT1. Buffers will be treated for invasive species and planted with native riparian 
woody species. 
7.7.6 UT2 Reach 2 
UT2 Reach 2 is proposed for Enhancement I involving the treatment of invasive vegetation, native buffer 
plantings, and the re‐establishment of stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile. The channel 
thalweg will be re‐established and the banks reshaped as necessary in trampled, flattened, and/or 
overly aggraded areas to contain and convey flows downstream; grade control will be installed as 
necessary in a few select areas along the channel profile. The channel within the upstream and 
downstream reach limits will be realigned to the natural low point in the valley. The reach will be 
extended downstream to tie into the proposed realignment of East Buffalo Creek Reach 2. Cascading 
riffle‐pool sequences are proposed to dissipate flows vertically through a steep step‐pool profile. 
7.7.7 UT3 Reach 2 
Proposed restoration of UT3 Reach 2 involves realignment of the channel into the low point of the valley 
and away from the toe of the East Buffalo Road embankment where it currently flows. The majority of 
the existing channel bordering the road is located within the NCDOT ROW and will require authorization 
to perform construction activities related to grading and drainage alteration. Construction activities 
include rerouting the channel into the floodplain beginning at the culvert outlet at East Buffalo Road and 
backfilling the abandoned channel at the toe of the road embankment.  
Establishment of a stable channel dimension, pattern, and profile in the floodplain will entail 
reconfiguration of the valley form through the upper half of the reach corridor where the valley is 
narrower and steeper. The reach will be aligned through a wetland proposed for rehabilitation. The 
proposed channel slope of the lower half of the reach profile (through the wetland) is approximately 
less than half of that for the upstream half of the reach. The main entrance farm road and existing 
culvert crossing intersecting the reach will be decommissioned and removed. 
7.7.8 UT3 Reach 3 
The primary stressors to UT3 Reach 3 are confinement against the left valley wall and lack of bedform 
and stabilizing streamside vegetation due to cattle access and agricultural practices. Due to the lack of 
entrenchment in such a steep valley from a combination of past cattle wallowing and sediment 
aggradation, portions of the existing channel are prone to avulsion as evidenced by a few lengths of 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 37 
muti‐threaded channel observed on this reach. Wildlands proposes Enhancement I for UT3 Reach 3 
involving the realignment of the channel toward the low point in the valley and reconstructing a stable 
bankfull channel with adjacent floodplain connection. Buffers will be treated for invasive species and 
planted with native riparian woody species. 
7.7.9 UT4 Reach 2 
Enhancement I is proposed for UT4 Reach 2 where practices will include restoration of appropriate 
channel dimension and profile and buffer improvements that include the removal of invasive vegetation 
and replacement with native plantings. To achieve stream functional goals, the proposed channel along 
the middle section of UT4 Reach 2 will be shifted away from the right valley wall.  
The existing perched condition of the pipe outlet at East Buffalo Road will be reduced by raising the 
channel bed to match the invert grade and transitioning the channel profile downstream over a series of 
grade control structures. In‐stream enhancements will include installation of grade control and habitat 
structures in the form of cascading riffle‐pool sequences throughout the entire reach. Riparian buffers 
will be planted on both banks. Privet, multiflora rose, and other invasives will be treated within the 
easement to promote the growth of native woody species. 
7.7.10 UT5 Reach 2 
Enhancement of UT5 Reach 2 will consist of extending and realigning approximately 250 LF of additional 
channel down valley and along the wood line through a portion of the abandoned East Buffalo 
mainstem channel. A lower credit ratio is proposed for UT5 Reach 2 (Enhancement II at 2.5:1) since the 
improvements to this reach, or the additional channel length to facilitate a tie‐in to the proposed 
relocation of the mainstem, is ancillary to restoring East Buffalo Creek Reach 2. 
7.7.11 Wetland Mitigation Activities 
This project will include wetland re‐establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement. The current 
jurisdictional delineation along with historical and on Site evidence suggests a wetland toe‐of‐slope seep 
system was present prior to relocation and manipulation of project streams and subsequent lowering of 
the water table for agricultural purposes. Proposed wetland re‐establishment is within relic capped and 
drained hydric soils. Proposed wetland rehabilitation and enhancement is within currently delineated 
jurisdictional wetlands with existing hydric soils.  
Excavation is proposed within the wetland re‐establishment area to remove only the material which was 
previously used to cap and drain relic wetland areas. No excavation outside what is required for the 
stream grading is proposed for wetland rehabilitation and enhancement areas. UT3 Reach 2 will be 
constructed through an area of proposed wetland rehabilitation such that the streambed elevation will 
restore the natural water table elevation and natural overbank flooding regime. Proposed wetlands 
within the project area will also be planted with appropriate native wetland communities. Wetland 
areas may be disked to increase surface roughness and better capture rainfall which will improve 
groundwater recharge. Furrows will not exceed six to nine inches in depth. 
7.7.12 Forest Road Decommissioning 
An estimated 1.6 miles of existing soils roads will be decommissioned that intersect and/or border 
stream preservation buffers of the Site located north and south of East Buffalo Road. Road 
decommissioning is defined by the United States Forest Service (USFS) as “activities that result in the 
stabilization and restoration of unneeded roads to a more natural state,” and involves various levels of 
treatment depending upon the severity, or instability, of the road condition at hand (USFS Forest Service 
Manual 7705). Wildlands adopted these treatments in developing site‐specific management actions to 
naturalize existing soil roads. This work will improve water quality by reducing sedimentation to the 
streams across the site from road erosion and will restore stream habitat and aquatic species passage. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 38 
Selected soil roads proposed for decommissioning were categorized as either ‘primary’ or ‘secondary’ 
depending on the level of treatment needed and are described below. 
Primary Soil Roads 
Primary soil road decommissioning and naturalization is 
proposed along roads that are more prominent from 
historic or recent use and that warrant a moderate to 
high level of intervention to eliminate long term risks 
associated with leaving them in their existing condition. 
Roads proposed for primary decommissioning include 
the prominent “lower road” that crosses three stream 
channels (UT2, UT3, and UT4) and the lower segments 
of roads that parallel UT5 and UT3 Reach 1. The range of 
risks may include some or all of the following: water 
quality risk from surface erosion and sedimentation, 
impairment of watershed function through short‐
circuiting of existing buffers, fluvial erosion and aquatic 
passage issues at existing crossings, long term risks from 
unauthorized use resulting from trespass onto the 
proposed easement, and increased runoff and landslide 
potential.  
To address these risks, primary road decommissioning will involve eliminating the ability of vehicles to 
traverse these roads where there is direct connectivity to the main paved road, or junctions with 
significant offsite soil roads on adjacent parcels. Elimination of passage will be achieved through 
intermittent obstruction of the road with boulders, trees 
or berms/grading to reduce the passable width for the 
prevention of trucks and 4‐wheeler traffic to the extent 
practicable. Primary road decommissioning will also 
naturalize existing stream crossings – all three crossings 
along the “Lower Road” will be restored with proper 
dimension, pattern and profile and existing ford and 
culverted crossings eliminated. Crossings will be live‐
staked and naturalized with transplants or wood from 
adjacent areas. This level of decommissioning will also 
restore natural flow paths in preserved valleys by 
regrading roads to disperse runoff and shed water 
before flow is concentrated. Under current conditions 
these primary roads serve as conduits which carry 
runoff and sediment until it enters the next down‐
gradient stream. At a minimum, Wildlands will install an average of two water shedding sections and at 
least 10 trees will be planted every 300 LF, and more frequently where the factors of contributing 
drainage area, gradient, and existing road conditions warrant. Additionally, major gullies will be plugged 
and graded in order to promote revegetation of old roadbeds. Water shedding sections will include 
downslope brush and debris to distribute flows naturally within the buffer. Due to the frequency of 
proposed enhancements, it is anticipated that only small‐scale short‐term dispersal measures will be 
necessary. Wildlands will naturalize the road paralleling UT3 Reach 1 upstream of where it crosses the 
Lower Road. Due to the steep nature of the area and sunken condition of the road, this may require 
rocky swale outlets to the creek with brush check dams to reduce short‐term risk of sediment loading. 
Primary soil road crossing along UT2 Reach 1 
looking across (perpendicular to) the 
channel. 
Primary soil road paralleling UT3 Reach 1 
(looking up valley). 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 39 
Wildlands will install a minimum of three outlets to the creek to force water off of the sunken road and 
will apply brush and other blockages along the length of the road to further diminish impacts and 
disperse concentrated runoff. 
Secondary Soil Roads 
Secondary soil road decommissioning and naturalization is proposed along roads that are less 
prominent, not recently in use, or exhibit minimal potential to adversely impact watershed or stream 
functions. Some of these roads are significant features that run along ridgelines but have been 
abandoned. Others are roads that traverse slopes but which require less intervention. Roads proposed 
for secondary decommissioning include the upper segments of the roads that run along the ridgelines or 
parallel UT5, UT3 Reach 1, and UT2 Reach 1. The western 
portion of the “Upper Road” is also included for secondary 
soil road decommissioning. In this segment of road, the ford 
crossings near the stream origins of UT4 & UT4b will be live‐
staked and naturalized with handwork. In addition, the 
approaches to these upper crossings will be treated to 
divert runoff off of the road section into the buffer in the 
same manner as for the primary road sections where a 
minimum of two water shedding sections are established 
every 300 LF. All secondary roads will be treated to ensure 
they shed water in a natural pattern. Along ridge roads, 
obstructions will be installed and trees planted at a 
frequency of one obstruction and 10 trees per 300 LF. This 
will assist with the naturalization of these areas, short and 
long‐term prevention of unauthorized use, and help reduce 
future surface and fluvial erosion. 
7.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan 
The Site will be planted and seeded by April 15th with a combination of early and later successional 
vegetation chosen to establish a native riparian buffer. The objective of the planting plan is to establish, 
over time, a thriving riparian buffer composed of native tree species. This restored buffer will improve 
riparian habitat, help the restored streams stay stable, shade the streams, and provide a source for LWD 
and organic material to the streams. The species composition to be planted was selected based on the 
community type, observation of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Site, best professional 
judgement on species establishment, and anticipated Site conditions in the early years following project 
implementation. Species chosen for the Site for riparian and temporary seeding, bare root riparian 
planting, and streambank planting are listed on Sheet 3.0 of the preliminary plans in Appendix 9.  
Riparian species to be planted in open areas of the floodplain on the Site include sycamore (Platanus 
occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), northern red oak 
(Quercus rubra), boxelder (Acer negundo) ,  slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sweet birch (Betula lenta), river 
birch (Betula nigra), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), and American hazelnut (Corylus americana).  
Riparian wetland species to be incorporated into wetland re‐establishment, rehabilitation and 
enhancement areas on the Site include bare root planting of sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river 
birch (Betula nigra), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), white basswood (Tilia americana), boxelder (Acer 
negundo), red maple (Acer rubra), and live stake planting of black willow (Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix 
sericea), and buttonbush (cephalanthus occidentalis).  
Secondary soil road crossing along UT4b 
looking across (perpendicular to) the 
channel. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 40 
Areas on Site with an existing established canopy will receive supplemental planting with the following 
species: tag alder (Alnus serrulata), Virginia sweetspire (Itea virginica), Winterberry (Itex veritcillata), 
Ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolius), Elderberry (Sambucus canadenis) and Nannyberry (viburnum 
lentago). It is estimated that the proposed wooded areas targeted for this planting treatment already 
have an average density comparable to long‐term planting targets – the purpose of supplemental 
plantings will be to plant areas that are disturbed by construction, for in‐fill planting in locally sparse 
areas, and to increase species diversity. A minimum of 100 bare root plants per acre will be 
supplemented in existing wooded areas. 
Stream banks on Site will be planted with live stakes including silky dogwood, silky willow (Salix sericea), 
ninebark (Physocarpus opulifolis) and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) and the toe of bank will be 
planted with plugs of herbaceous species including common rush (Juncus effuses), Frank’s sedge (Carex 
frankii), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), shallow sedge (Carex Lurida), woolgrass (scirpus cyperinus) and 
broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia). Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on streambanks, 
floodplain areas, and all disturbed areas within the conservation easement.  
7.9 Invasive Vegetation Species Control Plan  
Dense infestations of Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), English ivy 
(Hedera helix), mimosa (Albizia julibrissin), princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa), and multiflora rose 
(Rosa polyantha) are present on the site. These species will be treated both prior to and/or at the time 
of construction through both physical removal with equipment and through chemical methods. 
Chemical methods near streams and wetlands will involve the use of herbicide approved for aquatic use.  
Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the standard treatment techniques provided in Appendix 6; 
however, the treatment may be changed based on the professional judgement of the project engineer 
and biologist. Invasive species not listed in Appendix 6 will be considered on a case by case basis and 
treatment will be performed consistent with project goals of re‐establishing a native riparian buffer. 
Annual monitoring and semi‐annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the project. 
These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation, or trends in vegetation 
abundance or spread. If, during the monitoring period, invasive species threaten the survivability of 
planted woody vegetation in an area that exceeds 1% of the planted easement acreage, the invasive 
species shall be treated. Smaller areas may be treated at the discretion of the project engineer and 
biologist, if deemed in the best interest of the Site. 
7.10 Site Constraints 
The majority of the active portion of the Site is currently an agricultural field with associated fencing and 
an outbuilding (spring house). Apart from East Buffalo Road, which bisects the Site and is excluded from 
the proposed conservation easement area, no other external easement breaks or stream crossings are 
proposed as part of the project. The two existing culvert crossings on the main farm road within the 
lower valley of the Site (on Reach 2 of UT3 Reach 2 and East Buffalo Creek) will be removed during 
construction, as will all other stream ford crossings in the area where enhancement and restoration 
activities are proposed.  
Construction activities involving the proposed restoration and realignment of UT3 Reach 2 will likely 
require an encroachment agreement with NCDOT due its close proximity to East Buffalo Road. Proposed 
restoration of UT3 Reach 2 involves realignment of the channel into the right floodplain and away from 
the toe of the East Buffalo Road embankment where it currently flows. The majority of the existing 
channel bordering the road is currently located within the NCDOT right‐of‐way (ROW) and would require 
authorization to perform construction activities related to grading and drainage alteration. Construction 
activities would include rerouting the channel into the right floodplain beginning at the culvert outlet at 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 41 
East Buffalo Road and backfilling the abandoned channel at the toe of the road embankment. Once 
backfilled, existing drainage bordering the embankment via toe of slope seepage and two existing 
(ephemeral) culvert crossings will be addressed in the design plans as part of the encroachment 
agreement. East Buffalo Road crosses UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT4a via a North Carolina DOT ROW but none 
of the Site’s conservation easement will extend into this ROW.  
The entire conservation easement area can be accessed for construction, monitoring, and long‐term 
stewardship from East Buffalo Road. This includes access for Duke Power to maintain an existing 
powerline utility easement paralleling the right floodplain of Reaches 2 and 3 of UT3 in the lower valley 
between East Buffalo Creek and East Buffalo Road. This power utility easement consists of a single 
electric line (Duke Power) and telephone line (Frontier Communications) mounted to distribution poles. 
Correspondence with Duke Energy revealed an existing ROW cited at a width of 20 feet on either side of 
the transmission line and power poles, for a total ROW width of 40 feet. The existing alignment of 
powerline easement intersects existing wetlands in the pasture and a short length of channel at the 
upstream end of UT2 Reach 2. Duke Power currently accesses the ROW via the farm road that connects 
to East Buffalo Road at the main entrance to the Site.  
Two sections of this overhead utility line will be relocated and realigned north toward the center of the 
mainstem valley to minimize impacts to streams and wetlands related to ongoing utility maintenance 
access and activities. It is the only internal easement break of the Site (crossing 5) and is listed in Table 
21.  
Proposed construction activities will involve creating a new equipment access for Duke Power off of East 
Buffalo Road, between the upstream limits of Reach 2 of UT2 and UT3, to enable access to their utility 
line right‐of‐way. Grading activities associated with construction of the proposed equipment access 
ramp between the top and toe of the existing East Buffalo Road embankment will also be included in the 
NCDOT encroachment agreement. 
There are no other known constraints to the functional uplift described above in this section. The degree 
to which the physicochemical and biology functions can improve on the Site is limited by the watershed 
conditions beyond the project limits, upstream water quality, and the presence of fish and benthic 
source communities upstream and downstream of the Site. 
Table 21: Summary of Site Easement Crossings and Breaks 
Easement 
Crossing Location Type 
1 UT2 Reach 1/2 60’ External Break, Existing Culverted East Buffalo Road Crossing (36” CMP) 
2 UT3 Reach 1/2 60’ External Break, Existing Culverted East Buffalo Road Crossing (36” CMP) 
3 UT4 Reach 1/2 60’ External Break, Existing Culverted East Buffalo Road Crossing (24” CMP) 
4 UT4a (uncredited reach) 60’ External Break, Existing Culverted East Buffalo Road Crossing (24” CMP) 
5 UT2 Reach 2 (and 
Wetland D) 40’ Internal Crossing, Overhead Utility Crossing1 
1 The 40’ Internal Crossing that crosses UT2 Reach 2 is part of the existing overhead utility, the portion that crosses 
over Wetland D is proposed relocated overhead utility – this area is not proposed for wetland enhancement. 

7.11 Project Risk and Uncertainties 
In general, this project has low risk. Returning streams to their natural location within the valley, 
removing existing culverts and constructing stable typical dimensions will reduce risk of long‐term 
channel avulsion. Tributaries emanating from the south side of East Buffalo Road are protected by the 
proposed conservation easement which extends to the ridgeline, and these areas are already wooded in 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 42 
mature vegetation. From the south side of the valley, a sizable wooded buffer also will be preserved 
within the easement, and the existing headwaters are already developed in low density residential. 
Furthermore, topographic constraints, parcel ownership and existing conserved lands (particularly to the 
northeast in the headwaters of East Buffalo Creek) make significant changes in land use unlikely, thereby 
protecting the stability of the hydrologic regime and sediment supply contributing to the project area. 
There is some risk of effectively treating invasive vegetation within the project area, particularly in the 
UT1/UT2 and UT5/UT7 vicinities, as well as across the road near the UT3 road crossing of East Buffalo 
Road which is overgrown with English Ivy. Wildlands will begin treatment prior to construction and 
maintain a vigorous treatment regime throughout the monitoring period. 
 There is some risk of 
vehicular trespassing on old 
logging roads which would 
violate easement conditions. 
Wildlands will dissuade 
future use through grading 
and obstacle placement as 
part of the soil road 
naturalization activities.  
The Site does have steep‐
gradient streams and 
Wildlands will ensure that 
proper grade control is 
established as part of 
construction efforts.  
The existing powerline 
intersecting the Site, which 
will be slightly realigned as part of the project, requires access by Duke Power. Design considerations for 
the proposed realignment of project streams and the utility ROW (in relation to the wetlands) should 
help minimize long term impacts by allowing Duke Power easy access to the Site. 
8.0 Site Protection Instrument 
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of the Site includes portions of the 
parcel listed in Table 22. A conservation easement will be recorded on the parcel and will include the 
project streams along with their corresponding riparian buffers. Out of the 274.7‐acre parcel, 259.84 
acres will be protected by the conservation easement. Two areas of the 276.7‐acre parcel were excluded 
from the conservation easement and are located on either side of East Buffalo Road (exclusion area #1 
and #2 on Figure 10); exclusion area #1 is slated to be recombined with the neighboring Melarti parcel. 
The deed book and page number listed in the table is for the option to purchase the conservation 
easements.  
All conservation easements require 60‐day advance notification to the USACE prior to any action to void, 
amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by the USACE and IRT. 
A copy of the conservation easements and plats will be submitted to the USACE immediately upon 
recordation in the Graham County Register of Deeds. A copy of the Site Protection Instrument is in 
Appendix 1. 
Oblique aerial imagery (2011) of the 4‐acre area bound by East Buffalo Creek 
Reach 1, UT1, UT2 Reach 2, and East Buffalo Road that is infested by privet and 
multiflora rose (looking south).  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 43 

Table 22: Site Parcel 
Landowner PIN County Deed Book and 
Page Number Physical Address 
Proposed 
Conservation 
Easement Acreage 
Ramlonghorn, 
LLC 
5662‐00‐09‐
0043 Graham 00374, 0420 1157 East Buffalo 
Road, Robbinsville, NC 259.84 
9.0 Determination of Credits 
A summary of the proposed credits is included in Table 23. A proposed credit release schedule is 
provided in Tables 24 and 25 based on the current IRT Mitigation Banking Instrument Template. Project 
reaches proposed for restoration have a mitigation ratio of 1:1 based on the work proposed of a newly 
constructed channel with appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. The project reaches proposed for 
Enhancement I are proposed for a mitigation ratio of 1.5:1 based on the establishment of a new channel 
profile, minor realignment of part of the channel, the addition of instream structures, and the replanting 
of appropriate native vegetation. The project reaches proposed for Enhancement II are proposed for a 
2.5:1 ratio based on benching and bank grading, addition of constructed riffles for bedform and habitat, 
removal of a culvert and invasive vegetation, and planting of native vegetation. Project reaches 
proposed for Restoration and Enhancement I will also benefit from cattle exclusion.  
Due to the buffer widths proposed at a minimum of 150 feet and the approach to protect the entire 
watershed with connectivity to other protected lands and conservation areas, a 7:1 ratio is proposed for 
UT4b and Reach 1 of UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT5 which all have direct connectivity to downstream 
enhancement and restoration reaches. UT6 and UT7 have less connectivity to the immediate project 
area downstream and are therefore proposed at a lower 10:1 ratio. However, preserving these 
tributaries still plays in important role in the watershed scale protection. Preservation eliminates risk of 
future development, ensures protection of forested headwaters, and contributes to general better 
water quality in downstream receiving waters. 
Wetland re‐establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement are at a ratio of 1:1, 1.5:1, and 3:1, 
respectively. 
Table 23: Project Asset Table 
Mitigation Credits 
Project Component 
or Reach ID 
Proposed Stationing 
Location Approach 
Mitigation Plan 
Footage or 
Acreage (LF) 
Mitigation 
Ratio Total Credits1 
East Buffalo Reach 1 1000+00 – 1005+50 Enhancement II 550 2.5 220.0 
East Buffalo Reach 2 1005+50 – 1013+92 Priority 1 
Restoration 842 1.0 842.0 
East Buffalo Reach 3 1013+92 – 1017+16 Enhancement II 324 2.5 129.6 
UT1 0+00 – 3+96 Enhancement II 396 2.5 158.4 
UT2 Reach 1 ‐ Preservation 1,797 7.0 256.7 
UT2 Reach 2 3001+46 – 3007+33 Enhancement I 587 1.5 391.3 
UT3 Reach 1 ‐ Preservation 2,179 7.0 311.2 
UT3 Reach 2 4000+70 – 4010+46 Priority 1 
Restoration 976 1.0 976.3 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 44 
Mitigation Credits 
Project Component 
or Reach ID 
Proposed Stationing 
Location Approach 
Mitigation Plan 
Footage or 
Acreage (LF) 
Mitigation 
Ratio Total Credits1 
UT3 Reach 3 4010+46 – 4014+26 Enhancement I 380 1.5 253.3 
UT4a  20+35 ‐ 23+75 No Credit 0 ‐ 0 
UT4b ‐ Preservation 505 7.0 72.1 
UT4 Reach 1 ‐ Preservation 2993 7.0 427.6 
UT4 Reach 2 5000+65 – 5002+29 Enhancement I 164 1.5 109.3 
UT5 Reach 1 ‐ Preservation 1343 7.0 191.8 
UT5 Reach 2 6000+67 – 6002+48 Enhancement II 181 2.5 72.4 
UT6 ‐ Preservation 196 10.0 19.6 
UT7 ‐ Preservation 799 10.0 79.9 
  Total 13,662  
4,511.5 
 Cold Stream 
Credits 

Wetland Re‐
Establishment Relic Wetland K Restoration: Re‐
Establishment 1.06 1.0 1.06 
Wetland 
Rehabilitation Wetland D (portion) Restoration: 
Rehabilitation 0.66 1.5 0.44 
Wetland 
Enhancement  
Wetland D (portion), 
E, F, I, J Enhancement 0.74 3.0 0.25 
  Total 2.46  1.75 Credits 
1. Total Credits are based on reach length and proposed mitigation ratio. 
2. Component summation for streams does not include internal or external crossing widths. 
10.0 Credit Release Schedule 
All credit releases up to the amount listed within Table 23 will be based on the total credit generated as 
reported by the as‐built surveys of the Site. If credits are generated above values listed in Table 23 as 
reported by the as‐built surveys, approval and ultimate release of these credits will be sought from 
USACE at the discretion of Wildlands. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation bank be debited until 
the necessary Department of Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the 
District Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA 
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the IRT, 
will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet the requirements of the 
release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not been met, credits may 
still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required to restart or be 
extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified performance standard. 
The release of project credits will be in compliance with the October 24, 2016 Wilmington District 
Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update Guidance Document. The proposed credit 
release schedule is shown for streams and wetlands in Tables 24 and 25, respectively.  
Use of credits from the Bank to offset stream and wetland impacts authorized by federal permits or 
state water quality certifications must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Section 404(b)(1) 
guidelines and other applicable state and federal legislation, regulations, and policies. Prior to the 
release of credits, the following requirements will be met: IRT approval of the final Mitigation Plan and 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 45 
execution of the banking instrument, recordation of the conservation easement, deliverance of a title 
opinion covering the mitigation site that is acceptable to DE, and establishment of appropriate financial 
assurances.  
Table 24: Credit Release Schedule ‐ Stream Credits 
Stream Credit Release Schedule 
Credit Release 
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim 
Release 
Total 
Released 
1 Site Establishment** 15% 15% 
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to 
the Mitigation Plan 15% 30% 
3 First year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim 
performance standards have been met 10% 40% 
4 Second year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim 
performance standards have been met 10% 50%  
5 Third year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim 
performance standards have been met 10% 60%  
6 Fourth year monitoring report demonstrates channels are stable and interim 
performance standards have been met 5% 65% 
(75%*) 
7 Fifth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met  10% 75% 
(85%*) 
8 Sixth year monitoring report demonstrates performance standards are being met  5% 80% 
(90%*) 
9 Seventh year monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable, 
performance standards have been met.  10% 90% 
(100%*) 
*A 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met. 
** 100% release for preservation reach credits within Site. 
Table 25: Credit Release Schedule – Wetland Credits 
Wetland Credit Release Schedule 
Credit Release 
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim 
Release 
Total 
Released 
1 Site Establishment  15% 15% 
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant to 
the Mitigation Plan 15% 30% 
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 10% 40% 
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 10% 50% 
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 15% 65% 
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 5% 70% 
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 15% 85% 
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates interim performance 
standards have been met 5% 90% 
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates performance 
standards have been met 10% 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. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 46 
10.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits 
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the October 24, 2016 
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update Guidance Document. The 
initial allocation can be released without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion 
of the following activities: 
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE. 
b. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan. 
c. The mitigation bank site must be secured. 
d. Recordation of the conservation easement, as well as delivery of a title opinion that is 
acceptable to the USACE.  
e. Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan. 
f. 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required. 
For mitigation sites that include preservation‐only credits, 100% of the preservation credits will be 
released once the six activities listed above are complete. 
10.2 Subsequent Credit Releases 
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a 
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects, a reserve 
of 10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred in 
separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event 
that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits 
shall be at the discretion of the IRT. As the bank approaches milestones associated with the credit 
release, Wildlands will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation 
substantiating achievement of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included 
with the annual monitoring report.  
11.0 Performance Standards  
The performance standards for the Site will follow approved performance standards presented in the NC 
IRT Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (10/24/2016). Annual 
monitoring and semi‐annual Site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project. 
Specific performance standard components are proposed for stream morphology, hydrology, and 
vegetation. Performance standards will be evaluated throughout the seven‐year post‐construction 
monitoring.  
11.1 Streams 
11.1.1 Dimension 
Riffle cross sections on the restoration reaches should be stable and should show little change in 
bankfull area, and width‐to‐depth ratio. Per NC IRT guidance, bank height ratios shall not exceed 1.2 and 
entrenchment ratios shall be within the range of 1.4‐2.2 for restored B‐type channels and at least 2.2 for 
restored C and E channels to be considered stable. All riffle cross sections should fall within the 
parameters defined for channels of the appropriate stream type. If any changes do occur, these changes 
will be evaluated to assess whether the stream channel is showing signs of instability. Indicators of 
instability include a vertically incising thalweg or eroding channel banks. Changes in the channel that 
indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include an increase in pool depth. Remedial 
action would not be taken if channel changes indicate a movement toward stability. Please note that the 
Site contains short sub‐reaches of Eb‐type channels within predominantly B‐type reaches that should be 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 47 
considered stable with higher entrenchment ratios. In addition, due to historic valley disturbance, 
entrenchment ratios on B‐type streams may approach 3.0. These reaches coincide with wetland areas 
that will be densely planted and treated with brush to function in a hydraulically confined manner 
where floodplain conveyance is limited by surface roughness. 
11.1.2 Pattern and Profile 
Visual assessments and photo documentation should indicate that streams are remaining stable and do 
not indicate a trend toward vertical or lateral instability. Signs of instability may include bank scour, 
bank migration, and bed incision.  
11.1.3 Substrate 
Channel substrate materials will be sampled with the pebble count method along restoration and 
enhancement I reaches. These reaches should show maintenance of coarser materials in the riffle 
features and smaller particles in the pool features. A reach‐wide pebble count will be performed in each 
restoration reach for classification purposes during monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7. A pebble count will 
be performed at each surveyed riffle cross‐section, only during the as‐built survey to characterize the 
pavement.  
11.1.4 Photo Documentation 
Photographs should illustrate the Site’s vegetation and morphological stability on an annual basis. Cross‐
section photos should demonstrate no excessive erosion or degradation of the banks. Longitudinal 
photos should indicate the absence of persistent bars within the channel and no vertical incision. Grade 
control structures should remain stable. Deposition of sediment on the bank side of vane arms is 
preferable. Maintenance of scour pools on the channel side of vane arms is expected.  
11.1.5 Bankfull Events 
The occurrence of bankfull events will be documented on restoration and enhancement I streams 
throughout the monitoring period. Four bankfull flow events must be documented within the seven‐
year monitoring period. The four bankfull events must occur in separate years. Stream monitoring will 
continue until performance standards in the form of four bankfull events in separate years have been 
documented.  
11.2 Vegetation 
The final vegetative performance standard will be the survival of 210 planted stems per acre in the 
planted riparian areas at the end of the required monitoring period (year seven). The interim measure of 
vegetative success for the Site will be the survival of at least 320 planted stems per acre at the end of 
the third monitoring year and at least 260 stems per acre at the end of the fifth year of monitoring. 
Planted vegetation must average 6 feet in height in each plot at the end of the fifth‐year monitoring and 
8 feet in height in each plot at the end of the seventh‐year monitoring. Vegetation monitoring will be 
conducted between July 1st and the end of the of the growing season. The extent of invasive species 
coverage will also be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the required seven‐year 
monitoring period.  
A combination of permanent and random vegetation plots will be used to demonstrate planted 
vegetation coverage in the open and wetland areas. Both fixed and mobile plots will be chosen 
randomly and will include a mix of the planted vegetation communities. All woody stems, including 
exotic invasive species, are to be counted within each plot. 
Permanent vegetation plots will be established after construction during the as‐built baseline (MY0). 
Permanent plots will be visually marked in the field and planted woody stems within these plots will be 
marked annually as needed and given a coordinate, based off a known origin, so that they can be found 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 48 
in subsequent monitoring years. Individual plot data will include height, density, vigor, damage (if any), 
planted species versus volunteer species, and survival. Mortality will be determined from the difference 
between the previous year’s living planted stems and the current year’s living planted stems. 
Mobile vegetation plots will not make up more than 50% of the total required plots. Locations (GPS 
coordinates and orientation) of the random plots will be identified and included in the corresponding 
monitoring year’s report. Plots will be physically marked in the field so that they may be evaluated 
during the monitoring year. Random plot data collected will include species and height. Visual 
Assessments 
Visual assessments should support the specific performance standards for each metric as described 
above. 
11.3 Wetlands 
Groundwater monitoring will be conducted for seven years after construction to evaluate the hydrologic 
state of the restored wetland areas. A total of 4 groundwater monitoring gages will be established at the 
Site. Soils mapped within wetland restoration areas are Thurmont‐Dillard (ThB) and Spivey‐Whiteoak 
complex (SvC) and are not listed in Table 1 of the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland 
Compensatory Mitigation Update. However, complementing soil series Ela is listed within Table 1 as 
having wetland saturation criteria from 12% to 16% of the associated growing season. Based on the 
NCIRT mitigation guidance, current soils mapping, and existing Site conditions, the Site’s proposed 
performance standard for wetland hydrology shall be free groundwater surface within 12 inches of the 
ground surface for a minimum of 12% (26 consecutive days) of the growing season for Graham County 
under normal precipitation conditions.  
Growing season dates for the project area are defined as April 2nd to November 5th (217 days) by the 
Tapoco, North Carolina WETS table for 50% probability of soil temperatures greater than 28 degrees 
Fahrenheit. However, to determine a more Site‐specific growing season, soil temperature probes will be 
installed on Site and soil temperature data will be collected for each individual monitoring year. Per 
USACE guidance, soil temperature probes will be located at a depth of 12 inches. The growing season 
will be defined as that portion of the year where soil temperature remains above 40 degrees Fahrenheit 
and should be corroborated with vegetative indicators, including bud burst and leaf drop. The growing 
season may not begin before March 1 of each year when calculating hydroperiods. If a wetland zone 
does not meet the performance standard for a given monitoring year, rainfall patterns will be analyzed 
and the hydrograph will be compared to that of the reference wetlands to assess whether atypical 
weather conditions occurred during the monitoring period.  
Soil profile descriptions will be recorded at each boring where a gage is installed before and after 
construction. The profile descriptions will present a record of the soil horizons, color, texture, and 
redoximorphic features. 
Groundwater data will be downloaded from installed gages on a quarterly basis and reported annually in 
required monitoring reports. Ground elevation at gage locations will be measured at the initial 
installation and verified at each subsequent download. If elevations at the installed groundwater gage 
locations deviates substantially from initial installation elevations, this information will be updated 
accordingly within the annual monitoring report. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 49 
12.0  Monitoring Plan 
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are 
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring data will be reported in 
accordance with Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 08‐03. The monitoring report shall provide project 
data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status, trends, research purposes, and 
assist in decision making regarding close‐out. The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond 
completion of construction or until performance criteria have been met. All survey will be 
georeferenced to North Carolina State Plane coordinates.  
Using the RGL 08‐03, a baseline monitoring document and as‐built record drawings of the project will be 
developed within 60 days of the planting completion and monitoring installation on the restored Site. 
Monitoring reports will be prepared in the fall of each year of monitoring and submitted to USACE no 
later than April 1 of the year following monitoring. Full monitoring reports will be submitted in 
monitoring years 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Abbreviated monitoring reports will be submitted in monitoring years 
4 and 6. Closeout monitoring period will be seven years beyond completion of construction or until 
performance standards have been met. The monitoring plan is described in Table 26. 
Table 26: Monitoring Plan 
Goals Treatment Expected Outcomes Performance Standard Monitoring Metric 
Improve the 
stability of 
stream 
channels. 
Reconstruct stream channels 
slated for restoration with 
stable dimensions and 
appropriate depth relative to 
the existing floodplain. Add 
bank revetments and in‐stream 
structures to protect restored/ 
enhanced streams. 
Reduce sediment inputs; 
Stabilize stream banks; 
Restore aquatic habitat. 
Bank height ratios 
below 1.2 with visual 
assessments showing 
progression towards 
stability. 
Cross section 
monitoring and 
visual inspections. 
Improve 
instream 
habitat. 
Install habitat features such as 
constructed riffles, cover logs, 
and brush toes on restored 
reaches. Add woody materials 
to channel beds. Construct pools 
of varying depth. 
Restore aquatic habitat. 
There is no required 
performance standard 
for this metric. 
Visual assessment 
Restore 
wetland 
hydrology, 
soils, and plant 
communities. 
Restore and enhance riparian 
wetlands by raising stream beds, 
relocating streams to natural 
valley low point, removing 
agricultural drain tiles, removing 
overburden from relic hydric 
soils, and planting native 
wetland species. 
Reduce sediment inputs; 
Reduce nutrient inputs; 
Improve wetland 
hydrology; Improve 
terrestrial habitat. 
Free groundwater 
surface within 12 
inches of the ground 
surface for 12% of the 
growing season 
depending on soil type 
for wetland areas. 
Groundwater gages 
will be placed in 
wetland re‐
establishment and 
rehabilitation areas 
and monitored 
annually. 
Reconnect 
channels with 
floodplains 
and riparian 
wetlands. 
Reconstruct stream channels 
with appropriate bankfull 
dimensions and depth relative 
to the existing floodplain. 
Realign historically altered 
channels to natural valley low 
points.  
Reduce shear stress on 
channel; Hydrate 
adjacent wetland areas; 
Filter pollutants out of 
overbank flows.  
Streams: Stream 
profile and pattern 
must remain stable 
(note description of 
stability in Section 
11.1) 
Cross section 
monitoring and 
visual inspections. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 50 
Goals Treatment Expected Outcomes Performance Standard Monitoring Metric 
Restore and 
enhance 
native 
floodplain 
vegetation. 
Convert grassed fields and 
grazed pasture to forested 
riparian buffers along Site 
streams. Protect and enhance 
existing forested riparian 
buffers. Treat invasive species. 
Reduce sediment inputs; 
Reduce nutrient inputs; 
Restore riparian buffers. 
In open areas planted; 
Survival of 210 planted 
stems per acre at MY7. 
Interim survival of at 
least 320 planted 
stems at MY3 and at 
least 260 planted 
stems per acre at MY5. 
No success criteria are 
associated with shaded 
area planting. 
Permanent and 
mobile 100 square 
meter vegetation 
plots within planted 
open and wetland 
areas. Planted 
shaded areas will be 
visually assessed. 
Preserve and 
enhance site 
streams, 
wetlands, and 
watershed. 
Extend conservation easements 
to the top of the ridge on many 
of the tributaries. Reduce 
sediment impacts from old 
logging roads and remove 
culverts. Exclude livestock from 
Site streams. 
Protect and enhance 
aquatic habitat; Reduce 
sediment inputs; Protect 
any rare natural 
communities and 
species and help buffer 
and add to existing 
protected lands in the 
vicinity. 
Prevent easement 
encroachment. 
Visually inspect the 
perimeter of the 
Site to ensure no 
easement 
encroachment is 
occurring. 
12.1 Monitoring Components 
Project monitoring components are listed in detail in Tables 27‐29. Approximate locations of the 
proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 11. 
 Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  Page 51 Table 27: Monitoring Components – East Buffalo Creek, UT1, UT2 Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity/Length by Reach Frequency Notes East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 UT1 UT2  Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2  Wetlands Dimension Riffle Cross‐sections N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross‐sections N/A 1 N/A N/A N/A 1 N/A Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate Reach wide (RW) Pebble Count N/A 1 RW N/A N/A N/A 1 RW N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3 Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or Transducer (SG) N/A 1 SG N/A N/A N/A 1 SG N/A Semi‐Annual 4 Wetland  Hydrology Groundwater Gages  4 Quarterly  Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots 6 – Open Area, 1 – Wetland Area (6 Permanent, 1 Mobile) Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5 Visual Assessment   Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual   Exotic and nuisance vegetation                  Semi‐Annual 6 Project Boundary                  Semi‐Annual 7 Reference Photos Photographs 11 1 Annual      
 Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  Page 52 Table 28: Monitoring Components – UT3, UT4, UT4a, and UT4b Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity/Length by Reach Frequency Notes UT3  Reach 1 UT3  Reach 2 UT3  Reach 3 UT4  Reach 1 UT4  Reach 2 UT4a UT4b Dimension Riffle Cross‐sections N/A 1 1 N/A 1 N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross‐sections N/A 1 0 N/A 0 N/A N/A Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate Reach wide (RW) Pebble Count N/A 1 RW 1 RW N/A 1 RW N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3 Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or Transducer (SG) N/A 1 SG N/A 1 SG N/A N/A Semi‐Annual 4 Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots 4 – Open Area (3 Permanent, 1 Mobile) Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5 Visual Assessment   Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual   Exotic and nuisance vegetation                 Semi‐Annual 6 Project Boundary                 Semi‐Annual 7 Reference Photos Photographs 13 Annual     
 Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  Page 53 Table 29: Monitoring Components – UT5, UT6, and UT7 Parameter Monitoring Feature Quantity/Length by Reach Frequency Notes UT5 Reach 1 UT5 Reach 2 UT6 UT7 Dimension Riffle Cross‐sections N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross‐sections N/A N/A N/A N/A Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Substrate Reach wide (RW) Pebble Count N/A N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 3 Hydrology Crest Gage (CG) and/or Transducer (SG) N/A N/A N/A N/A Semi‐Annual 4 Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5 Visual Assessment   Y Y Y Y Semi‐Annual   Exotic and nuisance vegetation           Semi‐Annual 6 Project Boundary           Semi‐Annual 7 Reference Photos Photographs 5 Annual   Table Notes: 1. Cross sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg. 2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi‐annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as‐built baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of the reach is affected) and/or profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work. 3. Riffle 100‐count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only. Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide substrate monitoring. 4. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly or semi‐annually, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every 3 hours. The transducer will be inspected and downloaded semi‐annually.  5. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for 2% of the planted open and wetland areas. Permanent vegetation monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Supplemental planting areas will be visually assessed. 6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped. 7.  Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 54 
13.0  Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan 
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the Site shall be conducted at 
a minimum of once per year throughout the post‐construction monitoring period until performance 
standards are met. These site inspections may identify Site components and features that require 
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance will be conducted to rectify identified deficiencies and may 
include the activities listed in Table 30. 
Table 30: Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan 
Component / 
Feature Adaptive Management through project close‐out 
Stream 
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in‐stream structures to 
prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other 
target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows intercept the 
channel may also require adaptive management to prevent bank failures and head‐cutting. Beaver 
dams that inundate the streams channels shall be removed and the beaver shall be trapped. 
Wetland 
Wetland areas shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. 
Routine vegetation adaptive management and repair activities may include supplemental planting, 
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Supplemental planting will be conducted by April 15th with 
riparian specific seed mix, wetland specific herbaceous plugs and other bioregionally appropriate 
woody vegetation. Exotic plant species affecting the viability of the mitigation shall be controlled by 
mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be 
performed in accordance with the NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. 
Vegetation 
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community. Routine 
vegetation adaptive management and repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning, 
mulching, and fertilizing. Supplemental planning will be conducted by April 15th. Exotic invasive 
plant species affecting the viability of the mitigation shall be controlled by mechanical and/or 
chemical methods. Any vegetation control requiring herbicide application will be performed in 
accordance with the NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. 
Site 
Boundary 
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the bank Site and 
adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree‐blazing, or 
other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers 
disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as‐needed basis. 

Upon completion of Site construction, the Sponsor will implement the post‐construction monitoring 
protocols and adaptive management will be performed as needed for the duration of the monitoring 
period. The Sponsor will notify the USACE immediately if monitoring results or visual observations 
suggest a trend towards instability, major remedial actions are needed, or that performance standards 
cannot be achieved. Should major remedial measures be required, the Sponsor will submit a Corrective 
Action Plan and coordinate with the USACE until authorization is secured to conduct the adaptive 
management activities. The Sponsor is responsible for funding and/or providing the services necessary 
to secure any necessary permits to support the proposed major remedial adaptive management actions, 
to implement the corrective action plan, and to deliver record drawings that depict the extent and 
nature of the work performed. If the USACE determines that the Bank is not meeting performance 
standards or the Sponsor is not complying with the terms of the instrument, the USACE may take 
appropriate actions, including but not limited to: suspending credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, 
and/or terminating the instrument. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 55 
14.0 Long‐Term Management Plan 
14.1 Ownership and Long‐Term Manager 
The Site will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety, and managed under the terms 
detailed in the conservation easement. Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) will serve as the Grantee and 
long‐term manager and will be the party responsible for long‐term management. The conservation 
easement will be transferred to UP2Save prior to the initial credit release. 
UP2Save is a 501c3 non‐profit organization that is committed to land conservation through sustainable 
planning and management. UP2Save has the ability, both logistically and financially, to monitor and 
enforce the provisions of the conservation easement and long‐term management plan. The organization 
operates in a sustainable manner to facilitate operations well into the future. UP2Save has been 
approved to serve as the easement holder and long‐term manager on several mitigation sites in North 
Carolina, including the Critcher Brothers, White Buffalo, and Plantation Branch sites within the Yadkin 
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. Additional qualifications and UP2Save’s annual report can be provided upon 
request. 
14.2  Long‐Term Management Activities 
The stream systems within the Site have been modeled after natural, functioning, and stable Mountain 
systems. Natural materials (e.g., wood, native transplants, etc.) and practices have been incorporated 
into the design based on features observed and data gathered at reference sites. The design approach 
and best construction methods will provide a stable regime while on‐site vegetation, the stream 
channel, and the adjacent wetland and floodplain habitats mature. Monitoring will be conducted for 
seven years following construction to ensure that the mitigation Site develops the dynamic equilibrium 
and stability of a natural system. This deliberate design and monitoring approach is intended to promote 
a self‐sustaining stream and wetland system and to reduce long‐term management activities. However, 
long‐term management activities have been identified to ensure that the mitigation Site is maintained 
and protected following the monitoring period. 
Prior to the initial credit release and following authorization of the Mitigation Banking Instrument, the 
Site will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement. Following the issuance of the 
closeout letter (i.e., final determination of success), long‐term management activities will be conducted 
to ensure the Site remains perpetually monitored. The long‐term manager will be responsible for 
inspecting the protected area annually and for conducting the long‐term management activities 
described in Table 31 as necessary to rectify identified deficiencies. The restrictions and long‐term 
management responsibilities will convey with the land, should the property be transferred in the future. 
The long‐term manager will be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that the 
restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld. 
Table 31: Long‐term Management Plan 
Long‐Term Management 
Activity Long‐Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility 
Signage will be installed and 
maintained along the Site 
boundary to denote the area 
protected by the recorded 
conservation easement. 
The long‐term steward will be responsible for 
inspecting the Site boundary and for 
maintaining or replacing signage to ensure 
that the conservation easement area is 
clearly marked. 
The landowner(s) shall report 
damaged or missing signs to 
the long‐term manager, as well 
as contact the long‐term 
manager if a boundary needs 
to be marked, or clarification is 
needed regarding a boundary 
location. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 56 
Long‐Term Management 
Activity Long‐Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility 
The mitigation Site will be 
protected in its entirety and 
managed under the terms 
outlined in the recorded 
conservation easement. 
The long‐term manager will be responsible 
for conducting annual inspections and for 
undertaking actions that are reasonably 
calculated to swiftly correct the conditions 
constituting a breach. The USACE, and their 
authorized agents, shall have the right to 
enter and inspect the Site and to take actions 
necessary to verify compliance with the 
conservation easement. 
The landowner(s) shall contact 
the long‐term manager if 
clarification is needed 
regarding the restrictions 
associated with the recorded 
conservation easement. 
14.3 Funding Mechanism 
Anticipated long‐term management activities and their associated annual cost are listed in the table 
below. Wildlands will fund a stewardship endowment that will be managed by UP2Save. UP2Save’s 
endowment is designated to provide on‐going revenue to support long‐term management activities. The 
stewardship endowment is invested to provide recurring revenue to cover the cost of anticipated annual 
activities, easement defense, and violation resolution.  
The total stewardship endowment was calculated based on the information listed in Table 32 below. 
The level of effort is listed in hours or as a lump sum, defined as LS. The cost per unit or labor rate and 
anticipated frequency are listed and were utilized to calculate the total and annual activity cost. For 
example, the steward anticipates four hours of staff time at a rate of $50 per hour to support adjacent 
landowner coordination, which may consist of coordinating with current and adjacent landowners to 
ensure access and maintain relationships and scheduling site visits. A conservative (lower than 
anticipated) rate of return (or capitalization rate) of 3.50% and the estimated annual costs of the 
identified management activities were utilized to determine the endowment funding requirement. 
Table 32: Management Funding 
Management Activity Level of Effort Cost per Unit Anticipated 
Frequency Activity Cost Annual 
Cost 
Annual Activities  
Annual Planning 3 $50  Annual $150  $150  
Adjacent Landowner 
Coordination 3 $50  Annual $150  $150  
Field Inspection, Inventory 
and Documentation 5 $50  Annual $250  $250  
Annual Report to Board 2 $50  Annual $100  $100  
Vehicle and supplies 4 $150  Annual $600  $600  
Adaptive Management  
Trash Removal & Disposal 4 $25  Annual $100  $100  
Sign Maintenance 5 $25  Every five (5) 
years $125  $25  
Minor Violation 1 $4,500  Every ten (10) 
years $4,500  $450  
Major Violation 1 $12,000  Every twenty 
(20) years $12,000  $600  
Total Annual Cost $2,275  
Capitalization Rate 3.50% 
Funding Amount $69,286  

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 57 
15.0 Financial Assurances 
Financial assurances will be provided in the form of insurance for the activities specified in this plan. The 
insurance will assure performance of construction and monitoring work to restore, enhance and/or 
preserve the project aquatic resources. The principal amount of the insurance will be based on Table 33, 
below. 
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC will serve as the Named Insured and Nautilus Insurance Company will serve 
as the Insurance Carrier. In the event that Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC fails to meet the conditions of the 
Mitigation Plan, Nautilus may fulfill the principal’s obligations either by performing those obligations up 
to the limit of the penal sum, or by paying an amount up to the applicable annual Limits of Insurance 
described in the policy’s Declaration Pages, or by paying such claim(s) to a willing party acceptable to the 
USACE, who would develop a proposal to fulfill the mitigation obligations. The insurance will stipulate 
that any insurance payouts be made payable to an established third party. Financial assurances will not 
be structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Principal (Sponsor). The 
USACE will be notified a minimum of 120 days prior to termination of financial assurances.” 
Insurance will be phased to allow coverage through the monitoring period. Insurance covering 
construction will be provided after the MBI is approved and prior to the initial credit release. The 
casualty insurance will be retired upon submittal of the final as‐built report to the DE. The initial term of 
the insurance policy will be 12 months and will include an option to renew the policy for a term not to 
exceed one year to cover Site construction. The principal amount of the construction insurance will be 
calculated based on the remaining cost to complete engineering, permitting, and construction activities 
as described in Table 33. Note, the cost of recording easements will not be included in the construction 
insurance as this process will be complete at the time the insurance is submitted to the USACE. 
Following retirement of the construction insurance, insurance for annual monitoring will be utilized to 
cover anticipated monitoring and adaptive management costs. Insurance will be structured to provide 
continuous coverage through a single policy that will decrement in value each year according to Table 
33. Annual monitoring insurance will be submitted to the USACE upon approval of each previous year 
monitoring report. The principal amount of monitoring insurance is calculated based on the total 
estimated costs that remains through closeout, including monitoring and maintenance activities. Table 
33 lists the proposed insurance principal amounts for each monitoring year. 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 58 
Table 33: Financial Assurances Table 

Category 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 
Engineering $45,000        
Legal $5,000        
Construction $210,000        
Planting $35,000        
As‐Built $20,000        
Monitoring  $15,000 $15,500 $16,000 $16,500 $17,000 $17,500 $18,000 
Re‐grading Contingency  $0 $0 $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000 
Re‐Planting 
Contingency 
 $0 $0 $2,500 $0 $0 $0 $2,500 
Beaver Control  $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 
Invasive Control  $750 $1,500 $2,500 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 $1,500 
Easement Access 
Control 
 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 
Corps Admin Costs $6,300 $290 $315 $525 $375 $385 $395 $545 
Sub‐Total $321,300 $14,790 $16,065 $26,775 $19,125 $19,635 $20,145 $27,795 
Insurance Principal $321,300 $144,330 $129,540 $113,475 $86,700 $67,575 $47,940 $27,795 
Monitoring Phase Insurance 
Insurance Cost                  
  Premium $4,016 $1,804 $1,619 $1,418 $1,084 $845 $599 $347 
  Broker Fee $803 $361 $324 $284 $217 $169 $120 $69 
  NC Tax $201 $90 $81 $71 $54 $42 $30 $17 
  Tax Filing Fee $300         
  Surplus Fee $110         
Total $5,430 $2,255 $2,024 $1,773 $1,355 $1,056 $749 $434 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank  Draft Mitigation Plan 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site    March 25, 2020  
Page 59 
16.0 References 
Alexander RB, Boyer EW, Smith RA, Schwarz GE, and Moore RB, 2007. The Role of Headwater Streams in 
Downstream Water Quality. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 43(1):41–59. DOI: 
10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2007.00005.x. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar] 
Chow, V.T., 1959, Open‐channel hydraulics: New York, McGraw‐Hill, p. 680. 
Dunne, T. and Leopold, L.B. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, San 
Francisco. 
Harman, W.A. R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function‐Based 
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency, Office 
of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC. EPA 843‐K‐12‐006. 
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemmons, G.D. Jennings, D. Clinton, and 
J. Patterson, 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. Proceedings of the 
American Water Resources Association conference: Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, 
Alaska, pp. 185‐190. 
Jennings Environmental, LLC. 2017. Tennessee Reference Stream Morphology and Large Woody Debris 
Assessment – Report and Guidebook. Prepared for Tennessee Department of Environment and 
Conservation. https://www.tn.gov/content/dam/tn/environment/water/natural‐resources‐
unit/wr_nru_tennessee‐ref‐stream‐morphology.pdf 
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and 
Co. San Fransisco.Andrewe 
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale. Compiled by 
Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.  
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database, 
Graham County, NC.  
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169‐199. 
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, 3rd 
approx. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina. 
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and 
Landforms 14(1):11‐26. 
Simon A and Rinaldi M 2006. Disturbance, stream incision, and channel evolution: the roles of excess 
transport capacity and boundary materials in controlling channel response. Geomorphology 79 361–83 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil 
Survey of Graham County, North Carolina. 
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/surveylist/soils/survey/state/?stateId=NC 
United States Forest Service (USFS). 36 CFR 212.1, Forest Service Manual (FSM) 7705 – Transportation 
System. https://www.fs.fed.us/eng/techdev/IM/road_decomission/road_overview.shtml 
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. 
Zink, J. M., G. D. Jennings, G. A. Price, 2012. Morphology characteristics of southern Appalachian 
wilderness streams. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA), 48: 762–773. 
doi: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2012.00647.x 

129
143
143
Cheoah Mountains
Nantahala National Forest - Cheoah Ranger DistrictCheoah Mountains
Nantahala National Forest - Cheoah Ranger District
Figure 1 Vicinity MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Natural A reas
NCDMS Conservation Easements
Project Parcels
Natural Heritage Element Occurences (Current)
Animal
Natural Comm unity
Plant
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
0 0.5 1 Miles
Site Location
- TN -
- NC -
East Buff aloMitigation Site
- NC -
- SC -
- NC -
- TN -
Franklin
Sylva
Bryson City
Robbinsville
Fontana Dam
Lake Santeetlah
06010202
06010203
06010204
Figure 2 Service Area MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
Service Area
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit C ode (HUC)
State Boundaries
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
0 5 10 Miles
^_
Figure 3 NCDOT State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) FY 2020 - 2029
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Little Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC
Service Area - HUC 06010204
State Boundaries
^_East Buffalo Mitigation Site
2020-2029 STIP Lines
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
Division Highway
IM
CMAQ
Other Highway
Transition Highway
Transition Rail
Regional Public Transit
Division Bicycle And Pedestrian
Transition Bicycle And Pedestrian
Other Bicycle And Pedestrian
0 2.5 5Miles ¹
^_
- TN -
- NC -
- TN -
- NC -
UT3
U T 4
UT2
UT5UT4aUT7 UT1UT4bUT6UT2UT3UT4UT3UT4a
East Buffalo CreekEast Buffalo CreekUT4b1
East Buffalo(600 acres)
UT4(78 acres)
UT3(156 acres)
UT1(52 acres)
UT2(51 acres)
UT5(47 acres)
UT7(23 acres)
UT6(21 acres)
UT4a(6 acres)
UT3 Drainage(156 acres)
East Buffalo Drainage(600 acres)Ollie BranchS
h
e
p
h
e
r
d
C
r
e
e
k
East Buffalo CreekMo
u
n
t
ai
n

C
r
e
e
kGreen CreekM ountain CreekMountain Creek310032003300340035002
7
0
03600
28002 9 0 030003700380026002500240023002200210039004000
200041004200320023003300
3300
400030003600
35002 5 0 0 320026004000
27003200210026002
6
0
0 25002
4
0
0
2200350039002800370032002
5
0
0 23003400
3600250038002 4 0 03300
23003900Figure 4 Watershed MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
2019 Aerial Imagery
0 1,000 2,000 Feet
Project Parcels
Proposed ConservationEasement
Watershed Boundaries
Subwatersheds
Project Streams
Non-project Streams
Figure 5 USGS Topographic MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easem ent
0 600 1,200 Feet
Robbinsonville USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle
UT3
U T 4
UT2
UT5UT4aUT7East B u ffalo C reekUT1UT4bUT6UT2UT3UT4UT3UT4aEast Buffalo CreekChF
SpE
ScF
SvC
ScF
ScE
JbE
ScD
SvD
ThB
SpE
ScD
ChF
SvC
JbE
ChF
ScE
SpE
SpE
JbE
SvD
SvC
ChF
DrB
ScE
SvD
SpE
ScD
SvC
JbD
JbD
ScE
SvC
ScD
SdD
JbD
ScE
ScE
JbD
SpE
ScE
JbD
ScE ScE
ScD
JbC
Figure 6 Soils MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
2019 Aerial Imagery
Project Parcels
Proposed ConservationEasement
Project Streams
Non-project Streams
Soils BkC2 - Braddock clay loam, 8to 15% slopes, moderatelyerodedChF - Cheoah channery loam,50 to 95% slopes, stonyDrB - Dillard loam, 1 to 5%slopes, rarely floodedJbC - Junaluska-Brasstowncomplex, 8 to 15% slopesJbD - Junaluska-Brasstowncomplex, 15 to 30% slopesJbE - Junaluska-Brasstowncomplex, 30 to 50% slopesScD - Soco-Stecoah complex,15 to 30% slopes, stonyScE - Soco-Stecoah complex,30 to 50% slopes, stonyScF - Soco-Stecoah com plex,50 to 95% slopes, stonySdD - Soco-Stecoah complex,15 to 30% slopes, rockySpE - Spivey-Santeetlahcomplex, 30 to 50% slopes,very boulderySvC - Spivey-Whiteoakcomplex, 8 to 15% slopes,bouldery
SvD - Spivey-Whiteoakcomplex, 15 to 30% slopes,boulderyThB - Thurmont-Dillardcomplex, 2 to 8% slopes
0 500 1,000 Feet
UT3
U T 4
UT2
UT5UT4aUT7East B u ffalo C reek UT1UT4bUT6UT2UT3UT4UT3UT4a
East Buffalo CreekUT4b1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2 (UT4)
Reach 3 (UT3)
U T 4
Reach 2
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 3
XS14XS11
XS9
XS7XS8
XS13
XS2
XS6X
S
1
XS3XS4
XS10X
S
5 XS12Spring House and Seep
~4-acre Area of Non-NativeInvasive Plants (NNIP)
D
E
A
J
F
I
B
C
GH
2500 270028002600
310029003
0
0
022002300240021002000 3
2
0
0 330027002900310029003000280028002300
3200
Figure 7 Existing Condition MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
2019 Aerial Imagery
Project Parcels
Proposed Conservation Easem ent
Potential Wetland Waters
Project Streams
Perennial
Intermittent
Non-project Streams
Seep
Cross Sections
Existing C ulverts
Existing S oil Roads
Existing Powerline Easement (40')
Reach Breaks
0 400 800 Feet
Figure 8 FEMA F lood MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 060 10204
Graham County, NC
Proposed Conservation Easem ent
Project Streams
0 400 800 Feet
UT to Gap Branch
Ironwood Tributary
UT to Kelly Branch
UT to Hampton Creek
UT to Austin Branch US & DS
UT to South ForkFishing Creek
Graham County, NC
Figure 9 Reference Reach MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 0601020402040Miles
Reference Reach - Wildlands
Reference Reach - Joyce Kilmer/Slickrock Wilderness
Reference Reach - TN Blue Ridge
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
State Boundary (NC/TN)
Physiographic Province
Piedmont
Appalachian Plateau
Valley and Ridge
Blue Ridge

APPENDIX 1
Site Protection Instrument

SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER’S USE 

PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT 

THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT (“Conservation Easement”) made this 
   day of                                  , 2020 by and between Ramlonghorn, LLC a North Carolina 
limited liability company, (“Grantor”) and Unique Places to Save (“Grantee”). 

The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, 
their heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine 
or neuter as required by context. 

RECITALS 

WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and 
being in Wilkes County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached 
hereto and incorporated herein (the “Property”); 

WHEREAS, Grantee is a charitable, not‐for‐profit or educational corporation, 
association, or trust qualified under § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the Internal Revenue 
Code, the purposes or powers of which include one or more of the purposes (a) – (d) 
RECORDING REQUESTED BY 
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 
Prepared by Wildlands Engineering, Inc 
listed below; 

(a) retaining or protecting natural, scenic, or open‐space aspects of real 
property; 
(b) ensuring the availability of real property for recreational, educational,  or 
open‐space use; 
(c) protecting natural resources; 
(d) maintaining or enhancing air or water quality. 

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or 
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state, which includes the following natural 
communities: wetlands, streams and riparian  buffers. The purpose of this Conservation 
Easement is to maintain streams, wetlands  and riparian resources and other natural 
values of approximately  259.84 acres, more or less, and being more particularly 
described in Exhibit B attached hereto and  incorporated fully herein by reference (the 
“Conservation Easement Area”), and  prevent the use or development of the Conservation 
Easement Area for any purpose or in any manner that would conflict with the 
maintenance of its natural condition. 

WHEREAS, the restoration, enhancement and preservation of the Conservation 
Easement Area is a condition of the approval of the Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) 
and Mitigation Plan for the Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank – East Buffalo 
Mitigation Site, Department of the Army (DA) Action ID Number SAW 2019‐01296, 
entitled “Agreement to Establish the Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank in the 
Little Tennessee River Basin within the State of North Carolina”, entered into by and 
between Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC (Wildlands) acting as the Bank Sponsor and the 
Wilmington District Corps of Engineers (Corps), in consultation with the North  Carolina 
Interagency Review Team (IRT). The East Buffalo Mitigation Site has been  approved by 
the Corps for use as a mitigation bank to compensate for unavoidable stream and 
wetland impacts authorized by DA permits. 

WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee agree that third‐party rights of enforcement  shall 
be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (“Third‐Party,” to 
include any successor agencies), and may be exercised through the appropriate 
enforcement agencies of the United States, and that these rights are in addition to, and 
do not limit, the rights of enforcement under the Department of the Army instrument 
number SAW‐2017‐01913 (“Mitigation Banking Instrument”), or any permit or 
certification issued by the Third‐Party. 

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and  representations 
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal 
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby  unconditionally and 
irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its heirs, successors and assigns, forever 
and in perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and  character and to the extent 
hereinafter set forth, over the Conservation Easement Area  described on Exhibit B, 
together with the right to preserve and protect the conservation  values thereof, as 
follows: 
ARTICLE I. 
DURATION OF EASEMENT 

This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is  an 
easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, 
Grantor’s personal representatives, heirs, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and 
licensees. 

ARTICLE II. 
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES 

Any activity on, or use of, the Conservation Easement Area inconsistent with  the 
purpose of this Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Conservation  Easement Area 
shall be preserved in its natural condition and restricted from any development that 
would impair or interfere with the conservation values of the Conservation Easement 
Area. 

Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the following activities and  uses 
are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as indicated hereunder: 

A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or 
impairment of the natural features of the Conservation Easement Area or any 
introduction of non‐native plants and/or animal species is prohibited. 

B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any building, mobile 
home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other advertising display, antenna, 
utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock or any other temporary or permanent 
structure or facility on or above the Conservation  Easement Area, except for reasonable 
maintenance and repairs undertaken on the barn located in an Internal Crossing 
designated in Area D. 

C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential and/or 
commercial activities, including any rights of passage for such purposes are prohibited. 

D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing, animal 
husbandry, and horticultural use of the Conservation Easement Area are prohibited. 

E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting 
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation in the Conservation Easement Area except 
as provided in the Mitigation Plan. Mowing of invasive and herbaceous  vegetation for 
purposes of enhancing planted or volunteer trees and shrubs approved  in the Mitigation 
Plan is allowable once a year for no more than five consecutive years from the date on 
page 1 of this Conservation Easement, except where mowing will negatively impact 
vegetation or disturb soils. Mowing activities shall only be performed  by Wildlands 
Holdings IV, LLC and shall not violate any part of Item L of Article II. 

F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or walkways 
on the Conservation Easement Area, except within Internal Crossing Areas as shown on the 
recorded survey plat; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or walkways 
on the Conservation Easement Area. 

G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Conservation Easement 
Area, except the posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation  values 
of the Conservation Easement Area, signs giving directions or proscribing rules  and 
regulations for the use of the Conservation Easement Area and/or signs identifying  the 
Grantor as owner of the Conservation Easement Area. 

H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste, 
abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or 
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or 
other materials on the Conservation Easement Area is prohibited. 

I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling, 
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat, 
minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any  manner 
on the Conservation Easement Area, except to restore natural topography or drainage 
patterns.  For purposes of restoring and enhancing streams and wetlands  within the 
Conservation Easement Area, Wildlands is allowed to perform grading, filling, and 
excavation associated with stream and wetland restoration and  enhancement activities as 
described in the Mitigation Plan and authorized by  Department of the Army Nationwide 
Permit 27. 

J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining, 
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or 
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration 
of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition, diverting or causing 
or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into, within or out of the 
easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into waters, 
springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is  prohibited. 

K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or 
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a 
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or 
otherwise. 

L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited to, 
motorcycles, dirt bikes, all‐terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited other than for  
temporary or occasional access by the Wildlands, the Grantee, its employees and 
agents, successors, assigns, and the Corps for purposes of  constructing, maintaining 
and monitoring the restoration, enhancement and  preservation of streams, wetlands 
and riparian areas within the Conservation  Easement Area.  However, the operation of 
mechanical vehicles is not prohibited on roads or trails approved and constructed within 
Internal Crossing Areas as shown on the recorded survey plat. 

M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Conservation 
Easement Area which is or may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the 
preservation of the Conservation Easement Area substantially in its natural condition, or 
the protection of its environmental systems, is prohibited. 

ARTICLE III 
GRANTOR’S RESEVERED RIGHTS 

The Grantor expressly reserves for himself, his personal representatives, heirs, 
successors or assigns, the right to continue the use of the Conservation Easement Area  for 
all purposes not inconsistent with this Conservation Easement, including, but not limited 
to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the Conservation Easement Area, the rights  of ingress 
and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the Conservation Easement Area, the right 
to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Conservation Easement Area, in whole or in 
part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to  the terms of, and shall 
specifically reference, this Conservation Easement. 

Notwithstanding the foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its 
successors and assigns, including Wildlands acting as the Bank Sponsor, the right to 
construct and perform activities related to the restoration, enhancement, and 
preservation of streams, wetlands and riparian areas within the Conservation  Easement 
Area in accordance with the approved Yadkin Valley Umbrella Mitigation Plan‐Critcher 
Brothers Mitigation Site, and the Mitigation Banking Instrument described in the Recitals 
of this Conservation  Easement. 

ARTICLE IV. GRANTEE’S RIGHTS 

The Grantee or its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the 
Corps, shall have the right to enter the Property and Conservation Easement Area at all 
reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting the Conservation Easement Area to 
determine if the Grantor, or his personal representatives, heirs, successors, or assigns, is 
complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation 
Easement.  The Grantee, Wildlands, and its authorized representatives, successors and 
assigns, and the Corps shall also have the right to enter and go upon the Conservation 
Easement Area for purposes of making scientific or educational observations and studies, 
and taking samples. The easement rights granted herein do  not include public access 
rights. 

ARTICLE V 
ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES 

A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee, and the Corps are 
allowed to prevent any activity on or use of the Conservation Easement Area that is 
inconsistent with the purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such 
areas or features of the Conservation Easement Area that may be damaged by such 
activity or use.  Upon any breach of the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor 
that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing 
of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30 days after receipt of such notice to correct the 
conditions constituting such breach. If the breach remains  uncured after 30 days, the 
Grantee may enforce this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal proceedings 
including damages, injunctive and other relief.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, the 
Grantee reserves the immediate right, without  notice, to obtain a temporary restraining 
order, injunctive or other appropriate relief if  the breach of the terms of this Conservation 
Easement is or would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived 
from this Conservation  Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such 
circumstances  damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be 
inadequate.  The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in 
addition to,  and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in 
connection   with this Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or 
restoration, including the Grantee’s expenses, court costs, and attorneys’ fees, shall be 
paid by  Grantor, provided Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The 
Corps  shall have the same rights and privileges as the said Grantee to enforce the terms 
and  conditions of this Conservation easement. 

B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision 
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or 
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of  a 
subsequent breach or default. 

C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to 
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the 
Conservation Easement Area resulting from causes beyond the Grantor’s control, 
including, without limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except 
Grantor’s lessees or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor 
under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, 
damage to property or harm to the Conservation Easement Area resulting from such 
causes. 
ARTICLE VI 
MISCELLANEOUS 

A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the 
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which 
may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no 
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property which 
have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor further 
warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived  from and 
arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and  defend title 
to the Property against the claims of all persons. 

B. Subsequent Transfers. The Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this 
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any  interest 
in all or a portion of the Conservation Easement Area. The Grantor agrees to  provide 
written notice of such transfer at least sixty (60) days prior to the date of the transfer. The 
Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any 
merger of the fee and easement interests in the Conservation Easement Area or any 
portion thereof and shall not be amended, modified or terminated without the prior 
written consent and approval of the Corps. 

C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this 
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however that the Grantee 
hereby covenants and agrees, that in the event it transfers or assigns this  Conservation 
Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified  holder pursuant to 33 
CFR 332.7 (a)(1), N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121‐34 et seq. and § 501 (c)(3) and § 170 (h) of the 
Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and  agrees that the terms of 
the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be required to 
continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes  described in this document. 

D. Entire Agreement and Severability. The Mitigation Banking Instrument:  MBI 
with corresponding Mitigation Plan, and this Conservation Easement sets forth the entire 
agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and  supersedes all 
prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to  the 
Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a  court of 
competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect. 

E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes, 
assessments, fees, or charges levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the Property 
free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor, except those 
incurred after the date hereof, which are expressly subject and subordinate to the 
Conservation Easement. Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any 
kind related to the ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, or maintenance of the 
Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall relieve the Grantor of 
the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws, regulations and permits that may 
apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights. 

F. Long‐Term Management.  If livestock operations will be maintained on the 
property, Grantor is responsible for all long‐term management activities associated  with 
fencing to ensure livestock do not have access to the Protected Property.  These activities 
include the maintenance and/or replacement of fence structures, as deemed necessary by 
the Grantee, to ensure the aquatic resource functions within the boundaries of the 
Protected Property are sustained. 

G. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the 
continued use of the Conservation Easement Area for the conservation purposes, this 
Conservation Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial 
proceeding. 

H. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Conservation Easement Area 
is taken in the exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the 
Restrictions imposed by this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in 
appropriate actions at the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, 
and all incidental and direct damages due to the taking. 

I. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest 
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of the Conservation 
Easement Area is sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an  extinguishment 
or the exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of 
this Conservation Easement as determined at the time of the extinguishment or 
condemnation. 

J. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication  required 
under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified mail,  postage 
prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter specified by 
notice pursuant to this paragraph): 

To Grantor: 
Ramlonghorn, LLC. 
2104 Island Wood Road 
Austin, TX  78733 
Attn:  Brian Golson 

To Grantee: 
Unique Places to Save 
PO Box 1183 
Chapel Hill, NC 27514‐1183 
Attention: Conservation and Mitigation Specialist  

To Sponsor: 
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC 
143 South Mint Street, Suite 104 
Charlotte, NC 28203 
Attention:  Shawn D. Wilkerson 
Fax: 704‐332‐3306 

To the Corps: 
US Army Corps of Engineers 
Wilmington District Regulatory Division 
69 Darlington Avenue 
Wilmington, NC 28403 

K. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this 
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a 
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to 
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee’s  interest 
shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an  appropriate 
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction. 

L. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in  a 
writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the 
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any 
applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this  grant. 

M. Present Condition of the Conservation Easement Area. The wetlands, scenic, 
resource, environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Conservation 
Easement Area, and its current use and state of improvement, are described in Section 
3 of the Mitigation Plan, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by the Grantor and 
Grantee to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and  Grantee 
have copies of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any  future changes 
in the use of the Conservation Easement Area will be consistent with  the terms of this 
Conservation Easement. However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other 
evidence to establish the present condition of the Conservation Easement Area if there is a 
controversy over its use. 

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee for the 
aforesaid purposes. 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day and 
year first above written. 

Grantor:  Ramlonghorn, LLC., a limited liability company 

By:  ________________________________   
  Brian Golson, Manager 

Date:________________________________   

TEXAS 
COUNTY OF _________________ 

I, _____________________________, a Notary Public in and for the County and State 
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Brian Golson, Grantor, personally appeared before me this 
day and acknowledged that he is Manager of Ramlonghorn, LLC, a North Carolina limited 
liability  company,  and  that  he,  as  Manager,  being  authorized  to  do  so,  executed  the 
foregoing on behalf of the corporation.    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the __________ 
day of ___________________, 20__. 

________________________________________ 
Notary Public 

My commission expires: 

______________________________ 

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantee has hereunto set his hand and seal, the day 
and year first above written. 

Grantee: Unique Places to Save 

By: ___________________________________ (SEAL) 
David Fisher, Board Member 

Date:________________________________   

STATE OF __________________ 
COUNTY OF _________________ 

I, _____________________________, a Notary Public in and for the County and State 
aforesaid, do hereby certify that Jeff Fisher, Grantee, personally appeared before me this 
day and acknowledged that he is Board Member of Unique Places to Save, a non‐profit 
corporation, and that he, as Board Member, being authorized to do so, executed the 
foregoing on behalf of the corporation.    

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the __________ 
day of ___________________, 20__. 

________________________________________ 
Notary Public 

My commission expires: 

______________________________ 

EXHIBIT A 

Will insert figure of property  

EXHIBIT B 

A Conservation Easement for Wildlands Engineering, Inc. 
 “East Buffalo Mitigation Site” 
Property of: 
Ramlonghorn, LLC
USACE ID # SAW‐2019‐01296

The following conservation easement areas are located off of East Buffalo Road, SR 1254, within 
the Cheoah Township, Graham County, North Carolina and being on portions of that property 
conveyed to Ramlonghorn, LLC  through Deed Book 374, Page 420 of the Graham County Register 
of Deeds, and being more particularly described as follows (all bearings are grid bearings and all 
distances are horizontal ground distances): 

Conservation Easement Area A:  
BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING PK NAIL IN THE CENTER OF EAST BUFFALO ROAD, SR 1254, said road 
having a right of way width of 60 feet per Deed Book 62, Page 537, said PK nail being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and Deed Book 72, Page 553 of the Graham County 
Registry, and also being located S 82°19’12” E a distance of 252.17 feet from a 5/8” rebar with a 
“Kee” Control Point cap set in concrete (Control Point #501) having North Carolina State Plane 
Coordinates (2011) of Northing: 622178.86 feet and Easting: 567465.78 feet; 

Thence with the aforementioned common line, with the center of SR 1254 as it meanders, and 
with the conservation easement area the following (2) courses and distances: 

(1) with a curve to the right having a radius of 641.10 feet, an arc length of 115.00 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 87°42'41" W, and a chord length of 114.84 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) N 82°34'23" W a distance of 51.34 feet to an existing PK nail, said PK nail being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 72, Page 553 and Deed Book 128, 
Page 799 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, leaving the center of SR 1254, with the common line of 
Deed Book 374, Page 420 and Deed Book 128, Page 799 of the Graham County Registry, and 
continuing with the conservation easement area the following (2) courses and distances: 

(1) N 04°03'09" E a distance of 13.46 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(2) N 04°03'09" E, crossing a 40 foot wide right of way and easement of Duke Energy, passing a 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 128, Page 799 and Deed Book 
240, Page 770 of the Graham County Registry, a distance of 707.10 feet to an existing 3/4" 
iron pipe, said iron pipe being at a common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and Deed 
Book 240, Page 770 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 240, Page 770 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 54°40'03" W, passing a common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 
240, Page 770 and Deed Book 128, Page 799 of the Graham County Registry,  a distance of 414.72 
feet to a 42" white oak, said white oak being at a common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 128, Page 799 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 128, Page 799 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 83°06'50" W a distance of 459.65 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar, said rebar being 
at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 128, Page 799 and Deed Book 345, 
Page 163 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 345, Page 163 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 04°30'42" W a distance of 480.28 feet to a 16" ash, said ash being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 345, Page 163 and Deed Book 141, Page 
579 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 141, Page 579 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 79°14'02" E a distance of 308.64 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar, said rebar being 
at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 141, Page 579 and Deed Book 330, 
Page 487 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 330, Page 487 of the Graham County Registry  N 79°14'02" E a distance of 538.78 feet 
to an existing 5/8" rebar, said rebar being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, 
Deed Book 330, Page 487, and Deed Book 328, Page 687 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 328, Page 687 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 79°14'02" E a distance of 469.92 feet  to an existing 5/8" rebar, said rebar being 
at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 328, Page 687, Deed Book 259, 
Page 157 and Deed Book 315, Page 588 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 315, Page 588 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 79°14'02" E a distance of 757.85 feet to an existing planted stone, said stone 
being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 315, Page 588 and Deed 
Book 246, Page 605 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 246, Page 605 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area the following (3) courses and distances: 

(1) S 13°00'11" E a distance of 111.47 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 
(2) S 14°14'55" E a distance of 106.70 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 
(3) S 22°24'51" E a distance of 374.94 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar, said rebar being at a 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 246, Page 605 and Deed Book 
XXX, Page XXX of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book XXX, Page XXX of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area the following (3) courses and distances: 

(1) S 59°59'24" W a distance of 540.39 feet to an 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(2) S 82°53'10" E a distance of 266.65 feet to an 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(3) N 84°50'42" E a distance of 307.81 feet to an 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap, said rebar 
being at a common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book XXX, Page XXX and 
Deed Book 246, Page 605 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 246, Page 605 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area S 20°31'39" E a distance of 35.59 feet to an unmarked point in the center of East 
Buffalo Creek, said point being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 
246, Page 605 and Deed Book 288, Page 501 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 288, Page 501 of the Graham County Registry, up and with the center of East Buffalo 
Creek as it meanders, and continuing with the conservation easement area S 59°20'04" W a 
distance of 9.82 feet to an unmarked point; 

Thence continuing with the aforesaid common line, leaving the center of East Buffalo Creek, and 
continuing with the conservation easement area the following (2) courses and distances: 

(1) S 21°24'27" E a distance of 17.81 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(2) S 21°24'27" E a distance of 142.78 feet to an unmarked point located N 72°00’45” E a 
distance of 2.22 feet from an existing 5/8" rebar witness, said point being at the common 
corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 288, Page 501 and Deed Book 260, Page 
609 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 260, Page 609 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area the following (2) courses and distances: 

(1) S 17°51'09" E a distance of 214.15 feet to an existing 1/2" iron pipe; 
(2) S 17°51'09" E a distance of 13.46 feet to an existing PK nail in the center of the 
aforementioned East Buffalo Road, SR 1254, said PK nail being at a common corner of Deed 
Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 260, Page 609 and Deed Book 352, Page 603 of the Graham 
County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the center of SR 1254 as it meanders, and 
continuing with the conservation easement area the following (7) courses and distances: 

(1) S 46°23'02" W a distance of 48.83 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) with a curve to the right having a radius of 402.67 feet, an arc length of 191.95 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 60°02'47" W and a chord length of 190.14 feet to an unmarked point; 
(3) S 73°42'09" W a distance of 47.71 feet to an unmarked point; 
(4) with a curve to the left having a radius of 198.83 feet, an arc length of 105.01 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 58°34'25" W and a chord length of 103.79 feet to an unmarked point; 
(5) S 43°26'41" W a distance of 54.49 feet to an unmarked point; 
(6) with a curve to the right having a radius of 114.52 feet, an arc length of 68.07 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 60°28'21" W and a chord length of 67.07 feet to an unmarked point; 
(7) with a curve to the left having a radius of 3520.00 feet, an arc length of 136.05 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 76°23'35" W and a chord length of 136.04 feet to an unmarked point, said 
point being at the northeast corner of a 14.86 acre exclusion area; 

Thence with the northern line of the aforesaid exclusion area, continuing with the center of SR 
1254 as it meanders, and continuing with the conservation easement area the following (4) 
courses and distances: 

(1) with a curve to the right having a radius of 1000.00 feet, an arc length of 60.22 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 77°00'39" W and a chord length of 60.21 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) with a curve to the left having a radius of 1747.69 feet, an arc length of 167.92 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 75°59'00" W and a chord length of 167.86 feet to an unmarked point; 
(3) with a curve to the right having a radius of 2000.00 feet, an arc length of 89.19 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 74°30'30" W and a chord length of 89.18 feet to an unmarked point; 
(4) with a curve to the left having a radius of 493.29 feet, an arc length of 264.61 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 60°25'07" W and a chord length of 261.45 to an unmarked point, said point 
being at the northwest corner of the aforementioned exclusion area; 

Thence leaving the northern line of the aforesaid exclusion area, continuing with the center of SR 
1254 as it meanders, and continuing with the conservation easement area the following (4) 
courses and distances: 

(1) S 45°03'04" W a distance of 47.00 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) with a curve to the right having a radius of 230.68 feet, an arc length of 140.64 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 62°31'02" W and a chord length of 138.47 feet to an unmarked point; 
(3) with a curve to the left having a radius of 2830.00 feet, an arc length of 156.77 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 78°23'46" W and a chord length of 156.75 feet to an unmarked point; 
(4) with a curve to the right having radius of 641.10 feet, an arc length of 115.71 feet, a chord 
bearing of S 81°58'46" W and a chord length of 115.55 to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

Being all of that area of land in Conservation Easement Area A containing a total of 62.16 Acres, 
being the same more or less. 

Conservation Easement Area B:  
BEGINNING AT AN EXISTING PK NAIL IN THE CENTER OF EAST BUFFALO ROAD, SR 1254, said road 
having a right of way width of 60 feet per Deed Book 62, Page 537, said PK nail being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and Deed Book 72, Page 553 of the Graham County 
Registry, and also being located S 82°19’12” E a distance of 252.17 feet from a 5/8” rebar with a 
“Kee” Control Point cap set in concrete (Control Point #501) having North Carolina State Plane 
Coordinates (2011) of Northing: 622178.86 feet and Easting: 567465.78 feet; 

Thence with the center of SR 1254 as it meanders and with the conservation easement area the 
following (4) courses and distances: 

(1) with a curve to the left having a radius of 641.10 feet, an arc length of 115.71 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 81°58'46" E and a chord length of 115.55 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) with a curve to the right having a radius of 2830.00 feet, an arc length of 156.77 feet, a 
chord bearing of N 78°23'46" E and a chord length of 156.75 feet to an unmarked point; 
(3) with a curve to the left having a radius of 230.68 feet, an arc length of 140.64 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 62°31'02" E and a chord length of 138.47 feet to an unmarked point; 
(4) N 45°03'04" E a distance of 47.00 feet to an unmarked point, said point being at the 
northwest corner of a 14.86 acre exclusion area; 

Thence leaving the center of SR 1254, with the common line of the aforesaid exclusion area, and 
continuing with the conservation easement area the following (6) courses and distances: 

(1) S 27°19'24" E a distance of 31.48 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" CE cap; 
(2) S 27°19'24" E a distance of 877.19 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" CE cap; 
(3) S 79°04'02" E a distance of 457.39 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" CE cap; 
(4) N 05°29'29" E a distance of 646.72 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" CE cap; 
(5) N 40°41'16" W a distance of 569.75 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" CE cap; 
(6) N 40°41'16" W a distance of 33.41 feet to an unmarked point in the center of the 
aforementioned SR 1254, said point being at the northeast corner of the aforementioned 
exclusion area; 

Thence leaving the common line of the aforesaid exclusion area, with the center of SR 1254 as it 
meanders, and continuing with the conservation easement area the following (7) courses and 
distances: 

(1) with a curve to the right having a radius of 3520.00 feet, an arc length of 136.05 feet, a 
chord bearing of N 76°23'35" E and a chord length of 136.04 feet to an unmarked point; 
(2) with a curve to the left having a radius of 114.52 feet, an arc length of 68.07 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 60°28'21" E and a chord length of 67.07 feet to an unmarked point; 
(3) N 43°26'41" E a distance of 54.49 feet to an unmarked point; 
(4) with a curve to the right having a radius of 198.83 feet, an arc length of 105.01 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 58°34'25" E and a chord length of 103.79 feet to an unmarked point; 
(5) N 73°42'09" E a distance of 47.71 feet to an unmarked point; 
(6) with a curve to the left having a radius of 402.67 feet, an arc length of 191.95 feet, a chord 
bearing of N 60°02'47" E and a chord length of 190.14 feet to an unmarked point; 
(7) N 46°23'02" E a distance of 48.83 feet to an existing PK nail, said PK nail being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 260, Page 609 and Deed Book 
352, Page 603 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the center of SR 1254, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 352, Page 603 of the Graham County Registry, up and with the top of a ridge as it 
meanders, and continuing with the conservation easement area the following (11) courses and 
distances: 

(1) S 83°38'50" E a distance of 101.56 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 
(2) S 69°37'16" E a distance of 137.14 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(3) S 64°51'46" E a distance of 131.29 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(4) S 54°39'28" E a distance of 176.11 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(5) S 62°00'17" E a distance of 106.50 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(6) S 66°35'16" E a distance of 114.91 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(7) S 81°40'24" E a distance of 154.10 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(8) N 84°25'33" E a distance of 153.43 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(9) S 68°30'49" E a distance of 100.60 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(10)  S 60°17'12" E a distance of 138.79 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(11)  S 69°44'02" E a distance of 182.30 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 

Thence leaving the top of the ridge, continuing with the aforesaid common line, and continuing 
with the conservation easement area the following (2) courses and distances: 

(1) N 36°41'34" E a distance of 290.46 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 
(2) N 69°42'43" E a distance of 331.13 feet to an existing aluminum monument (Corner 6, USA 
Tract N‐723c), said monument being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, 
Deed Book 352, Page 603 and USA Tract N‐723c of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
USA Tract N‐723c of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation easement 
area the following (6) courses and distances: 

(1) N 70°25'31" E a distance of 85.99 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(2) S 68°29'38" E a distance of 154.29 feet to a 5/8” rebar set with a “Kee” cap; 
(3) S 76°44'40" E a distance of 165.47 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(4) S 67°42'32" E a distance of 107.14 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(5) S 64°52'43" E a distance of 136.51 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(6) S 78°49'03" E a distance of 177.66 feet to a 20" white oak (Corner 5, USA Tract N‐723c and 
Corner 10, USA Tract N‐1091a), said white oak being at the common corner of Deed Book 
374, Page 420, USA Tract N‐723c and USA Tract N‐1091a of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
USA Tract N‐1091a of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area        S 70°52'48" E a distance of 167.63 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar, said rebar 
being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, USA Tract N‐1091a and Deed Book 348, 
Page 844 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 348, Page 844 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area the following (3) courses and distances: 

(1) S 14°59'28" W a distance of 1104.60 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(2) S 86°01'48" E a distance of 287.11 feet to an existing 1/2" rebar; 
(3) S 86°01'48" E a distance of 14.17 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap on top of a ridge, 
said rebar being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 348, Page 
844 and USA Tract N‐1091a of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
USA Tract N‐1091a of the Graham County Registry, with the top of the ridge as it meanders, and 
continuing with the conservation easement area the following (32) courses and distances: 

(1) S 50°39'08" W a distance of 28.00 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(2) S 56°26'34" W a distance of 40.22 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(3) S 46°17'36" W a distance of 83.60 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(4) S 49°21'04" W a distance of 30.94 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(5) S 46°01'53" W a distance of 205.80 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(6) S 44°51'32" W a distance of 122.56 feet to a 14" hickory; 
(7) S 44°09'21" W a distance of 82.42 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(8) S 43°44'42" W a distance of 87.67 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(9) S 52°25'12" W a distance of 73.28 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(10)  S 47°46'38" W a distance of 78.06 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(11)  S 44°58'48" W a distance of 87.95 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(12)  S 19°45'02" W a distance of 86.40 feet to an existing aluminum monument; 
(13)  S 23°45'16" W a distance of 72.57 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(14)  S 34°31'28" W a distance of 118.79 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(15)  S 29°35'03" W a distance of 151.26 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(16)  S 30°11'52" W a distance of 65.20 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(17)  S 22°41'53" W a distance of 117.48 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(18)  S 25°51'04" W a distance of 91.46 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(19)  S 21°09'21" W a distance of 80.61 feet to an existing aluminum monument; 
(20)  S 66°13'20" W a distance of 190.59 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(21)  S 60°34'05" W a distance of 110.91 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(22)  S 58°00'34" W a distance of 134.97 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(23)  S 54°19'18" W a distance of 122.86 feet to an 8" maple; 
(24)  S 49°02'05" W a distance of 53.16 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(25)  S 53°33'39" W a distance of 83.72 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(26)  S 43°31'19" W a distance of 89.23 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(27)  S 57°43'54" W a distance of 85.47 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(28)  S 66°29'46" W a distance of 131.23 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(29)  S 63°53'38" W a distance of 167.49 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(30)  S 45°13'55" W a distance of 38.72 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(31)  S 37°11'08" W a distance of 22.90 feet to an unmarked point; 
(32)  S 73°40'32" W a distance of 75.04 feet to an existing aluminum monument (Corner 5A, 
USA Tract N‐1091a and Corner 31A, USA Tract N‐252o), said monument being at the 
common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, USA Tract N‐1091a and USA Tract N‐252o of 
the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, leaving the top of the ridge, with the common line of 
Deed Book 374, Page 420 and USA Tract N‐252o of the Graham County Registry, and continuing 
with the conservation easement area the following (3) courses and distances: 

(1) N 13°55'58" W a distance of 300.01 feet to an existing aluminum monument; 
(2) N 45°53'34" W a distance of 810.85 feet to a 23" chestnut oak (Corner 30, USA Tract N‐
252o); 
(3) N 53°36'55" W a distance of 545.99 feet to a white oak snag (Corner 29, USA Tract N‐252o), 
said white oak snag being at the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, USA Tract N‐
252o and Deed Book 214, Page 363 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 214, Page 363 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area the following (18) courses and distances: 

(1) N 70°11'34" W a distance of 49.63 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(2) N 62°32'04" W a distance of 126.86 feet to an existing 5/8" rebar; 
(3) N 61°14'55" W a distance of 42.95 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(4) N 57°43'40" W a distance of 40.99 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(5) N 59°42'46" W a distance of 137.08 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(6) N 62°16'14" W a distance of 75.23 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(7) N 65°58'55" W a distance of 48.01 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(8) N 67°24'31" W a distance of 72.95 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(9) N 55°08'20" W a distance of 146.26 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(10)  N 46°26'39" W a distance of 100.79 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(11)  N 44°15'38" W a distance of 128.09 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(12)  N 29°10'08" W a distance of 117.16 feet to a 15" chestnut oak; 
(13)  N 43°54'17" W a distance of 125.95 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(14)  N 33°28'25" W a distance of 67.69 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(15)  N 24°30'20" W a distance of 95.78 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(16)  N 27°09'19" W a distance of 94.01 feet to a 20" red oak snag; 
(17)  N 20°25'13" W a distance of 69.09 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 
(18)  N 08°37'22" W a distance of 92.37 feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap; 

Thence continuing with the aforesaid common line, passing the common corner of Deed Book 
374, Page 420, Deed Book 214 Page 363 and Deed Book 367, Page 550 of the Graham County 
Registry, and continuing with the conservation easement area N 06°21'04" E a distance of 89.39 
feet to a 5/8" rebar set with a "Kee" cap, said rebar being in the common line of Deed Book 374, 
Page 420 and Deed Book 367, Page 550 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and Deed Book 367, Page 550 of the 
Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation easement area the following (3) 
courses and distances: 

(1) N 03°20'39" E a distance of 86.09 feet to a 28" white oak; 
(2) N 13°32'34" E a distance of 94.55 feet to a 36" oak; 
(3) N 18°32'53" W a distance of 145.37 feet to an existing 1/2" iron pipe, said iron pipe being at 
the common corner of Deed Book 374, Page 420, Deed Book 367, Page 550 and Deed Book 
72, Page 553 of the Graham County Registry; 

Thence leaving the aforesaid common line, with the common line of Deed Book 374, Page 420 and 
Deed Book 72, Page 553 of the Graham County Registry, and continuing with the conservation 
easement area N 00°08'03" E a distance of 145.92 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; 

Being all of that area of land in Conservation Easement Area B containing a total of 197.68 
Acres, being the same more or less. 

Being all of two conservation easement areas containing a total of 259.84 Acres, being the same 
more or less, according to a plat of survey entitled “A Conservation Easement Survey for Wildlands 
Engineering, Inc., East Buffalo Mitigation Site, Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation, USACE ID # 
SAW‐2019‐01296”, on the property of Ramlonghorn, LLC, dated XX/XX/XX,  Job# 190650‐CE. This 
description of land was prepared from an actual survey and shown on the aforesaid plat by Kee 
Mapping and Surveying, PA (License # C‐3039) between the dates of 06/26/19 – 01/20/20 and 
under the supervision of Kevin L. Jones, NC PLS (License # L‐5016) and shown on a plat of survey as 
recorded in Plat Book_____, Pages_____ through _____ of the Graham County Register of Deeds, 
to which reference should be made for a more complete description. 

APPENDIX 2
DWR Stream Identification Forms
NC SAM Forms
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date‥L=暗証LO汗e Project/Site:Eびもキ&uL儲\o しatitude:35,ろG勘
EvaIuato「:MCcね占e用 County:6{C汗\乱rn しongitude:-8る,釦〉うう
TotaiPoints: StreamDetermination(Circi OtherE緒故も鰭IoCJ迫
盤露盤羅叶ちら Ephemera=ntermittent　erennia e.g,QuadName:
(Subt。tal= 1ら)lAbsentl　Weak　lModeratel　Strong
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 (り
2.Sinuosityofchannelalongthalweg 0 1 ② 3
3.In-Channelst「ucture:eX.「脚e-POOI,SteP-POOi, 0 1 2 ㊦
「ipple-POOisequence
4.ParticIesizeofstreamsubstrate 0 1 2 00
5.Active/relict¶oodplain 0 1 ・2 ⑤
6.Depositionalbarsorbenches 0 1 2 園
7.Recenta冊viaIdeposits 0 1 2 〔雪
8.Headcuts￣ (可う 1 2 3
9.Gradecont「oI 0 0.5 圃国書 1,5
10.Natu「aIva=ey 0 0,5 国書臆 1,5
11.Secondorgreaterorde「channel N ○こ0 押es =3ニ)
B.Hydroiogy(SubtotaI=j」皇_)
12.P「esenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 ∴土、
13.l「onoxidizingbacte「ia 隠田 1 2 3
14,Leaflitter 『育つ 1 0,5 0
15.Sedimentonplantso「debris で 0.5 ① 1.5
16.Organicdebris=nesorp=es 0 0.5 打つ 1.5
17.So=-basedevidenceofhighwatertabIe? No=0 eSこ
C.Bio!ogy(SubtotaI=○○山_)
18.Fib「ous「ootsinstreambed G⊃ 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinst「eambed 纏⊃ 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notediversityandabundance) 0 1 2 《重⊃
21.AquaticMo=usks 0 仰 2 3
22,Fish (6ヽ 百も 1 1,5
23,Crayfish 了二面1 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 、圏 0.5 1 1.5
25.AIgae 0 0.5 圏圃 1,5
26.Wetlandpiantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBLニ1.5蟹he予言‘
★perenniaIst「eamsmayaisobeidentifiedusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes:rY\性M乱|^　′し十|,S`t\rii\C\\,Sr詑研政孝もcJ\/1㌔-\
∪　　くじ　　　　　　　　　　　　　　’　　　　　　　G
Sketch: 　　　　」
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:Ll八もIL01C\ P・qject/Site∴E俺す乾し縁起 Latitude:3う′うらら塙
Evaluator:M_C玖ddd理 County:亀子擁溺沿 Longitude:-9)3.洗部珂
TotaiPoints: 器認諾ろすう 詩語謹書蓑董遺) Otherし人「2._のeCltノh′㌔ e.g.QuadName:
iAbsentl　Weak　l　Moderatel　St「ong
1a.Continuityofchan=eIbedandbank 0 1 2 (亘⊃
2.SinuosityofchannelalongthaIweg 0 /\′音■ 2 3
3.ln-Channelstructure:eX.「櫛e-POOi,SteP-POOI, \　0 1 ㊧ 3
「ippIe-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofstreamsubstrate 0 1 2 C3フ
5.Active/reIictfloodpIain 0 1 1 3
6.DepositionaIbarso「benches 0 1 『電フ 3
7.Recenta=uvialdeposits 0 1 菱麗 3
8.Headcuts 0 同園 2 3
9.Gradecont「oI 0 ♂5 ① 1,5
10.Naturaiva=ey 0 0.5 {ウ 1,5
11,Secondorg「eaterorde「channeI (No=6う Yes =3
B.Hyd「Ol。gy(Subt。t。l=」i圭一)
12.PresenceofBaseflow 0 1 2 ⊂∋
13,l「onoxidizingbacte「ia {の 1 2 3
14.Leaflitte「 1.5 ⊂夢 0.5 0
15.Sedimentonplantsordebris 0 です写) 1 1.5
16.O「ganicdeb「islineso「p=es 0 0.5 ⊂D 1.5
17・Soiトbasedevidenceofhigr!WatertabIe? No=0 騒　音渥
C,BioIogy(Subtotal=〇一〇l　」　)
18.Fibrousrootsinst「eambed 二王さ 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandplantsinst「eambed 疋÷3二つ 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notediversityandabundance) ￣0 1 C上〕 3
21.AquaticMo=usks 0 1 、西田 3
22.Fish ぐ0ヽ∴ 0,5 1 1.5
23,Crayfish ぐ〒戸) 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 了の 0.5 1 1.5
25.AIgae 0 0.5 “冒音音一一音。 1.5
26.Wetlandpiantsinst「eambed FACW=O.75;OBL=1蜜ニうt南r三重
★perenniaist「eamsmayalsobeidentifiedusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes:　A^f}人ム孝子咄(穫+、　f構妹一徹転配槌音吾味ぐ二を’㌔.番、師銀jNr〉E\
U　　Q　　　　l￣￣　　　　　　　　　〇　　　　年
Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:申1狙。阜 P「oject/Site‥t±C鼠B(人」緬b Latitude宅う361iコ
Eva-uato「:M(α旭川 County:&ィc|小,1JrVi しongitude:-%もも0(o
丁otalPoints: 盤露盤留る耳・ら 詩語謹書悲運董) Othe「し人下ろ硬軟新つも e.g.QuadName;
iAbsentl　Weak　lMode「atei　St「ong
1a.Con血uityof,Channelbedandbank'‘ 0 1 2
2.SinuosityofchameIaIongthalweg 0 了]⊃ 2 3
3.ln-ChameIst「ucture:eX,r圃e-POOl,SteP-POOl, 0 1 G) 3
「ippIe-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofstreamsubstrate 0 1 2 ⊂D
5,Active/relictfloodplain 0 1 くら 3
6.Depositionaibarso「benches 0 予てつ 2 3
7.Recenta=uvialdeposits 0 「 くつ 3
8.Headcuts 0 /・和 2 3
9.G「adecont「oI 0 ￣\音。範囲 1 1.5
10.Natu「alva=ey 0 0.5 ぐ-〒⊃ 1.5
11.Secondo「g「eate「orde「channel r 〇二0 Yes =3
B.Hyd「OIogy(Subtotai= _墨〇二圭」)
12.P「esenceofBaseflow 0 1 2 了二重主
13.l「onoxidizingbacteria ここぽっ 工 2 3
14.Leaflitte「 1.5 ・臆賀監 0.5 0
15.Sedimentonplantsordebris 0 了縄ヽ 1 1,5
16.Organicdebrislineso「pi eS 0 ￣布き ;∵二重　∴ 1,5
17.So=-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? No=0 避es=?∋
C,Bioiogy(Subtotal=」ユ二重○○。)
18,Fibrousrootsinstreambed (￣チ亨) 2 1 0
19.RootedupIandplantsinstreambed 有ノダ奪う 2 1 _ゼ
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandab…dance) 0 1 2 し二二夢、
21.AquaticMo=usks 0 -　1 し〇一∑⊃ 3
22.Fish の・ 0.5 1 1.5
23.C「ayfish {一￣0う 0,5 1 1.5
24,Amphibians 0 で￣で言う 1 1,5
25.Algae 0 0.5 音￣薩 1.5
26,Wetlandpiantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1,5\Q主her=旦)
*串remiaIstreamsmayaisobeidentifiedusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes:CJ(C功r`gLノ魚叫。砕d袋.揖印甑Gが,「\天C疋3,重劫nf|鴨,酬AAf&浩 雇副書臆臆臆
0!　　　　　　　　　q　′　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　I￣
Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.1l
Date:l八8性。m PrQject/Site:ヒo計&ノ緬地 しatitude:35,らしL15
Evaluator‥M.(飽駄l現 County:6{cu庇l〃n Longitude:-g㌔.$○らち
蒜嘉課㌢ううも 謙語書誌蕊嘩識 Othe「いて叫の、他鉱胡 e.g.QuadName:
lAbsentl　Weak　lModeratei　Strong
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 しこD
2.SinuosityofchanneialongthaIweg 0 練⊃ 2 3
3.ln-Channelst「hoture:eX.r櫛e-POOl,SteP-POOl, 0 1 こう 3
ripple-POOIsequence
4,Particlesizeofstreamsubstrate 0 1 2 (⊂圭)
5.Active/「elictfloodpIain 0 (イブ〒) 2 3
6.DepositionaIbarsorbenches 0 「 (、〇三⊃ 3
7,Recenta冊viaIdeposits 0 1 団 3
8,Headcuts ∈ニ￣旦二つ 1 2 3
9,Gradecontrol 0 0.5 寒帯へ 1.5
10.Natu「alva=ey 0 臆」　{等量> 1 1.5
11.Secondo「greate「orderchanneI ∈臆N 〇三㊦ Yes こ3
B.HydroIogy(Subtotal= 〇一〇　」　)
12.P「esenceofBaseflow 0 1 2 C三>
13.lronoxidizingbacte「ia (すう 1 2 3
14,Leaflitte「 工5 瞳回 0.5 0
15.SedimentonpIantsordebris i四国 0.5 1 1.5
16.Organicdebrislineso「Pi eS 0 0.5 調　音、、臆\臆\ 1.5
17.Soil-basedevidenceofh ghwate「table? Noこ0 漢産室　室田
C.BioIogy(SubtotaI=_⊥fL)
18.Fib「ousrootsinstreambed しテ〕 2 1 0
19,Rooteduplandplantsinst「eambed 亀⊃ 2 ニ」 0
20.Mac「obenthos(notediversityandabundan∞) 0 1 し-2_) 3
21.AquaticMo=usks 旦 1 ∵2ヽ 3
22.Fish ぐ0うー 0,5 丁 1,5
23.Crayfish :園 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 随 0.5 ’1 1.5
25.Algae 〆中ソ 0.5 1 1.5
26.WetIandpIantsinst「eambed FACW=0,75;OBL=1.醇飯her三、oJ
★pe「emiaist「eamsmayaIsobeiden伽edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanual.
Notes:Co占遭甑雪古もしも{でヽ_　∩へ⊂九人命小耳/(′子中ヽ、千手温泉主唱くつ」ヽ
臆i　　’　　　劃臆臆面
Sketch:
/NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:叫I胸侶騨隼 ProjecVSite弧蟻 」atitude:亀5,怠鶴芋テ
County:G`C人Yv九位n 」ongitude」鴇3、只0毛(鯵 Eva-uator:dr纏e譲最中
TotalPointsこ 浩器霊諾諾nt3当 詩語書誌雑鬱 。.。.。ua。N。忠丁し乱し Other
lAbsentl　Weak　l　Moderatei　Strong
1a’Continuityofchameibedandbank 0 1 2 し3う
2,Si…OSityofchanneialongthalweg 0 ⊂わ 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIstructu「e:eX.r櫛e-POOI,SteP-POOI, 0 1 ① 3
rippie-POOIsequence
4.Particlesizeofst「eamsubstrate 0 1 2 陸蔓
5.Active/「eIict¶oodpIain 0 園田 2 3
6.Depositionaibarsorbenches 0 く茸フ 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaIdeposits 0 1 く宴∋ 3
8.Headcuts (1丁で) 1 2 3
9.Gradecontroi 0 の 1 1.5
10.NaturalvaiIey 0 0.5 の 1.5
11.Secondo「greaterorderchamel ,利子 ○=小 Yes =3
12.PresenceofBaseflow 0 1 2 ÷すう
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 了￣0ミヽ 1臆 2 3
14.Leaflitter 丁も 屯ニラ 0.5 0
15,SedimentonpIantso「deb「is 0 0.5 ⊂弓 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrislineso「pi eS 0 0.5 {「ヽ 1.5
17,Soii-basedevjdenceofh ghwate「tabIe? N 0=0 (Yes …臆主⊃
18,Fibrous「ootsinstreambed C3⊃ 2 1 0
19.R○○ tedupIandpiantsinstreambed G⊃ 2 1 0
20・Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 ⊂参 3
21,Aqu aticMo=usks 0 1 (/-空\ 3
22.Fish (旬」 0,5 ￣了 1.5
23,Crayfish 了二軍こ 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 而夢 0,5 1 1.5
25,Aigae 0 《コ襲⊃ 1 1.5
26,Wet andpIantsinstreambed FACW=0,75;OBL=1.5@her≒3)
★pe「enn aistreamミmayaisobeiden帥edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:(わ〆一ck末忘や虹点ノ忠信2、へ一.1何ものJ高尋亀,恵　rl\,C平日′頑4掴争、杵Lrf\ ￣、ア￣　　　　　∪、￣￣　-夕“　　ひ∴∴召　　　￣I∴“￣’貯　　￣　-　’
Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　　　ん/猫仁涌輸 P「ojec。Site阜,鮎蝕め Latitude:多式年$
EvaIuator:M極意鳩薫星§ County‥昌弘V転売船 Longitude上部.救o二宮、
Tota看Points: 詳謹書豊富躍 器a。Nam。‥弧う
烹露盤留　引
iAbsentl!Weak　l　Mode「atei　St「ong
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 (下フ
2,Sinuosityofchannelalongthalweg 0 (少 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIst「ucture:eX.r脚e-POOl,SteP-POOi, 0 1 2 下、
rippIe-POOIsequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubstrate 旦_ 1 2 (ナノ
箪ActivelreIictfloodplain /0ノ 1 2 3
6.DepositionaIbarsorbenches 「) 1 予め 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits /直、:ヽ 1 葛2 行ウ
8.Headcuts しか/ 1 2 “す
9.Gradecontroi 0 0.5 1 勾.参
10.Natu「alva=ey 0 \　　0.5 1. 岡
11.Secondo「greaterorde「channeI ′/内〇二ず Yes=3　-“-￣
SubtotaI= \
12,PresenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 とヲ
13.I「onoxidizingbacteria 0 子D 2 3
14,Leaflitter 1.5 (〆丁￣) 0,5 0
15.SedimentonpIantsordebris 0 \へ0:5 //二手 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrisiineso「pi eS 0 0.5 ⊂」> 1.5
17.So=-basedevjdenceofh ghwate「tabIe? N〇二0 ぐYes二子ヽ
C. Bi010 (Subtotal =
18.Fibrousrootsinstreambed 了蔓フ 2 1 0
19.RooteduplandpIantsinstreambed /5フ 2 1 0
20.Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) \「イう 1 2 <二二至>
21,Aqu aticMo=usks 0 1 く〇三> 3
22,Fish どす三上 0.5 1 1.5
23.C「a 卵Sh //⑧ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amp hibians 0 0.5 壁 1.5
25.AIgae 0 0.5 ⊂二エ二〇_\ 1.5
26.Wet andpIantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1趣the「〒B
★pe「enn aIst「eamsmayaisobeidentifiedusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes二　L)ヰ<+7肌、CL字/’し叩ノ,二∴)、#\郵寿生で信l|告 ∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴∴†一子言 ∴∴.∴∴∴
高i†詫言当常　子,4　諦∴;∴/∵千住/告助了で.〆扉j　　　　　　　　　　」)皿　　　　　　　ll
∴　∴ Sketch二 二∴:∴∴∴∴∴一一∴一一
八乱心{主情尽当、言浩一言㍉∴㍉
鮎黒申拒
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:　一、;∴∴:∴: P「ojecuSite十十車(判二㌦ Latitude‥てぅ5/±巧?
Evaluator:酔常雄;阜 County:三高∴↑∴言、 しongitude‥ノ注言上￣
TotaiPoints: 烹露盤等nt竜三雪 詳豊謹書盤器量 　　‡\ 器adNam。:し読￣帯一
「￣￣￣￣Absentl　Weak　lModeratelSt「ong
1a.Co=ti両tyofchameIbedandbank 0 1 了2ヽ 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthalweg 0 了「> 、￣亨で 3
3.ln-ChameIst「ucture:eX.r珊e-POO上SteP-POOI, 0 1 〔三) 3
rippIe-POOIsequence
4.Particiesizeofstreamsubst「ate 旦_ 1 2 (3二)
5.Active/relictfloodplain (oノ 1 2 3
6.Depositionaibarso「benches 0 もD 2 3　　主
7.Recenta=uvialdeposits 0 「 2　　、 (__まつ
8.Headcuts (可 1 2 3　　∴
9.Gradecontrol ￣で 0.5 -　　1 \」阜‡
10.Naturalva=ey 0 0.5 -1 三二￣1.5プ
11.SecondorgreaterorderchanneI {〆No=qフ Yesこ3
B.Hyd「oIogy(Subtotal=_拉)
12.P「esenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 (くら
13.l「onoxidizingbacteria 0 ⊂⊥} 2 3
14.しeaflitter 1.5 二二二千∋ 0.5 0
15.Sedimentonplantso「deb「is 0 了面司 コ 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrislineso「piIes 0 0.5 (も 1.5
17.So=-basedevidenceofhighwate「tabIe? No=0 (Yes三やミ
C.BioIogy(Subtotai=〇二L)
18.Fib「ousrootsinstreambed 恥 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinstreambed i巧つ 2 1_ 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) へ∴些こ∴ 1 子2、う 3
21.AquaticMo=usks C隻と 1 2 3
22.Fish (重く■ 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 手工且ノ 旦圭_ 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 人畦皇) 1 1.5
25.AIgae 0 (_耳をノ 1二二ここ- 1.5
26.WetIandpiantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1.5&he「こD
’peremia†st「eamsmayalsobeiden舶edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofma甲 a.
Notes:,ろ+iγ朗大功矛/損A,l`詔?締/′汚//轍′年/鰭紐〆,￣フ　′♂∠=東がFr古生工
∪∴∴し浩子∴」もノ　　　　　　　　　　　　i　　　　　　　　　　　/′
sk。t。hg朝`’勘雛u出生 /′音
∴∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴ 　　　　　　　　　く ∥ブ十十∴,仁　-　ぐ∵㌧ノ了∵/(∵
∴∴∴∴∴
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　=研ノ)巧い卸 P「qject/Site: Latitude∴こ,年上,
Eva-uator:W高畠立　7 County:　　" Longitude:∵声ノ守冊!7;
TotaiPoints: s細amisa“easthtem酬g修 存≧19orperemia//f≧30費 三豊豊詰蕊謹選 器a隷点燈
A, Geomorphoio (Sub,。,a一=○○唾)lAbsentl　Weak　iModeratei　Strong　l
1a.Continuityofchamelbedandbank 0 1 2 (3二う
2"SinuosityofchanneIaiongthaIweg 0 1 圏 ーで
3"in-ChanneIst「uctu「e:eX.r圃e-POOl,SteP-POOi, 0 (ラ) 2 3
「ippie-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofst「eamsubst「ate 0〈 1 在夢 3
5.Active/reIictfIoodplain 布￣つ 1 2 3
6.Depositionalbarsorbenches \哲/ (・干⊃ 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaIdeposits 0 1 ∴2:∵ 3
8.Headcuts 0 ‡エ⊃ 2 3
9.GradecontroI 0 ③ 1 1.5
10.Naturaiva=ey 0 〈　0.5 ∴　子」⊃ 1.5
11,Secondorgreaterorde「chamei 〆刷り三重> Yes=3
subtotal=　Cl.
12.PresenceofBasefiow 0 1 了二三) 3
13.ironoxidizingbacte「ia 0_ ∵1_) 2 3
÷1臆.宣ブ 1 一書q.5 0
0 0,5 子　上\ 1,5. 15. Sediment on piants o「 deb「is
16.O「ganicdebrisIjnesorpi eS 0 0,5 『「ブ　タ、土　1,5
17.Soil-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? No=0 i￣　ぐ/Yes三善ヴ
C.BioIogy(SubtotaI=一〇〇己ユニ)
18,Fibrousrootsinstreambed (/へ 2 1 0
19.RootedupIandpIantsinstreambed \電⊃ 2_ 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 α 2 」し
21.AquaticMo冊sks 0 1 2 了二二まノ
22.Fish な句⊃ 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 二、&_⊃ 0.5 1 1.5 24,Amphibians 0 0.5 (/n 1.5
25.Aigae 0 0.5 (二千ン　∴ 1.5
26.WetiandpIantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1f予斬后er=0)
★perennia-streamsmayaisobeide嗣edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua一∴,　　　　　　\‘、--・-一一一才　`,_
Notes:ノミ\c3、人のノ沼「子、太子洋\\緑f7可　-㍉∴アf宅荻現要言=牢fP∵′　了=揮C九ノi7
/　　　　　　　　　　　￣∴∴d/J(
Sketch早宮黒牛地相空将直川坤∵∵亘 ∴∴∴∴∴∴:∴一∴∴一∴∴
∴:∴∴上 　　し(′
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:W埴生ノ宮古 Projec廿Site‥軽骨薫 音! 〕.∴∴ Latitude:∵;∴;;∴
Eva-uator所在妙砂.1ノ鋤 County:吊∵千言∵一 Longitude:一㌦÷ノ,畑/言弓
TotalPoints: Streamisafleas‘htemrfte所rL仁 が≧19orpeIemia//f≧30★ StreamDete「minatjon(Ci「cleone) Othe「u千五
Ephemera=ntermitten㊧ e.g.QuadName:
lAbsentl　Weak　lMode「atelStrongl
11a.Co=tinuityofchanneibedandbank 0 1 語手γ歩 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthaIweg 0 /丁† 2 3
3.in-ChanneIstructu「e:eX.「圃e-POOi,SteP-POO上 0 1 ⑪ 3
「ippIe-POOisequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0 1 2 l子二王)
5.Active/reiictfioodplain の 1 2 3
6.DepositionaIba「sorbenches ∴//D 1 」」、 3
7.Recenta冊viaIdeposits 0 1 」をブ 3
8.Headcuts ∴:可) 1 2 3
9,Gradecont「oi 0 0,5 く壬ラ 1,5
10,NaturaIva=ey 0 0,5 1 魚夢
11.Secondorgreate「orderchamei ノ　○’二0) Yes=3
su。,。,a, = d卸SSiOnS in manua’〇二⊥_ )
12.PresenceofBasefloWヾ 0 1 2 二子、
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 高二、 1 2 3
音　//イ.5_)I　　l　i　　o.5　　l　　o
15.Sedimentonplantsorde b「is 0 ′0う 1 1,5
16.O「ganicdeb「isIinesorpi eS 0 し0.5 (つつ 1.5
17.SoiI-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabie? No=0 ￣　〆黍二で\
C.Bio Ogy(Subtotai=_上i二〇三」_)　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　l　　　　　　　　〉
18,Fibrous「ootsinstreambed 閣 巨 1 0
19.RootedupIandpiantsinstreambed ∴少 2 1 0∴
20.Macrobenthos(notediversityandabundan∞) 0 1 2 、」レ
21.AquaticMoiiusks ///命フ 1 2 3
22,Fish ;奪う 0.5 1 1.5
23,C「ayfish ;句ノ 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 丞) 0,旦 1 1,5
25.Aigae ￣0 ロ驚⊃ 1/「ミ、 1.5
26,We( andplantsinstreambed FACW=O,75;OBL=1,5\寸辿旦う0
★perenn aist「eamsmayalsobeiden帥edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:+‘/辛、錬J言二五∴う∴　ノ∵,〆牽,尋互二了‥　+
」∴　　　\:　　　　　　　　　　　ぐ
Sketch宅切詰?ヤP畔/船陶rgr章ノ壷屋芽擁o∴一郎/帝--
∴:∴∴∴∴∴∴∴人∴∴∴∴子,:∴∴∴∴:
∴:二言∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　G(⊥g//?.c?叫 Projec廿Site在村W緬烏 Latitude:3ラン㌢あ楊
Evaluator:砕(玖d初男 County:甲￣紅中年# Longitude:n鎚言/門∴
TotalPoints: shamisat/。aStht。肋酬/黒古5 げ≧19orpeIemia//f≧30★∴∴∴ノ 詳謹書語群弼- 器a。Na蔚団
A. Geomorphoio (Sub,。,a一=且○○)iAbsenti　Weak　iModerateiStrong
1a.Continuityofchanneibedandbank p 1 \ニ之ヽ 3
2.Sinuosityofchanneiaiongthaiweg 0 (//下う 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIstructure:eX,r圃e-POOi,SteP-POOl, 0 1 言で) 3
「ippie-POOIsequence
4,ParticIesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0_ 1 2 缶)
5,Active/relictfloodpiain し0一一ブ 1 2 3
6,Depositionalba「sorbenches 了二面 1 2 3
7,Recenta=uviaideposits 0 1 了でフ 3
8.Headcuts 0 /十二〕 2 3
9.Gradecont「oI 0 0.5 C夢 1.5
10.NaturaIva=ey 0 0,5 1 丁子1七∴∵
11,Secondorgreate「orderchanneI 予科o=Q} Yes=3
aart楯ciaiditchesa「enotrated;S eediscussionsinmanuaI　　　　　　　　\￣-　-〆
B,Hyd「oiogy(Subt。t。I=_王〇〇〇)
12,P「esenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 、二参
13.Ironoxidizingbacteria くの 1 2 3
14.Leafijtter 1.5 ∴†∴ 0二亘 0
15.SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 0.5 ∴1「 1.5
16.Organicdebris=nesorpi eS 0 0.5 ∵千ヽ 1.5
17.Soil-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? N〇二0 ∵←　せき…三℃∴
C,BioIogy(Subtotal=○○。⊥ニ　」)
18.Fib「ous「ootsinstreambed ∴∵了∴ 2 1 0
19.RooteduplandpIantsinstreambed ∴3i: 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) ーb 1 二つ 3
21,AquaticMo=usks 0 1 2 3,
22.Fish ∴0∴ 0.5 1 1.5
23,C「ayfish /0〉 堰 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 ノ/0,5つ 1 1.5
25.Aigae 0 /’〉0.与こう 1 1.5
26,WetIandpiantsinstreambed FACW=O.75;OBL=1.5頓凸型三笠_}
*pe「enniaIst「eamsmayaIsobeiden帥edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:〇二　′気∴?芽ノ上申,r仇才で了ィ/=∴∴!◆∴!‘申、・r∴戸、∴〆　亘つ」,\S釘子年〆、
U音　￣　　　　　　く∴∴∴!
sk。,。h:　言上∵吉名‘′「,　　,/立上∴/′
∴ 、∴∴.∴」∵高二申子」言子言 ∴∴∴∴∴　　: ∴∴∴∴∴∴∴　　　∴∴∴
l　　　　　守　　　メ/′　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　/!ノ’∴/ノ
l 一∴∴∴∴　;∴: 　1 　　∴ 　￣;「 ;∴∴∴∴∴　　　　　　　　　∵
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　　ky/つ_ら!′袖崎 PrQjecuSite:彰ニ′弓子御方 」atitude:’三夫,/ジム用3
Eva-uator:緋清轟雄 County謡fi/、常時, Longitude:〆$㌢諸手擁
丁otaiPoints: 烹露盤等nt/うち・う StreamDetermination(Circ Epheme「a=ntermittent\e「ennial 器a。Nam。:甲金
lAbsenti　Weak　iModerateiStrong
1a.Continuityofcha=neibedandbank 0 1 くせ 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthalweg O　音 了「フ 2 3
3.In-Channeistructure:eX.「iffle-POOi,SteP-POOI, 0 1 ⊂夢 3
rippie-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofst「eamsubstrate 0 1 2 て二も
5.Active/「eIict¶oodpiain 了￣下戸う 1 2 3
6,Depositionaiba「so「benches ●臆臆 1 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits 、一句 1 ;iず) 3
8.Headcuts 0 1 てこ宴ニラ 3
9.GradecontroI 0 0.5 ⊂参 1,5
10.Natu「aIva=ey 0 ぉ㍉　0.5 1 、
11,Secondorgreaterorderchannel {N°≡￣すう Yes=3
B.Hyd「oiogy(S。bt。tai=jE_÷圭○○)
12.P「esenceofBasefiow 0 1 2 ∵.3\
13.ironoxidizingbacte「ia :∵∴0=ヽ ′重工 2 3
14.Leafiitte「 1.5 ,_」→ヽ 0.5 0
15.SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 !0,亘> 1 1.5
16.Organicdeb「isiinesorp=es 0 も.5 く壬> 1,5
17.SoiI-basedevidenceofhighwatertabIe? No=0 αe…三ゞ
C,Bioiogy(Subtotai=」上皇上二重_)
18.Fib「ousrootsinstreambed なぜ 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinstrea巾bed 〔の 2 1 O音
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 2 音　調
21.AquaticMo看lusks 了∴す\ 1 2 3
22.Fish ∴こ匂う 0.5 1 1.5
23,Crayfish ∴奇ヽ 0,5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 ー音　　　臆喜　　　　　一 1.5
25,Aigae 0 ∴こ旦与> 1』、軍二=　」 1.5
26,Wetiandpiantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1.5　Qthe「=㊦
漢　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　-　　　　　　　　　　　　8 ★pe「enniaist「eamsmayaゆbeiden師edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanu a.
Notes:/D「亀貌放散語草母上∴⊇T\村域\、のせ年、了r′′‘\SJ王子し鼻+/+ノ〆,‘)=印材調性鋤高弟0‘
予1′　￣　　　　　し1し告　　￣　　　　　　、上だ　　　　　　　　　’
ヽ￣
Sketch:g尚古毛(二㌔￣申年r 一∴∴一∴∴∴∴∴一∴
:∴∴∴∴∴∵∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴一　一
∴∴∴∴∴∴一∴∴ 一子i十王↑了\、 I　　　　　　　　　な　し　イ
//<二/
/NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
PrQjecuSite損得享gJ勘塘 Latitude:1らク/サJ,印争 Date:　　　　　　　1　　　”　　　　>言
Eva-uator:航履鵡鎚樟 County:`十・∴∴∴ Longitude:1気半年生
TotalPoints: ste。misa川easth活em妬e。t?ウ‘」ti, 詳譜謹書葦置恕 　　　　　∴∴∴ Othe「 。.。.。。a。Nam。:Vi+#
げ≧19orperemia川≧30★　　、ノ　　"天〆ブ
lAbsentl　Weak　lMode「atei　St哩虫g
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 言上∴;
2.Sinuosityofchanneiaiongthaiweg 0 ′サ 2 3
3.in-ChameIst「ucture:eX.r圃e-POOI,SteP-POOl, 0 1 (今) 3
rippie-POOisequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0 1 2 (奪う
5.Activelrelictfioodpiain 了一重B 1 2 ￣￣3
6.Depositjonalbarso「benches 周 1 2 3
7,RecentaIIuviaIdeposits \山で 1 ∴Tヽ 3
8,Headcuts ′/1「ヽ 1 2 3
9,Gradecont「ol 「予 0.5 十二ヽ 生姜
1O,NaturaIvaliey 0 0.5 1 子1.∴㌔〕
11.Secondorgreate「o「de「chamei .了一冊ヽ Yes=3
Subtotal=　C
12.PresenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 く三三>
13.l「onoxidizingbacte「ia ∴「丁へ 1 2 3
14.Leaf=tter 十〇.おう 1 0.5 0
15.SedimentonpIantsordebris 0 0.5 (干ヽ 1.5
16.O「ganicdeb「is=nesorpiies 0 0,5 了千、、 1.5
17.Soii-basedevidenceofhighwate「tabie? No=0 ル　仔es=3ず
18.Fibrousrootsinst「eambed 了で、、 2 1 0
19.R○○ tedupiandpiantsinstreambed 言う∴ヽ 2 1 0
2O.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 担う 3
21.AquaticMoIiusks 0 1 2 ∴叫
22.Fish 了や、 0.5 1 1.5
23,Crayfish ∵0∴ヽ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amphibians (0_) 0.5 1 1.5
25.Aigae 0 〔二で二重二つ 1 1.5
26.Wet andpiantsinstreambed FACWl=0,75;OBL=1.5(で耐e「=市う
★pe「enn aist「eamsmaya-sobeide=t楯edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanual.　　　　　　　　　　`ヽ￣￣---￣￣
Notes: ;∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴∴　　∥∵十.中高十㌧ く高鍋)ん自　主の十
㌦l　　　′∴∴∴ノ　　￣
Sketch’二伸雄牛丁l証/時星ir’昔二言∵汗∴∴
∴　∴∴:∴∴　∴∴ ∴∴∴　一∴一∴　∴:∴∴∴　∴∴
一　　　　　　片 千　　　　　言　　　∴
、一ノ∴言、音十)子詳 ししく
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:　　　∴∴∴∴∴∴ P・Qject/Site:モノ細e雄二吉や Latitude:‘考㌘亨,)し均
EvaIuator: 　　う/〆、 County詔千綿J年飢{雄へ しongitude∴一粒騎隼も
塁等三三二二　三￣∴ 詳豊詰諾霊壁塾 Other"∴仁一￣ e.g.Quad、Name:\
←￣　　　　i-〇〇〇〇〇〇〇〇
(SubtotaI=　　- [・/ )lAbsenti　Weak　l　Moderatei　Strong
1a.Continuityofcha=nelbedandbank 0 ,1 !’2つ 3
2,SinuosityofchanneialongthaIweg 0 ・\1\) 2 3
3.In-ChameIstructure:eX.「i冊e-POOI,SteP-POOl, 0 1 之●、 3
rippie-POOisequence
4.Particiesizeofst「eamsubst「ate 0 1 2 二単二う
5.ActiveIreIictfIoodpIain ぐ/百フ 1 2 3
6.Depositionaibarsorbenches くD 1 そ臆 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits 0 1 了一￣2、、 3
8.Headcuts 二重、 1 2 3
9.GradecontroI 0 0.5 1 ∴工5\
10.Naturaiva=ey 0 モー　　0"5 -\∴ユニブ 1.5
11.Secondorgreaterorderchannei 了〆　No=少 Yes=3
(Subtotai
12.P「esenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 ∴しぶ\
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 了￣⊃せ> 1 2 3
14.Lea川tter 1.5 1へ∴ 0.5 0
15,SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 ∴鴫、 1 1,5
16,Organicdeb「is旧esorpi eS 0 0.5 (1う 1.5
17.Soii-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? No=0 了Yもs〇三3二>
C. Bioio Subtotal =
18.Fibrous「ootsinstreambed ∴:3ヽ 2 1 0
19,R○○ tedupIandpIantsinstreambed /￣うう 2 丁1 0
20.Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundan∞) 0 1 ⊂主> ∴-÷3∴
21,AquaticMo=usks 0 1 2 、、___盆
22.Fish 二重こう 0,5 1 1.5
23.C「ayfish :0\ヽ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amphibians ∴p:∴ 0阜 1 1,5
25.AIgae 0 ’0.5、† 1∴∴一∴∴ 1.5
26,Wet andpiantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1ふ\Othe「三㌦
★pe「enn aist「eamsmayaisobeiden帥edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanual.
Notes: ∴∴∴;∴∴∴∴吉子　∴二∴∵∴丁∴(∴∵∴;∴　∴∴∴∵∴　二　言十一
;;　∴!　　　　　　　　　し
Sketch　\∴ ;∴∴∴:・∴ 意{ ;∴∴∴∴ ∴:∴ ∵∴ 　一 言:∵∴∴丁子了∴:: 上 玉よく 　も 一∴∴:∴ 音、ノ′ 音,/ 出’∴耳 l \三二㌦
.∴∴∵　∴∴∴　∴∴　　　　　　　　　　∴
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
HIGH
Ma3
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - East Buffalo Creek (above UT2) Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NO
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Ma3
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - East Buffalo Creek below UT2 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NO
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
1/30/2020
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ma1
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - UT1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NO
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Ma1
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - UT2 R2 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
NA
NO
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ma2
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - UT3 R2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ma2
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - UT3 R3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
(1) Habitat
(2) In-stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In-stream Habitat
(2) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Stream-side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
M. Caddell
4/18/2019
NO
NO
NO
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ma1
Stream Site Name East Buffalo - UT4 R2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW

APPENDIX 3
USACE Wetland Forms
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 x , 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Sampling location is in an agricultural field that is maintained by mowing and animal grazing. The data point is for Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, and J.
The data point was taken inside wetland D.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-1
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
<1concavefield
Datum:NAD 8335.365257-83.804127LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
60
0
20
Multiply by:
60
2.55Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
1333
Rubus
Fescue
5
5
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.
5 )
65
Rosa multiflora
No
No
Yes
Yes
10
5
Polygonum
10Dichanthelium clandestinum FAC
Juncus 30
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
DP-1
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
55
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X

Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 D
Color (moist)
Matrix
D2.5Y 4/3
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/69-15
0-9
DP-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.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
10 M
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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 x , 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
No X X
No X
Yes x
Yes x
Yes x X
No Hydrologic Indicators present
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
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)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-2
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
1nonefield
Datum:NAD 8335.365464-83.803872LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
upland data point taken in agricultural field that is maintained by mowing and animal grazing. Categorizes all upland areas surrounding wetlands
within in the wetland assessment area. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present left blank on purpose see note in remarks section of vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP-2
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
25
35
5
10
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?
Monarda bradburiana
No
No
No
10Aster spp.
5Vernonia noveboracensis FACW
Fescue 30
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.
5 )
55
UPLNo
1128
Rubus
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
0
Multiply by:
10
3.50Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
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.)
Hydrophytic vegetation could not be determined because dominant vegetation could not be identified at species level.
)5
=Total Cover
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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)
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)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
DP-2SOIL
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 4/40-15
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
No hydric soils present
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken in seep flowing into UT3. Data point is for wetlands G,H, and I.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-3
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
2concavefloodplain seep
Datum:NAD 8335.364507-83.806332LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Dillard loam (DrB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
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)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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.)
No FACU
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
23 9
10
20
10 Yes FAC
Yes
Yes
FACU
UPL
30
20
180
Multiply by:
90
2.93Prevalence Index = B/A =
45
Yes OBL
Prevalence Index worksheet:
OBL
Total % Cover of:
10
45
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWYes
13
615
33
Osmunda claytoniana
Fescue
rose multiflora
10
5
5
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACW
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5 )
65
Osmunda cinnamomea
No
No
Yes
Yes
10
5
20
Alnus serrulata
Ligustrum vulgare
10Juncus FACW
Impatiens capensis 20
30
Ligustrum vulgare
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Carya tomentosa
Juglans nigra
Alnus serrulata
Acer rubrum
30 )
45
Indicator
Status
15
10
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
FACU
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:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP-3
6
10
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
75
395
15
135
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X

Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 D
Color (moist)
Matrix
D2.5Y 4/3
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/69-15
0-9
DP-3SOIL
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.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
10 M
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name East Buffalo Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 6/25/19
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands A,B,C,D,G,H,I
Wetland Type Seep Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body East Buffalo Creek
River Basin Little Tennessee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010204
County Graham NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.365257/-83.804127
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
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
Site is in a pasture that is maintained by mowing and cattle grazing. All the wetlands are on slopes.

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

Wetland Site Name Wetlands A,B,C,D,G,H,I Date of Assessment 6/25/19
Wetland Type Seep Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition N/A

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition N/A
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition N/A
Condition/Opportunity N/A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) N/A
Particulate Change Condition N/A
Condition/Opportunity N/A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) N/A
Soluble Change Condition N/A
Condition/Opportunity N/A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) N/A
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
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name East Buffalo Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 6/25/19
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands E,F,J
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI
Level III Ecoregion Blue Ridge Mountains Nearest Named Water Body East Buffalo Creek
River Basin Little Tennessee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 06010204
County Graham NCDWR Region Asheville
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.365257/-83.804127
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Anadromous fish
Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
A A Not severely altered
B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub-surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch ≤ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
A A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. A Sandy soil
B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence
B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use – opportunity metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
A A A > 10% impervious surfaces
B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture
D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
A ≥ 50 feet
B From 30 to < 50 feet
C From 15 to < 30 feet
D From 5 to < 15 feet
E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
A A ≥ 100 feet
B B From 80 to < 100 feet
C C From 50 to < 80 feet
D D From 40 to < 50 feet
E E From 30 to < 40 feet
F F From 15 to < 30 feet
G G From 5 to < 15 feet
H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
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
Site is in a pasture that is maintained by mowing and cattle grazing.

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

Wetland Site Name Wetlands E,F,J Date of Assessment 6/25/19
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Jordan Hessler/WEI

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition N/A
Condition/Opportunity N/A
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) N/A
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

APPENDIX 4
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
PCN (to be included in final)
Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder Assign Action ID Number in ORM
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]:
2. Work Type: Private Institutional Government Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form B3d and B3e]:
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A4]:
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 – or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form B5b]:
7. Project Location – Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form B1b]:
8. Project Location – Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form B1a]:
9. Project Location – County [PCN Form A2b]:
10. Project Location – Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]:
11. Project Information – Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form B2a]:
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form B2c]:
Authorization: Section 10 Section 404 Section 10 and 404
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit Pre-Application Request
Nationwide Permit # Unauthorized Activity
Regional General Permit # Compliance
Jurisdictional Determination Request No Permit Required
Revised 20150602
2019-01296
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
✔
The East Buffalo Mitigation Site is being developed to generate stream mitigation units for the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality Division of Mitigation Services. The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve approximately 14,824
Linear feet of stream.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Jordan Hessler
Coordinates: 35.366222, -83.802619
Site Address: 1157 East Buffalo Road, Robbinsville, NC 28771
566200090043
Graham
Robbinsville
East Buffalo Creek
Little Tennessee River Basin/06010204
✔
✔
✔

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203
February 7, 2019

Mr. David Brown
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006

Subject: Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina

Dear Mr. Brown:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is requesting written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) regarding the extent of potential features within the project area. The East Buffalo Mitigation Site is in
Graham County approximately 3 miles North of Robbinsville and 22 miles West of Bryson City (Figures 1 & 2).
The East Buffalo Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in-kind mitigation for unavoidable stream channel
impacts. To date, a draft mitigation plan is being developed, and Wildlands is currently in the process of design.

Methodology
Wildlands delineated potential waters of the U.S. within the proposed project area using the USACE Routine On-
Site Determination Method defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 (2012). Wetland Determination
Data Forms representative of on‐site wetland areas as well as upland areas are enclosed (DP1‐DP3).
Non-wetland waters (streams) were reviewed using USACE Ordinary High-Water Marks guidance (2005) and
classified using the North Carolina Department of Water Resources (NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (Version 4.11, 2010). NCDWR Stream Classification Forms
representative of on-site stream channels are enclosed (SCP1-SCP10).

Field Investigation Results
The results of the on-site field investigation indicate there are 11 streams and 3 linear seeps within the
assessment area and 10 wetlands located within the wetland assessment area (Figures 3 – 3.3). The streams are
unnamed tributaries (UT’s) to East Buffalo Creek (NCDWR Index No. 2-190-16), which is classified as Class C. On-
site stream channels are located within NCDWR Subbasin 04-04-04 of the Little Tennessee River Basin (HUC#
06010204). Approximate linear footage and acreage of potential on-site waters are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Potential On-Site Waters
Feature Classification Length
(LF) Acreage (AC)
East Buffalo Creek

Perennial 1,761 -
UT1 Perennial 396 -
UT2 Perennial 2,282 -
UT3 Perennial 3,549 -
UT4 Perennial 3,162 -
UT4a
Perennial
(Anastomosing
Stream Area)
743 -
UT4b Perennial 505 -
UT4b1 Perennial 50 -
UT5 Perennial 1,381 -
UT6 Perennial 196 -
UT7 Perennial 601 -
UT7 Intermittent 198 -
Wetland A Headwater Forest - 0.07
Wetland B Headwater Forest - 0.03
Wetland C Headwater Forest - 0.01
Wetland D Headwater Forest - 1.28
Wetland E Headwater Forest - 0.23
Wetland F Headwater Forest - 0.04
Wetland G Headwater Forest - 0.01
Wetland H Headwater Forest - 0.01
Wetland I Headwater Forest - 0.02
Wetland J Headwater Forest - 0.05
Seep 1 Seep 60 -
Seep 2 Seep 30 -
Seep 3 Seep 20 -
Total: 14,824* 1.75
*Seeps not included in stream length total.

Soils
Soil types within the assessment area shown in figure 4 include Braddock clay loam (BkC2), Cheoah channery
loam (ChF), Dillard loam (DrB), Ditney-Unicoi-Rock outcrops complex (DtF), Junaluska-Brasstown complex (JbC),
Junaluska-Brasstown complex (JbD), Junaluska-Brasstown complex (JbE), Junaluska-Tsali complex (JtF), Soco-
Stecoah complex (ScD), Soco-Stecoah complex (ScE), Soco-Stecoah complex (ScF), Soco-Stecoah complex (SdD),
Spivey-Santeetlah complex (SpE), Spivey-Whiteoak complex (SvC), Spivey-Whiteoak complex (SvD), and
Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB). The Braddock Clay loam is well drained and typically found in stream terraces
(8 to 15% slopes). Cheoah channery loam and Ditney-Unicoit-Rock outcrop complex is well drained and found on
mountain slopes (50 to 95% slopes). Dillard loam is moderately well drained and found on stream terraces (1 to
5% slopes). Junaluska-Brasstown complex and Junaluska-Tsali complex is well drained and found on ridges (8-
50% slopes). Soco-Stecoah complex is well drained and found on ridges on mountain slopes (15-95% slopes).
Spivey-Santeetlah complex, Spivey-Whiiteoak complex, and Thurmont-Dillard complex is well drained and found
in drainageways on coves (8-50% slopes). Soil mapping units are from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey website
(https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm).

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-551-8582 or at [e-mail] should you have any
questions regarding this request for jurisdictional verification.

Sincerely,

Jordan Hessler
Environmental Scientist/Designer
06010202070020
06010204020050
06010204020040
06010204020030
06010204010020
060102040100100601020402001006010204010030
06010202050030
06010204020070
06010204020020
06010202070010
06010202080040
06010202080040
06010202080040
Figure 1 Vicinity MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204Graham County, NC
Project Location
Hydrolic Unit Code (14-Digit)
0 1.5 3 Miles
Site Coordinates: N: 35.366222, W: -83.802619
Figure 2 USGS Topographic MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204Graham County, NC
¹
Assessment Area
Site Lat/Long Location
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
Robbinsville USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Figure 3.1
Figur
e

3
.
2
Figure 3.3
J
UT4b1
DE
A
F
I
BC
G
H
UT4
U
T
3
UT
2UT5U
T
4
aUT7
U
T
4
b
UT1UT6
East Buffalo
Cr
e
e
k
Figure 3.0 Delineation Map (Overview)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹
2015 Aerial Imagery
Assessment Area
Wetland Assessment Area
Project Parcels
Existing Culverts
Non-project Streams
Potential Wetland Waters
Wetland Area
Linear Seep
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial
Intermittent
Anastomosing Stream Area
0 600 1,200 1,800 2,400 Feet
UT2 (2,282 LF)
UT3 (3,549 LF)
UT4a (743 LF)UT4 (3,162 LF)
UT5 (1,381 LF)UT7 (799 LF)
J (0.05 AC)
UT1 (396 LF)
East Buffalo Creek (1,761 LF)
Seep 1 (60 LF)
DP3
DP2DP1D (1.28 AC)
E (0.23 AC)
A (0.07 AC)
F (0.04 AC)
B (0.03 AC)
I (0.02 AC)
C (0.01 AC)
G (0.01 AC)H (0.01 AC)
Figure 3.1 Delineation Map (Sheet 1)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹
2015 Aerial Imagery
Assessment Area
Wetland Assessment Area
Project Parcels
Existing Culverts
Non-project Streams
!(Wetland Data Point (DP#)
Potential Wetland Waters
Wetland Area
Linear Seep
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial
Intermittent
Anastomosing Stream Area
0 100 200 300 400 Feet
J (0.05 AC)
UT4b1 (50 LF)
Seep 1 (60 LF)
Seep 2 (30 LF)
Seep 3 (20 LF)
D (1.28 AC)
E (0.23 AC)
A (0.07 AC)
F (0.04 AC)
B (0.03 AC)
I (0.02 AC)
C (0.01 AC)
G (0.01 AC)
H (0.01 AC)
DP2
DP1
DP3
UT3 (3,549 LF)
UT4 (3,162 LF)
UT2 (2,282 LF)
UT5 (1,381 LF)
UT4a (743 LF)
UT1 (396 LF)
UT7 (799 LF)
UT4b (505 LF)
East Buffalo Creek (1,761 LF)
SCP1
SCP8
SCP9
SCP7
SCP6SCP5
SCP4
SCP3
SCP2
SCP10
Figure 3.2 Delineation Map (Sheet 2)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹2015 Aerial Imagery
Assessment Area
Wetland Assessment Area
Project Parcels
Existing Culverts
Non-project Streams
Potential Wetland Waters
Wetland Area
Linear Seep
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial
Intermittent
Anastomosing Stream Area
!(Stream Classification Point (SCP#)
!(Wetland Data Point (DP#)
0 300 600 900 1,200 Feet
UT6 (196 LF)
East Buffalo Creek (1,761 LF)
UT2 (2,282 LF)
UT1 (396 LF)
UT5 (1,381 LF)UT7 (486 LF)Perennial
A (0.07 AC)B (0.03 AC)
J (0.05 AC)
UT7 (198 LF)Intermittent
UT7 (115 LF)Perennial
E (0.23 AC)
SCP1
SCP8
SCP9
SCP7
SCP10
Figure 3.3 Delineation Map (Sheet 3)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹
2015 Aerial Imagery
Assessment Area
Wetland Assessment Area
Project Parcels
Existing Culverts
Non-project Streams
Potential Wetland Waters
Wetland Area
Linear Seep
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial
Intermittent
!(Stream Classification Point (SCP#)
0 150 300 450 600 Feet
!(
!(
!(
UT4b1
UT3
UT4
UT2
UT5U
T
7
UT4a
UT4bEast Buffalo CreekUT1
UT6UT2
UT4
DP3
DP2
DP1
ChF
SpE
SvC
ScF
ScE
SvD
ScF
JbE
ThB
SpE
ScD
ChF
JbE
ChF
ScE
SpE
SpE
JbE
SvD
SvC
ChF
ScD
DrB
SvC
SvD
SpE ScD
SvC
JbD
JbD
ScE
ScD
ScE
SdD
SvC
JbD
ScE
ScE
JbD
SpE
ScF
ScE
JbD
ScE
ScD
ScE
ScD
JbC
BkC2
SvD
D
E
A
J
F
I
B
C
G
H
Figure 4 Soil MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹2015 Aerial Imagery
0 250 500 Feet
Project Parcels
Assessment Area
Non-project Streams
Potential Non-Wetland Waters
Perennial
Intermittent
Potential Wetland Waters
Wetland Area
Linear Seep
!(Wetland Data Points (DP#)
Soils
BkC2 - Braddock clay loam, 8-15 % slopes, moderately eroded
ChF - Cheoah channery loam, 50-95 % slopes, stony
DrB - Dillard loam, 1-5 % slopes, rarely flooded
JbC - Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 8-15 % slopes
JbD - Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 15-30 % slopes
JbE - Junaluska-Brasstown complex, 30-50 % slopes
ScD - Soco-Stecoah complex, 15-30 % slopes, stony
ScE - Soco-Stecoah complex, 30-50 % slopes, stony
ScF - Soco-Stecoah complex, 50-95 % slopes, stony
SdD - Soco-Stecoah complex, 15-30 % slopes, rocky
SpE - Spivey-Santeetlah complex, 30-50 % slopes, very bouldery
SvC - Spivey-Whiteoak complex, 8-15 % slopes, bouldery
SvD - Spivey-Whiteoak complex, 15-30 % slopes, bouldery
ThB - Thurmont-Dillard complex, 2-8 % slopes
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1

This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: _______________________________________________
City, State: _______________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B. REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
1157 East Buffalo Raod
Robbinsville, NC
Graham
566200090043
Jordan Hessler
167-B Haywood Road
Asheville, NC 28806
828-551-8582
[e-mail]
Ramlonghorn, LLC
2104 Island Wood Road
Austin, TX 78733
N/A
✔
i. i,i-　　Jurisdictional Detemination Request
D.　PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3,4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of血e Wilmington Dis正ct, U.S. Amy Coaps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon血e property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
Site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional detemination pursuant to Section
404 ofthe Clean Water Act and/or Section lO ofthe Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, an either a duly au血orized owner of record of the property identified herein, Or
acting as血e d山y authorized agent of血e owner of record of血e property.
Jordan Hessler
capa。ity: □ oⅦ。r　団Auth。riz。d Ag。nt5
2-7-2020
姦≦ィ祐一一　　　　・
E.　REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
□ I intend to construct/develop a prQject or perfom activities on this parcel which would be
許諾Y:蕊鵜島。。, 。r perfe。m a。,ivi,i。S 。n ,his par。。I whi。h w。uld b。
範謹書揺謹書嵩蒜豊富楽器whi。h may
requlre authorization from the CoIPS, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts tojurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a餌ure pemitting
苗C筈。nd ,。 。。nS,ru。t,d。V。l。P 。 Pr直。r P。rf。。m a。tivi,i。S 。n this par。。I whi。h ma,
requlre authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my pemit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
□ I intend to construct/develop a prqject or perfom activities in a navigable water ofthe
U・S. which is included on the district Section lO list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
thetide.
目A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.I intend to contestjurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
COnfim thatjurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
□ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely ofdy land.
団 Other: This is an initiaI step fo「 future pe「mittinq of a st「eam 「estoration p「oiect
that wi= invoIve impacts to aauatic 「esou「ces,
3 For NCDOT requests fol獲owing the c皿ent NCDOT仙SACE protocoIs, Skip to Part E.
4 Ifthere are multiple parcels owned by di飾erent parties’Please provide the fo1lowing for each additional parcel on a
COntinuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization fom/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 4

F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
277
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 5

H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
ƒNorth Arrow
ƒGraphical Scale
ƒBoundary of Review Area
ƒDate
ƒLocation of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒJurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
ƒJurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
ƒIsolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
ƒWetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
35.366222
-83.802619
✔
✔
✔
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 6

Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
x PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
x AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information thatyouprovide will beusedinevaluating your requestto determine
whether thereareany aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
RoutineUses:Thisinformation maybeshared with the Departmentof Justice andotherfederal, state,and local
government agencies, and the public,andmaybe made available aspartof a public notice as required byfederal
law. Your nameandproperty location wherefederal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andontheHeadquartersUSAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannot beevaluatednorcananAJD be issued.
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
NC DEL�;JLCV 'IES S K THIS
DATE
a,,1V Y-11-� � YvvloUVI
Graham County x Collector
NORTH CAROLINA QUITCLAIM DEED
Doc ID: 000674430002 Type: CRP
Kind: DEED
Recorded: 05/29/2019 at 11:18:41 AM
Fee Amt: $266.00 Page 1 of 2
Revenue Tax: $240.00
Graham County, North Carolina
Carolyn Stewart Register of Deeds
BK374 PG420-421
Mail after recording to Lee Knight Caffery, 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
This instrument prepared by Lee Knight Caffery
Brief description for the index Quitclaim Deed per uA 4�- o o 6 q ooy3
Revenue $120,000,8e- 7qQ .0Q
THIS QUITCLAIM DEED made this the 1 day of May
in the year 2019 , by and between
GRANTOR GRANTEE
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC + Ramlonghorn, LLC
1430 S. Mint Street + 2104 Island Wood Road
Suite 104 + Austin, TX 78733
Charlotte, NC 28203 +
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, and assigns, and shall include
singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as may be required by context.
WITNESSETH, that said Grantors, for and in consideration of the sum of one hundred twenty thousand dollars and other
consideration to them in hand paid, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, have remised and released and by these presents
do remise, release, and forever quitclaim into the Grantee and his heirs and assigns all right, title, claim, and interest of the said
Grantors in and to a certain tract or parcel of land lying and being in the County of Graham, and State of North Carolina, in
Cheoah Township, and more particularly described as follows:
Being all of that tract of real property lying in the East Buffalo area of Cheoah Township, Graham County,
North Carolina, containing 276.75 acres, more or less, said tract of real property being shown as two
adjoining tracts of real property on the plats of survey titled "Patton Properties, LLC," by Larry T. Turlington,
recorded in the Graham County Register of Deeds at Plat Cabinet DB, Slide 1000 (being a 64.20 acre tract)
and Plat Cabinet 1001 (being a 212.55 acre tract), said plats of survey being hereby referred to for a more
particular description of said tract of real property and incorporated herein.
Grantor acquired the property hereinabove described by instrument recorded in Book 372 at Page 354

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the aforesaid tract or parcel of land and all privileges thereunto belonging to him the said
Grantee and his heirs and assigns free and discharged from all right, title, claim or interest of the said grantors or anyone
claiming by, and through or under them. Title to the property hereinabove described is subject to the following exceptions if
any:
ANY AND ALL OF PUBLIC RECORD
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, said Grantor has hereunto set its hands and seal the day and year first
above written.
A41-61-1 D r (SEAL)
My commission expires: !2- ( /
STATE OF NORTH
CAROLINA COUNTY
OFMECKLENBURG
I, certify that Shawn D. Wilkerson personally appeared before me and being duly sworn says that Wildlands Engineering,
Inc. is the Manager of Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC and that he, as President of Wildlands Engineering, Inc., is authorized
to act for and on
behalf of Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC and has executed the foregoing quitclaim deed on behalf of Wildlands Holdings
VI, LLC.
d-e£€ ' tamp, this day of I ' � ll�-(n,— , in the year
CHARLOTTE P. KINNEY � ( r,
NOTARY PUBLIC Notary Public Official Signa
Mecklenburg County, North Carolina
(�OLr-la
My commission expires:
Z 2.i7 �-{ Notary Printed or Typed Name

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 2/7/2020

B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Jordan Hessler, 167-B
Haywood Road, Asheville, NC 28806

C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, East Buffalo Mitigation Site, N/A
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: 1157 East Buffalo Road, Robbinsville, NC
28771
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: North Carolina County: Graham City: Robbinsville
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.366222 Longitude: -83.802619
Universal Transverse Mercator: UTM 17
Name of nearest waterbody: East Buffalo Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s):6/24/19 – 6/25/19
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.

Site Number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resources
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section
10/404)
1.) East Buffalo Creek 35.3664 -83.8033 1,761 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
2.) UT1 35.36677 -83.80200 396 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
3.) UT2 35.36358 -83.79644 2,282 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
4.) UT3 35.36113 -83.79790 3,549 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
5.) UT4 35.36016 -83.79823 3,162 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
6.) UT4a 35.36243 -83.80461 743 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
7.) UT4b 35.36008 -83.79922 505 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
8.) UT4b1 35.36012 -83.79905 50 LF Non-Wetland
waters Section 404
9.) UT5 35.36925 -83.80376 1,381 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
10.) UT6 35.36779 -83.80567 196 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
11.) UT7 (Perennial) 35.36726 -83.80728 601 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
Site Number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resources
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (i.e.,
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section
10/404)
12.) UT7 (Intermittent) 35.36654 -83.80635 198 LF Non-wetland
waters Section 404
11.) Wetland A 35.365964 -83.803615 0.07 AC Wetland waters Section 404
12.) Wetland B 35.365902 -83.804102 0.03 AC Wetland waters Section 404
13.) Wetland C 35.365784 -83.804464 0.01 AC Wetland waters Section 404
14.) Wetland D 35.365152 -83.804882 1.28 AC Wetland waters Section 404
15.) Wetland E 35.365306 -83.806258 0.23 AC Wetland waters Section 404
16.) Wetland F 35.364651 -83.806333 0.04 AC Wetland waters Section 404
17.) Wetland G 35.364511 -83.806321 0.01 AC Wetland waters Section 404
18.) Wetland H 35.364566 -83.806200 0.01 AC Wetland waters Section 404
19.) Wetland I 35.364557 -83.804986 0.02 AC Wetland waters Section 404
20.) Wetland J 35.366649 -83.802798 0.05 AC Wetland waters Section 404
21.) Seep 1 35.365312 -83.802168 60 LF Wetland waters Section 404
22.) Seep 2 35.361134 -83.797816 30 LF Wetland waters Section 404
23.) Seep 3 35.360072 -83.798143 20 LF Wetland waters Section 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review
area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option to request and obtain an
approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an informed decision after having discussed the
various types of JDs and their characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a Nationwide General
Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre- construction notification" (PCN), or
requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or other general permit, and the permit applicant has
not requested an AJD for the activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit
applicant has elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an official
determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the option to request an AJD
before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit authorization, and that basing a permit
authorization on an AJD could possibly result in less compensatory mitigation being required or
different special conditions; (3) the applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than
accepting the terms and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant
can accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and conditions of that
permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has determined to be necessary; (5)
undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject permit authorization without requesting an AJD
constitutes the applicant's acceptance of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g.,
signing a proffered individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps
permit authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the review area
affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and waives any challenge to such
jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any
administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD
or a PJD, the JD will be processed as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual
permit (and all terms and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be
administratively appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic jurisdiction exists over
aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official delineation of jurisdictional aquatic
resources in the review area, the Corps will provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is
practicable. This PJD finds that there "may be" waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"
navigable waters of the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the
review area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (Check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in su切ect file. Appropriately reference sources below where
indicated for a11 checked items:
図Maps, Plans, PIots or plat submitted by or on behalfofthe PJD requestor:
Map: GIS figures including Vicinity, USGS Topographic. Delineation, & Soils
図Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf ofthe PJD requestor.
□ o能ce concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
□ office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
□ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
□ Corps navigable waters- study:
□ u.s. GeoIogical Survey HydroIogic Atlas:
□ usGS NHD data.
□USGS 8 and 12digit HUC maps.
図U.S. GeoIogical Survey map(S). Cite scale & quad name: 1 :24.000 Scale Robbinsviue a脚dranEIle
図Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Grahan Countv Soil Survev
□ National wetlands inventory map(S). Cite name:
□ State/1ocal wetland inventory map(s):
□ FEMA伍IRM maps:
□ 100-year FIoodplain Elevation is:(National Geodetic Vertical Datum//of 1 929)
図Photographs:　　図Aerial (Name & Date): 2015 aerial on GIS figures with submittaL
Or図Other (Name & Date): ReDreSentative site Dhotos with submittaL
□ previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
□ other information (Please specify):
IMroRTANT NOTE: The in重brmation recorded on仙ds form has not necessarilv been
Ver脆ed bv the CorI)S and should not be relied uDOn for later iurisdictionaI determinations.
Signature and date of Regulatory
Staff member completing PJD
DATE
一幸こ∴こ-○ ○ーデーよ。
date ofperson requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
impracticable) l
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 1

East Buffalo Creek UT1
UT2 UT3
UT4 UT4a
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 2

UT4b UT5
UT6 UT7
Wetland A Wetland B
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 3

Wetland C Wetland D – Photo 1
Wetland D – Photo 2 Wetland E
Wetland F Wetland G
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 4

Wetland H Wetland I
Wetland J UT4b1

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 x , 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Sampling location is in an agricultural field that is maintained by mowing and animal grazing. The data point is for Wetlands A, B, C, D, E, F, and J.
The data point was taken inside wetland D.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-1
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
<1concavefield
Datum:NAD 8335.365257-83.804127LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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.)
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
FAC
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
60
0
20
Multiply by:
60
2.55Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
1333
Rubus
Fescue
5
5
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.
5 )
65
Rosa multiflora
No
No
Yes
Yes
10
5
Polygonum
10Dichanthelium clandestinum FAC
Juncus 30
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
DP-1
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
55
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X

Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 D
Color (moist)
Matrix
D2.5Y 4/3
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/69-15
0-9
DP-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.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
10 M
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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 x , 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
No X X
No X
Yes x
Yes x
Yes x X
No Hydrologic Indicators present
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
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)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
City/County:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-2
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
1nonefield
Datum:NAD 8335.365464-83.803872LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
upland data point taken in agricultural field that is maintained by mowing and animal grazing. Categorizes all upland areas surrounding wetlands
within in the wetland assessment area. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present left blank on purpose see note in remarks section of vegetation.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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)
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP-2
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
25
35
5
10
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?
Monarda bradburiana
No
No
No
10Aster spp.
5Vernonia noveboracensis FACW
Fescue 30
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.
5 )
55
UPLNo
1128
Rubus
5
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
0
Multiply by:
10
3.50Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
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.)
Hydrophytic vegetation could not be determined because dominant vegetation could not be identified at species level.
)5
=Total Cover
Yes
=Total Cover
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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)
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)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%Texture
DP-2SOIL
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 4/40-15
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
No hydric soils present
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
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
No
No
Water Table Present?
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)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Data point taken in seep flowing into UT3. Data point is for wetlands G,H, and I.
HYDROLOGY
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
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:East Buffalo Mitigation Site Robbinsville/Graham
DP-3
6-25-19
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. NC
No
Section, Township, Range:N/AJordan Hessler
2concavefloodplain seep
Datum:NAD 8335.364507-83.806332LRR N, MLRA 130B
noneNWI classification:Dillard loam (DrB)
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
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:

Is the Sampled AreaYes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland?Yes
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
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)
Surface Water Present?
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 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.)
No FACU
)5
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
23 9
10
20
10 Yes FAC
Yes
Yes
FACU
UPL
30
20
180
Multiply by:
90
2.93Prevalence Index = B/A =
45
Yes OBL
Prevalence Index worksheet:
OBL
Total % Cover of:
10
45
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACWYes
13
615
33
Osmunda claytoniana
Fescue
rose multiflora
10
5
5
15
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
FACW
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
5 )
65
Osmunda cinnamomea
No
No
Yes
Yes
10
5
20
Alnus serrulata
Ligustrum vulgare
10Juncus FACW
Impatiens capensis 20
30
Ligustrum vulgare
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Carya tomentosa
Juglans nigra
Alnus serrulata
Acer rubrum
30 )
45
Indicator
Status
15
10
Yes
Dominant
Species?
Yes
10
FACU
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:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP-3
6
10
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
75
395
15
135
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X

Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
90 D
Color (moist)
Matrix
D2.5Y 4/3
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/6
7.5YR 4/69-15
0-9
DP-3SOIL
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.
%
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
%
M10
Texture
10 M
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)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG, JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
/NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:叫I胸侶騨隼 ProjecVSite弧蟻 」atitude:亀5,怠鶴芋テ
County:G`C人Yv九位n 」ongitude」鴇3、只0毛(鯵 Eva-uator:dr纏e譲最中
TotalPointsこ 浩器霊諾諾nt3当 詩語書誌雑鬱 。.。.。ua。N。忠丁し乱し Other
lAbsentl　Weak　l　Moderatei　Strong
1a’Continuityofchameibedandbank 0 1 2 し3う
2,Si…OSityofchanneialongthalweg 0 ⊂わ 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIstructu「e:eX.r櫛e-POOI,SteP-POOI, 0 1 ① 3
rippie-POOIsequence
4.Particlesizeofst「eamsubstrate 0 1 2 陸蔓
5.Active/「eIict¶oodpIain 0 園田 2 3
6.Depositionaibarsorbenches 0 く茸フ 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaIdeposits 0 1 く宴∋ 3
8.Headcuts (1丁で) 1 2 3
9.Gradecontroi 0 の 1 1.5
10.NaturalvaiIey 0 0.5 の 1.5
11.Secondo「greaterorderchamel ,利子 ○=小 Yes =3
12.PresenceofBaseflow 0 1 2 ÷すう
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 了￣0ミヽ 1臆 2 3
14.Leaflitter 丁も 屯ニラ 0.5 0
15,SedimentonpIantso「deb「is 0 0.5 ⊂弓 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrislineso「pi eS 0 0.5 {「ヽ 1.5
17,Soii-basedevjdenceofh ghwate「tabIe? N 0=0 (Yes …臆主⊃
18,Fibrous「ootsinstreambed C3⊃ 2 1 0
19.R○○ tedupIandpiantsinstreambed G⊃ 2 1 0
20・Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 ⊂参 3
21,Aqu aticMo=usks 0 1 (/-空\ 3
22.Fish (旬」 0,5 ￣了 1.5
23,Crayfish 了二軍こ 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 而夢 0,5 1 1.5
25,Aigae 0 《コ襲⊃ 1 1.5
26,Wet andpIantsinstreambed FACW=0,75;OBL=1.5@her≒3)
★pe「enn aistreamミmayaisobeiden帥edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:(わ〆一ck末忘や虹点ノ忠信2、へ一.1何ものJ高尋亀,恵　rl\,C平日′頑4掴争、杵Lrf\ ￣、ア￣　　　　　∪、￣￣　-夕“　　ひ∴∴召　　　￣I∴“￣’貯　　￣　-　’
Sketch:
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:W埴生ノ宮古 Projec廿Site‥軽骨薫 音! 〕.∴∴ Latitude:∵;∴;;∴
Eva-uator所在妙砂.1ノ鋤 County:吊∵千言∵一 Longitude:一㌦÷ノ,畑/言弓
TotalPoints: Streamisafleas‘htemrfte所rL仁 が≧19orpeIemia//f≧30★ StreamDete「minatjon(Ci「cleone) Othe「u千五
Ephemera=ntermitten㊧ e.g.QuadName:
lAbsentl　Weak　lMode「atelStrongl
11a.Co=tinuityofchanneibedandbank 0 1 語手γ歩 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthaIweg 0 /丁† 2 3
3.in-ChanneIstructu「e:eX.「圃e-POOi,SteP-POO上 0 1 ⑪ 3
「ippIe-POOisequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0 1 2 l子二王)
5.Active/reiictfioodplain の 1 2 3
6.DepositionaIba「sorbenches ∴//D 1 」」、 3
7.Recenta冊viaIdeposits 0 1 」をブ 3
8.Headcuts ∴:可) 1 2 3
9,Gradecont「oi 0 0,5 く壬ラ 1,5
10,NaturaIva=ey 0 0,5 1 魚夢
11.Secondorgreate「orderchamei ノ　○’二0) Yes=3
su。,。,a, = d卸SSiOnS in manua’〇二⊥_ )
12.PresenceofBasefloWヾ 0 1 2 二子、
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 高二、 1 2 3
音　//イ.5_)I　　l　i　　o.5　　l　　o
15.Sedimentonplantsorde b「is 0 ′0う 1 1,5
16.O「ganicdeb「isIinesorpi eS 0 し0.5 (つつ 1.5
17.SoiI-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabie? No=0 ￣　〆黍二で\
C.Bio Ogy(Subtotai=_上i二〇三」_)　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　l　　　　　　　　〉
18,Fibrous「ootsinstreambed 閣 巨 1 0
19.RootedupIandpiantsinstreambed ∴少 2 1 0∴
20.Macrobenthos(notediversityandabundan∞) 0 1 2 、」レ
21.AquaticMoiiusks ///命フ 1 2 3
22,Fish ;奪う 0.5 1 1.5
23,C「ayfish ;句ノ 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 丞) 0,旦 1 1,5
25.Aigae ￣0 ロ驚⊃ 1/「ミ、 1.5
26,We( andplantsinstreambed FACW=O,75;OBL=1,5\寸辿旦う0
★perenn aist「eamsmayalsobeiden帥edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:+‘/辛、錬J言二五∴う∴　ノ∵,〆牽,尋互二了‥　+
」∴　　　\:　　　　　　　　　　　ぐ
Sketch宅切詰?ヤP畔/船陶rgr章ノ壷屋芽擁o∴一郎/帝--
∴:∴∴∴∴∴∴∴人∴∴∴∴子,:∴∴∴∴:
∴:二言∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　　ky/つ_ら!′袖崎 PrQjecuSite:彰ニ′弓子御方 」atitude:’三夫,/ジム用3
Eva-uator:緋清轟雄 County謡fi/、常時, Longitude:〆$㌢諸手擁
丁otaiPoints: 烹露盤等nt/うち・う StreamDetermination(Circ Epheme「a=ntermittent\e「ennial 器a。Nam。:甲金
lAbsenti　Weak　iModerateiStrong
1a.Continuityofcha=neibedandbank 0 1 くせ 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthalweg O　音 了「フ 2 3
3.In-Channeistructure:eX.「iffle-POOi,SteP-POOI, 0 1 ⊂夢 3
rippie-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofst「eamsubstrate 0 1 2 て二も
5.Active/「eIict¶oodpiain 了￣下戸う 1 2 3
6,Depositionaiba「so「benches ●臆臆 1 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits 、一句 1 ;iず) 3
8.Headcuts 0 1 てこ宴ニラ 3
9.GradecontroI 0 0.5 ⊂参 1,5
10.Natu「aIva=ey 0 ぉ㍉　0.5 1 、
11,Secondorgreaterorderchannel {N°≡￣すう Yes=3
B.Hyd「oiogy(S。bt。tai=jE_÷圭○○)
12.P「esenceofBasefiow 0 1 2 ∵.3\
13.ironoxidizingbacte「ia :∵∴0=ヽ ′重工 2 3
14.Leafiitte「 1.5 ,_」→ヽ 0.5 0
15.SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 !0,亘> 1 1.5
16.Organicdeb「isiinesorp=es 0 も.5 く壬> 1,5
17.SoiI-basedevidenceofhighwatertabIe? No=0 αe…三ゞ
C,Bioiogy(Subtotai=」上皇上二重_)
18.Fib「ousrootsinstreambed なぜ 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinstrea巾bed 〔の 2 1 O音
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 2 音　調
21.AquaticMo看lusks 了∴す\ 1 2 3
22.Fish ∴こ匂う 0.5 1 1.5
23,Crayfish ∴奇ヽ 0,5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0.5 ー音　　　臆喜　　　　　一 1.5
25,Aigae 0 ∴こ旦与> 1』、軍二=　」 1.5
26,Wetiandpiantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1.5　Qthe「=㊦
漢　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　-　　　　　　　　　　　　8 ★pe「enniaist「eamsmayaゆbeiden師edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanu a.
Notes:/D「亀貌放散語草母上∴⊇T\村域\、のせ年、了r′′‘\SJ王子し鼻+/+ノ〆,‘)=印材調性鋤高弟0‘
予1′　￣　　　　　し1し告　　￣　　　　　　、上だ　　　　　　　　　’
ヽ￣
Sketch:g尚古毛(二㌔￣申年r 一∴∴一∴∴∴∴∴一∴
:∴∴∴∴∴∵∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴一　一
∴∴∴∴∴∴一∴∴ 一子i十王↑了\、 I　　　　　　　　　な　し　イ
//<二/
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　G(⊥g//?.c?叫 Projec廿Site在村W緬烏 Latitude:3ラン㌢あ楊
Evaluator:砕(玖d初男 County:甲￣紅中年# Longitude:n鎚言/門∴
TotalPoints: shamisat/。aStht。肋酬/黒古5 げ≧19orpeIemia//f≧30★∴∴∴ノ 詳謹書語群弼- 器a。Na蔚団
A. Geomorphoio (Sub,。,a一=且○○)iAbsenti　Weak　iModerateiStrong
1a.Continuityofchanneibedandbank p 1 \ニ之ヽ 3
2.Sinuosityofchanneiaiongthaiweg 0 (//下う 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIstructure:eX,r圃e-POOi,SteP-POOl, 0 1 言で) 3
「ippie-POOIsequence
4,ParticIesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0_ 1 2 缶)
5,Active/relictfloodpiain し0一一ブ 1 2 3
6,Depositionalba「sorbenches 了二面 1 2 3
7,Recenta=uviaideposits 0 1 了でフ 3
8.Headcuts 0 /十二〕 2 3
9.Gradecont「oI 0 0.5 C夢 1.5
10.NaturaIva=ey 0 0,5 1 丁子1七∴∵
11,Secondorgreate「orderchanneI 予科o=Q} Yes=3
aart楯ciaiditchesa「enotrated;S eediscussionsinmanuaI　　　　　　　　\￣-　-〆
B,Hyd「oiogy(Subt。t。I=_王〇〇〇)
12,P「esenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 、二参
13.Ironoxidizingbacteria くの 1 2 3
14.Leafijtter 1.5 ∴†∴ 0二亘 0
15.SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 0.5 ∴1「 1.5
16.Organicdebris=nesorpi eS 0 0.5 ∵千ヽ 1.5
17.Soil-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? N〇二0 ∵←　せき…三℃∴
C,BioIogy(Subtotal=○○。⊥ニ　」)
18.Fib「ous「ootsinstreambed ∴∵了∴ 2 1 0
19.RooteduplandpIantsinstreambed ∴3i: 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) ーb 1 二つ 3
21,AquaticMo=usks 0 1 2 3,
22.Fish ∴0∴ 0.5 1 1.5
23,C「ayfish /0〉 堰 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 ノ/0,5つ 1 1.5
25.Aigae 0 /’〉0.与こう 1 1.5
26,WetIandpiantsinstreambed FACW=O.75;OBL=1.5頓凸型三笠_}
*pe「enniaIst「eamsmayaIsobeiden帥edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanuai.
Notes:〇二　′気∴?芽ノ上申,r仇才で了ィ/=∴∴!◆∴!‘申、・r∴戸、∴〆　亘つ」,\S釘子年〆、
U音　￣　　　　　　く∴∴∴!
sk。,。h:　言上∵吉名‘′「,　　,/立上∴/′
∴ 、∴∴.∴」∵高二申子」言子言 ∴∴∴∴∴　　: ∴∴∴∴∴∴∴　　　∴∴∴
l　　　　　守　　　メ/′　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　/!ノ’∴/ノ
l 一∴∴∴∴　;∴: 　1 　　∴ 　￣;「 ;∴∴∴∴∴　　　　　　　　　∵
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:　　　∴∴∴∴∴∴ P・Qject/Site:モノ細e雄二吉や Latitude:‘考㌘亨,)し均
EvaIuator: 　　う/〆、 County詔千綿J年飢{雄へ しongitude∴一粒騎隼も
塁等三三二二　三￣∴ 詳豊詰諾霊壁塾 Other"∴仁一￣ e.g.Quad、Name:\
←￣　　　　i-〇〇〇〇〇〇〇〇
(SubtotaI=　　- [・/ )lAbsenti　Weak　l　Moderatei　Strong
1a.Continuityofcha=nelbedandbank 0 ,1 !’2つ 3
2,SinuosityofchanneialongthaIweg 0 ・\1\) 2 3
3.In-ChameIstructure:eX.「i冊e-POOI,SteP-POOl, 0 1 之●、 3
rippie-POOisequence
4.Particiesizeofst「eamsubst「ate 0 1 2 二単二う
5.ActiveIreIictfIoodpIain ぐ/百フ 1 2 3
6.Depositionaibarsorbenches くD 1 そ臆 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits 0 1 了一￣2、、 3
8.Headcuts 二重、 1 2 3
9.GradecontroI 0 0.5 1 ∴工5\
10.Naturaiva=ey 0 モー　　0"5 -\∴ユニブ 1.5
11.Secondorgreaterorderchannei 了〆　No=少 Yes=3
(Subtotai
12.P「esenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 ∴しぶ\
13.lronoxidizingbacteria 了￣⊃せ> 1 2 3
14.Lea川tter 1.5 1へ∴ 0.5 0
15,SedimentonpIantso「debris 0 ∴鴫、 1 1,5
16,Organicdeb「is旧esorpi eS 0 0.5 (1う 1.5
17.Soii-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? No=0 了Yもs〇三3二>
C. Bioio Subtotal =
18.Fibrous「ootsinstreambed ∴:3ヽ 2 1 0
19,R○○ tedupIandpIantsinstreambed /￣うう 2 丁1 0
20.Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundan∞) 0 1 ⊂主> ∴-÷3∴
21,AquaticMo=usks 0 1 2 、、___盆
22.Fish 二重こう 0,5 1 1.5
23.C「ayfish :0\ヽ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amphibians ∴p:∴ 0阜 1 1,5
25.AIgae 0 ’0.5、† 1∴∴一∴∴ 1.5
26,Wet andpiantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1ふ\Othe「三㌦
★pe「enn aist「eamsmayaisobeiden帥edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanual.
Notes: ∴∴∴;∴∴∴∴吉子　∴二∴∵∴丁∴(∴∵∴;∴　∴∴∴∵∴　二　言十一
;;　∴!　　　　　　　　　し
Sketch　\∴ ;∴∴∴:・∴ 意{ ;∴∴∴∴ ∴:∴ ∵∴ 　一 言:∵∴∴丁子了∴:: 上 玉よく 　も 一∴∴:∴ 音、ノ′ 音,/ 出’∴耳 l \三二㌦
.∴∴∵　∴∴∴　∴∴　　　　　　　　　　∴
/NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
PrQjecuSite損得享gJ勘塘 Latitude:1らク/サJ,印争 Date:　　　　　　　1　　　”　　　　>言
Eva-uator:航履鵡鎚樟 County:`十・∴∴∴ Longitude:1気半年生
TotalPoints: ste。misa川easth活em妬e。t?ウ‘」ti, 詳譜謹書葦置恕 　　　　　∴∴∴ Othe「 。.。.。。a。Nam。:Vi+#
げ≧19orperemia川≧30★　　、ノ　　"天〆ブ
lAbsentl　Weak　lMode「atei　St哩虫g
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 言上∴;
2.Sinuosityofchanneiaiongthaiweg 0 ′サ 2 3
3.in-ChameIst「ucture:eX.r圃e-POOI,SteP-POOl, 0 1 (今) 3
rippie-POOisequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubst「ate 0 1 2 (奪う
5.Activelrelictfioodpiain 了一重B 1 2 ￣￣3
6.Depositjonalbarso「benches 周 1 2 3
7,RecentaIIuviaIdeposits \山で 1 ∴Tヽ 3
8,Headcuts ′/1「ヽ 1 2 3
9,Gradecont「ol 「予 0.5 十二ヽ 生姜
1O,NaturaIvaliey 0 0.5 1 子1.∴㌔〕
11.Secondorgreate「o「de「chamei .了一冊ヽ Yes=3
Subtotal=　C
12.PresenceofBasefIow 0 1 2 く三三>
13.l「onoxidizingbacte「ia ∴「丁へ 1 2 3
14.Leaf=tter 十〇.おう 1 0.5 0
15.SedimentonpIantsordebris 0 0.5 (干ヽ 1.5
16.O「ganicdeb「is=nesorpiies 0 0,5 了千、、 1.5
17.Soii-basedevidenceofhighwate「tabie? No=0 ル　仔es=3ず
18.Fibrousrootsinst「eambed 了で、、 2 1 0
19.R○○ tedupiandpiantsinstreambed 言う∴ヽ 2 1 0
2O.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 1 担う 3
21.AquaticMoIiusks 0 1 2 ∴叫
22.Fish 了や、 0.5 1 1.5
23,Crayfish ∵0∴ヽ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amphibians (0_) 0.5 1 1.5
25.Aigae 0 〔二で二重二つ 1 1.5
26.Wet andpiantsinstreambed FACWl=0,75;OBL=1.5(で耐e「=市う
★pe「enn aist「eamsmaya-sobeide=t楯edusingothe「methods.Seep.35ofmanual.　　　　　　　　　　`ヽ￣￣---￣￣
Notes: ;∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴∴　　∥∵十.中高十㌧ く高鍋)ん自　主の十
㌦l　　　′∴∴∴ノ　　￣
Sketch’二伸雄牛丁l証/時星ir’昔二言∵汗∴∴
∴　∴∴:∴∴　∴∴ ∴∴∴　一∴一∴　∴:∴∴∴　∴∴
一　　　　　　片 千　　　　　言　　　∴
、一ノ∴言、音十)子詳 ししく
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　　　ん/猫仁涌輸 P「ojec。Site阜,鮎蝕め Latitude:多式年$
EvaIuator:M極意鳩薫星§ County‥昌弘V転売船 Longitude上部.救o二宮、
Tota看Points: 詳謹書豊富躍 器a。Nam。‥弧う
烹露盤留　引
iAbsentl!Weak　l　Mode「atei　St「ong
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 (下フ
2,Sinuosityofchannelalongthalweg 0 (少 2 3
3.ln-ChanneIst「ucture:eX.r脚e-POOl,SteP-POOi, 0 1 2 下、
rippIe-POOIsequence
4.Particlesizeofstreamsubstrate 旦_ 1 2 (ナノ
箪ActivelreIictfloodplain /0ノ 1 2 3
6.DepositionaIbarsorbenches 「) 1 予め 3
7.Recenta=uviaideposits /直、:ヽ 1 葛2 行ウ
8.Headcuts しか/ 1 2 “す
9.Gradecontroi 0 0.5 1 勾.参
10.Natu「alva=ey 0 \　　0.5 1. 岡
11.Secondo「greaterorde「channeI ′/内〇二ず Yes=3　-“-￣
SubtotaI= \
12,PresenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 とヲ
13.I「onoxidizingbacteria 0 子D 2 3
14,Leaflitter 1.5 (〆丁￣) 0,5 0
15.SedimentonpIantsordebris 0 \へ0:5 //二手 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrisiineso「pi eS 0 0.5 ⊂」> 1.5
17.So=-basedevjdenceofh ghwate「tabIe? N〇二0 ぐYes二子ヽ
C. Bi010 (Subtotal =
18.Fibrousrootsinstreambed 了蔓フ 2 1 0
19.RooteduplandpIantsinstreambed /5フ 2 1 0
20.Mac「obenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) \「イう 1 2 <二二至>
21,Aqu aticMo=usks 0 1 く〇三> 3
22,Fish どす三上 0.5 1 1.5
23.C「a 卵Sh //⑧ 0.5 1 1.5
24,Amp hibians 0 0.5 壁 1.5
25.AIgae 0 0.5 ⊂二エ二〇_\ 1.5
26.Wet andpIantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1趣the「〒B
★pe「enn aIst「eamsmayaisobeidentifiedusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes二　L)ヰ<+7肌、CL字/’し叩ノ,二∴)、#\郵寿生で信l|告 ∴∴∴∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴∴†一子言 ∴∴.∴∴∴
高i†詫言当常　子,4　諦∴;∴/∵千住/告助了で.〆扉j　　　　　　　　　　」)皿　　　　　　　ll
∴　∴ Sketch二 二∴:∴∴∴∴∴一一∴一一
八乱心{主情尽当、言浩一言㍉∴㍉
鮎黒申拒
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:　一、;∴∴:∴: P「ojecuSite十十車(判二㌦ Latitude‥てぅ5/±巧?
Evaluator:酔常雄;阜 County:三高∴↑∴言、 しongitude‥ノ注言上￣
TotaiPoints: 烹露盤等nt竜三雪 詳豊謹書盤器量 　　‡\ 器adNam。:し読￣帯一
「￣￣￣￣Absentl　Weak　lModeratelSt「ong
1a.Co=ti両tyofchameIbedandbank 0 1 了2ヽ 3
2.SinuosityofchanneIalongthalweg 0 了「> 、￣亨で 3
3.ln-ChameIst「ucture:eX.r珊e-POO上SteP-POOI, 0 1 〔三) 3
rippIe-POOIsequence
4.Particiesizeofstreamsubst「ate 旦_ 1 2 (3二)
5.Active/relictfloodplain (oノ 1 2 3
6.Depositionaibarso「benches 0 もD 2 3　　主
7.Recenta=uvialdeposits 0 「 2　　、 (__まつ
8.Headcuts (可 1 2 3　　∴
9.Gradecontrol ￣で 0.5 -　　1 \」阜‡
10.Naturalva=ey 0 0.5 -1 三二￣1.5プ
11.SecondorgreaterorderchanneI {〆No=qフ Yesこ3
B.Hyd「oIogy(Subtotal=_拉)
12.P「esenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 (くら
13.l「onoxidizingbacteria 0 ⊂⊥} 2 3
14.しeaflitter 1.5 二二二千∋ 0.5 0
15.Sedimentonplantso「deb「is 0 了面司 コ 1.5
16.O「ganicdebrislineso「piIes 0 0.5 (も 1.5
17.So=-basedevidenceofhighwate「tabIe? No=0 (Yes三やミ
C.BioIogy(Subtotai=〇二L)
18.Fib「ousrootsinstreambed 恥 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinstreambed i巧つ 2 1_ 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) へ∴些こ∴ 1 子2、う 3
21.AquaticMo=usks C隻と 1 2 3
22.Fish (重く■ 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 手工且ノ 旦圭_ 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 人畦皇) 1 1.5
25.AIgae 0 (_耳をノ 1二二ここ- 1.5
26.WetIandpiantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1.5&he「こD
’peremia†st「eamsmayalsobeiden舶edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofma甲 a.
Notes:,ろ+iγ朗大功矛/損A,l`詔?締/′汚//轍′年/鰭紐〆,￣フ　′♂∠=東がFr古生工
∪∴∴し浩子∴」もノ　　　　　　　　　　　　i　　　　　　　　　　　/′
sk。t。hg朝`’勘雛u出生 /′音
∴∴∴∴∴∴　∴∴ 　　　　　　　　　く ∥ブ十十∴,仁　-　ぐ∵㌧ノ了∵/(∵
∴∴∴∴∴
NC DWQ Stream Ident脆cation Form Version 4.11
Date:　=研ノ)巧い卸 P「qject/Site: Latitude∴こ,年上,
Eva-uator:W高畠立　7 County:　　" Longitude:∵声ノ守冊!7;
TotaiPoints: s細amisa“easthtem酬g修 存≧19orperemia//f≧30費 三豊豊詰蕊謹選 器a隷点燈
A, Geomorphoio (Sub,。,a一=○○唾)lAbsentl　Weak　iModeratei　Strong　l
1a.Continuityofchamelbedandbank 0 1 2 (3二う
2"SinuosityofchanneIaiongthaIweg 0 1 圏 ーで
3"in-ChanneIst「uctu「e:eX.r圃e-POOl,SteP-POOi, 0 (ラ) 2 3
「ippie-POOIsequence
4.ParticIesizeofst「eamsubst「ate 0〈 1 在夢 3
5.Active/reIictfIoodplain 布￣つ 1 2 3
6.Depositionalbarsorbenches \哲/ (・干⊃ 2 3
7.Recenta=uviaIdeposits 0 1 ∴2:∵ 3
8.Headcuts 0 ‡エ⊃ 2 3
9.GradecontroI 0 ③ 1 1.5
10.Naturaiva=ey 0 〈　0.5 ∴　子」⊃ 1.5
11,Secondorgreaterorde「chamei 〆刷り三重> Yes=3
subtotal=　Cl.
12.PresenceofBasefiow 0 1 了二三) 3
13.ironoxidizingbacte「ia 0_ ∵1_) 2 3
÷1臆.宣ブ 1 一書q.5 0
0 0,5 子　上\ 1,5. 15. Sediment on piants o「 deb「is
16.O「ganicdebrisIjnesorpi eS 0 0,5 『「ブ　タ、土　1,5
17.Soil-basedevidenceofh ghwatertabIe? No=0 i￣　ぐ/Yes三善ヴ
C.BioIogy(SubtotaI=一〇〇己ユニ)
18,Fibrousrootsinstreambed (/へ 2 1 0
19.RootedupIandpIantsinstreambed \電⊃ 2_ 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notedive「sityandabundance) 0 α 2 」し
21.AquaticMo冊sks 0 1 2 了二二まノ
22.Fish な句⊃ 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish 二、&_⊃ 0.5 1 1.5 24,Amphibians 0 0.5 (/n 1.5
25.Aigae 0 0.5 (二千ン　∴ 1.5
26.WetiandpIantsinstreambed FACW=0.75;OBL=1f予斬后er=0)
★perennia-streamsmayaisobeide嗣edusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua一∴,　　　　　　\‘、--・-一一一才　`,_
Notes:ノミ\c3、人のノ沼「子、太子洋\\緑f7可　-㍉∴アf宅荻現要言=牢fP∵′　了=揮C九ノi7
/　　　　　　　　　　　￣∴∴d/J(
Sketch早宮黒牛地相空将直川坤∵∵亘 ∴∴∴∴∴∴:∴一∴∴一∴∴
∴:∴∴上 　　し(′
NC DWQ Stream Identi鯖cation Form Version 4.11
Date‥L=暗証LO汗e Project/Site:Eびもキ&uL儲\o しatitude:35,ろG勘
EvaIuato「:MCcね占e用 County:6{C汗\乱rn しongitude:-8る,釦〉うう
TotaiPoints: StreamDetermination(Circi OtherE緒故も鰭IoCJ迫
盤露盤羅叶ちら Ephemera=ntermittent　erennia e.g,QuadName:
(Subt。tal= 1ら)lAbsentl　Weak　lModeratel　Strong
1a.ContinuityofchanneIbedandbank 0 1 2 (り
2.Sinuosityofchannelalongthalweg 0 1 ② 3
3.In-Channelst「ucture:eX.「脚e-POOI,SteP-POOi, 0 1 2 ㊦
「ipple-POOisequence
4.ParticIesizeofstreamsubstrate 0 1 2 00
5.Active/relict¶oodplain 0 1 ・2 ⑤
6.Depositionalbarsorbenches 0 1 2 園
7.Recenta冊viaIdeposits 0 1 2 〔雪
8.Headcuts￣ (可う 1 2 3
9.Gradecont「oI 0 0.5 圃国書 1,5
10.Natu「aIva=ey 0 0,5 国書臆 1,5
11.Secondorgreaterorde「channel N ○こ0 押es =3ニ)
B.Hydroiogy(SubtotaI=j」皇_)
12.P「esenceofBase¶ow 0 1 2 ∴土、
13.l「onoxidizingbacte「ia 隠田 1 2 3
14,Leaflitter 『育つ 1 0,5 0
15.Sedimentonplantso「debris で 0.5 ① 1.5
16.Organicdebris=nesorp=es 0 0.5 打つ 1.5
17.So=-basedevidenceofhighwatertabIe? No=0 eSこ
C.Bio!ogy(SubtotaI=○○山_)
18.Fib「ous「ootsinstreambed G⊃ 2 1 0
19.Rooteduplandpiantsinst「eambed 纏⊃ 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(notediversityandabundance) 0 1 2 《重⊃
21.AquaticMo=usks 0 仰 2 3
22,Fish (6ヽ 百も 1 1,5
23,Crayfish 了二面1 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 、圏 0.5 1 1.5
25.AIgae 0 0.5 圏圃 1,5
26.Wetlandpiantsinst「eambed FACW=0.75;OBLニ1.5蟹he予言‘
★perenniaIst「eamsmayaisobeidentifiedusingothermethods.Seep.35ofmanua上
Notes:rY\性M乱|^　′し十|,S`t\rii\C\\,Sr詑研政孝もcJ\/1㌔-\
∪　　くじ　　　　　　　　　　　　　　’　　　　　　　G
Sketch: 　　　　」
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRI LION:
Deed Book: 374 Page: 420 County: Graham
Parcel ID
Number: 566200090043
Street Address: 1157 East Buffalo Rd
Robbinsville, NC 28771
Property Owner (please print: Ramlonghorn, LLC, Brian Golson Manager
Property Owner (please print):
The undersigned, registered property owners) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a
potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream
and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required
permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 2104 Island Wood Road, Austin, TX 78733
(if different from above)
Property Owner Telephone Number: 512-813-4960
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
(Property Owner Authorized Signature)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)

APPENDIX 5
Agency Correspondence

MEETING NOTES
MEETING:  IRT Site Walk 
      EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site 
      Little Tennessee 06010204; Graham County, NC 
      Wildlands Project No. 005‐45020 

DATE:    On‐site Meeting: Monday, November 19, 2018  
   Meeting Notes Distributed: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 

LOCATION:  East Buffalo Road 
Robbinsville, NC 

Attendees 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Steve Kichefski, USACE 
Andrea Leslie, NCWRC 
Zan Price, DWR 
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands 
Jake McLean, Wildlands  

Reference Materials 
 Pre‐Prospectus with Credit Summary Table 
 Figure 1 Vicinity Map 
 Figure 2 Concept Map  
(These have been updated following the site-walk as explained within this document. The updated
versions are the versions being provided for reference.)
Meeting Notes 
The meeting began at 10:30 am and concluded around 1pm.  A map of the project and a brief overview of the 
project were provided in advance and reviewed at the gravel drive near the cattle pasture prior to starting the 
walk.  The group first visited the south side of the site (south of East Buffalo Road, SR 1254) and then the north 
side of the site (north of road).  Access to the south side of the site is via a dirt road accessed just north of UT2 at 
the corner of the property nearest to East Buffalo Road.  From there, the dirt road traverses the slope south of 
the road along a west‐east alignment. The group returned to this access point and then walked the north side of 
the site from upstream to downstream along East Buffalo Creek, by entering from the upstream parcel, before 
returning along the existing ditched portion of UT3 along the East Buffalo Road.  
General 
 Wildlands is proposing to put the majority of the site under easement with buffers of 150’ or greater on 
all reaches of all streams, except those whose buffers overlap, or where existing parcel boundaries do 
not allow. 
 The site abuts National Forest, Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Managed Areas, and is in a watershed 
whose headwaters is protected by a DMS easement (the entire headwater parcel of that project and 
easement is now held by a local land trust with the intent to permanently protect the entire parcel). 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 2 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site 
IRT Site Walk
 Wildlands is proposing an enhanced preservation ratio for some of the preservation streams based on 
the buffer widths, site values, and protection of areas upslope of the jurisdictional boundaries.   IRT 
members agreed that an enhanced ratio is justifiable, but recommended that Wildlands propose a ratio 
with justification based on the USACE Stream Preservation Guidelines. 
 Wildlands was originally proposing more preservation, but based on discussions during this site walk, it 
was decided to revise the approach to include several lower level enhancement activities along the 
streams in the valley on the north side of the road.  The revised approach, discussed below the meeting 
notes, incorporates IRT recommendations and proposes mitigation ratios and justification for those 
ratios. 
South of East Buffalo Road  
UT1, UT2, UT3, UT4, UT4a‐Reach 1 
 On the south side of the site (south of East Buffalo Road), tributaries UT2, UT3, and UT4 were walked for 
representative portions of their jurisdictional length; tributary UT4a was observed later from the road; 
and UT1 was not observed.  The headwaters of UT1, UT2, UT3, and UT4 will be protected with 150’ 
buffers and extending all the way to the ridge.  At the ridge, the parcel adjoins National Forest and NHP 
Managed Areas which provides value for habitat connectivity.  There is also connectivity to the Cheoah 
Mountain NHA which lies within the watershed headwaters.  
 Andrea Leslie indicated that there are Natural Heritage Elements in close proximity: 
o Sammy Basin Natural Area (rated Very High by the NC Natural Heritage Program) is on the SW 
side of the site (just adjacent).   Within this NA are a number of rare plants (e.g., Goldenseal – NC 
Significantly Rare, American Bittersweet – NC Endangered) and important communities (e.g., 
Montane Cliff, Mafic Subtype).   
 Streams are generally stable but not pristine – the site has evidence of prior landslide activity as well as 
historic logging. The IRT commented that some of the streams have abundant fine sediment in riffles;  
 The riparian areas are intact and of mixed structure and mostly free of invasives; 
 Wildlands was asked to clarify how the existing logging roads would be treated.  Wildlands indicated 
that they would be decomissioned and runoff routed off of the road to disrupt the current erosion and 
sedimentation.  Considerable erosion was observed along the road traversing this southern slope and is 
contributing to sedimentation in streams.  In addition, along the road traversing the slope, and along old 
logging roads paralleling tributaries, flow follows the roads in many cases, sometimes for several 
hundred or more feet, which decreases the effectiveness/function of the buffers. 
 It was discussed that culverts and crossings will be removed and grade control and bank stability 
reestablished through the removed crossings.  
 Landslide activity is present on some or all of these tributaries which may reduce the jurisdictional 
stream length from the pre‐landslide condition.  Landslide activity may be related to prior deforestation 
or may be natural to the setting – similar activity has been observed in adjacent drainages.  Historic 
landslide activity may be contributing, along with sedimentation from dirt roads, to the persistence of 
fine sediment in streams. 
 Steve K. noted that 2018 has been a very wet year and that the hydrology visible reflects that and 
should be factored into jurisdictional calls. 
 Wildlands indicated that a portion of the south slope similar to that shown on the map would remain 
outside of the conservation easement. 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 3 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site 
IRT Site Walk

North of East Buffalo Road 
On the north side of the site (north of the road), the mainstem of East Buffalo Creek was walked in its entirety 
(upper and lower portions); UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 have very poor access through privet thickets and 
were not observed in detail; UT3 Reach 2 (currently ditched along roadside) and UT4a Reach 2 which is in the 
cattle pasture, were walked for most of their length; UT5 was observed for a representative length; and  UT6 
was not observed.  
Upper portion of East Buffalo Creek and adjacent Tributaries UT1‐Reach 2, UT2‐Reach 2  
 Participants observed the upper portion of East Buffalo Creek from upstream to downstream along the 
right bank. The reach does not have cattle but is maintained with a grassed understory on the right 
floodplain.  Limited overstory is present, and the reach has dense privet thickets on the left bank and on 
both banks near the downstream portion of the reach.   There are a handful of areas where there is 
bank erosion and mid‐channel bar deposition which Wildlands indicated would be addressed with spot 
bank grading / benching and planting to eliminate erosion.   
 UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 were largely not visible or accessible from more than one or two locations 
due to heavy privet and multiflora rose undergrowth. In one or two locations, evidence of vertical banks 
and an old farm crossing were visible.   
 IRT representatives commented that the treatments required along East Buffalo Creek and the two 
tributary reaches are more consistent with enhancement‐level intervention than preservation, as 
originally proposed.  Intervention is necessary to reestablish various stream and floodplain functions and 
the proposed approach has been modified to reflect this and is further discussed at the end of the 
meeting notes. 
 Wildlands indicated that along the upper portion of East Buffalo Creek on the right floodplain, beyond 
the 150’ buffer, Wildlands may sell the maintained field to the adjacent landowner to accommodate 
their aesthetic preferences.  The IRT commented that there was considerable value in the proposed 150’ 
buffer and did not provide objection to this.  
 A wide buffer, typically 100‐150’, will be placed on UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2. 
Lower portion of East Buffalo Creek, UT3‐Reach 2, UT4a‐Reach2, and UT5 
 Cattle are present on the lower portion of the site which includes: the left floodplain of East Buffalo 
Creek, UT4a Reach 2, and the valley low point proposed for the restored alignment for UT3 Reach 2.  
Only East Buffalo Creek is fenced, and the fencing generally follows the left top of bank and has minimal 
value in providing a buffer to grazing activities.  Cattle exclusion along East Buffalo Creek will provide 
functional uplift to water quality by significantly enhancing the buffer. 
 There are dense privet thickets along both banks of East Buffalo Creek, as well as evidence of historic 
stream relocation and straightening to the current position against the right valley wall.  Minor grading 
may be required to address intermittent bank erosion and/or to remove privet and prepare a planting 
surface for native riparian species.  The combination of activities required is in‐line with enhancement 
level intervention. 
 Wildlands indicated that a buffer would be established between East Buffalo Creek and the proposed 
alignment of UT3 Reach 2. 
 UT3 Reach2, which was historically ditched along East Buffalo Road, is proposed to be rerouted down 
the middle of the valley where there is an obvious low point running through the middle of the pasture 
and where UT3’s valley would have naturally flowed to.  
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 4 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site 
IRT Site Walk
o The IRT generally agreed with and recognized benefits provided by this approach. 
o Intermittent wetland vegetation is present near the valley low point, suggesting that remnant 
stream hydrology is still present in the valley. 
o The proposed re‐alignment of UT3 Reach 2 will ultimately confluence with UT4a Reach 2 by 
following the existing natural low point in the valley topography.  IRT members agreed with the 
rationale of this approach. 
o There was some discussion about potentially routing UT2 Reach 2 into UT3 as well.  The 
appropriateness of this approach will be explored based on more detailed survey information.   
o There was also discussion that the mainstem of East Buffalo Creek may have originally occupied 
this point in the valley but that leaving the mainstem in its current location, and simply 
conducting enhancement activities along it, was appropriate. 
 UT5 was walked for a representative portion of its length; it is proposed for preservation and is in 
generally stable condition with an intact forested buffer, except in a small area with a historic clearing 
on the left bank. The clearing will be replanted.  There are invasives in and near the clearing which will 
be treated.  An old crossing was observed and such crossings, where present and affecting stream 
stability or organism passage, will be removed. 
 UT4a‐Reach 2 was walked for a representative portion of its length; it is proposed for high level 
enhancement which is warranted due to the need to exclude livestock, repair and enhance trampled 
streams which are variably incised, overly wide, and generally exhibit poor habitat from livestock 
impacts.  Privet is also present along UT4a and will be removed.  The existing buffer is minimal or non‐
existent, and a forested buffer of 100‐150’ will be established within the easement area. 
All Attendees listed have been copied by email. These meeting minutes were prepared by Jake McLean and 
reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on December 11, 2018, and represent the authors’ interpretation of events.  Please 
report and discrepancies or corrections within 5 business days of receipt of these minutes.   

Explanation of Updates to Proposed Concept Map and Credit Ratios 
Based on discussions during the IRT site walk, Wildlands has made adjustments to the proposed approach and 
corresponding crediting ratios.  A summary of approach and proposed ratios by Reach is explained below and 
reflected in the provided reference materials which have been updated. 
 The majority of the site is planned to be placed under conservation easement and 150 foot or greater 
buffers are expected to be achieved in most locations (see figure for reference).  
 Wildlands is proposing a 7:1 credit ratio on Preservation streams with continuous connectivity to lower 
project reaches, and a 10:1 credit ratio on other Preservation streams (UT1 & UT6).  
 The 7:1 Preservation Ratio is proposed based on the following factors: 
o Buffers of greater than 150 feet are proposed and the headwaters of UT2, UT3, and UT4 are 
proposed to have their watersheds protected in their entireties above their jurisdictional limits 
up to the ridgeline (National Forest boundary) providing significant functional value to the 
watershed and landscape ecology; 
o The preservation streams are stable and the vegetation on the preservation reaches is generally 
mature and of mixed composition and free of invasives. 
o The site provides connectivity to National Forest, the Cheoah Mountain NHA, and protected and 
managed NHP managed areas and element occurrences and expands upon prior and on‐going 
watershed protection and restoration efforts by DMS and Mainspring Conservation Trust (a local 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site – Meeting Notes 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.    page 5 
EAST BUFFALO Mitigation Site 
IRT Site Walk
land trust, formerly, Land Trust for the Little Tennessee), who has recently acquired the entire 
East Buffalo Creek headwaters parcel where a prior DMS mitigation project was sited; 
o The site is sufficiently close to Robbinsville and Lake Santeetlah that it was agreed that there 
was sufficient development pressure to warrant protection from future residential or similar 
development; 
o The streams are headwater tributaries to the Cheoah River which is designated for Trout and 
also as critical habitat for the Appalachian Elktoe mussel in close downstream proximity to the 
confluence; 
o There is significant potential to reduce sediment loading to streams and enhance water quality 
and habitat in preservation reaches through decommissioning of roads and crossings.  This will 
also results in restoration of buffer functions and natural site hydrology. 
o Wildlands is providing additional detail, as requested, as to how road decommissioning along 
the south side of the site will be approached: 
 Along the primary dirt road, at regular intervals not to exceed 300’, Wildlands will create 
breaks in the flow path through berms or turn‐outs to redirect runoff onto downslope 
wooded areas which will reestablish diffuse flow through the site.  Efforts will be visually 
monitored to ensure that direct sedimentation to streams from rilling of the existing 
road is eliminated.  The roads will be replanted at typical restoration density with 
appropriate under‐  and mid‐story species. 
o There is potential to enhance aquatic organism passage through decommissioning crossings; 
and 
o Invasives, where present within the conservation easement, will be treated. 
 The 10:1 Preservation Ratio is proposed for UT1 & UT6 based on the following factors: 
o Buffers of greater than 150 feet are proposed for UT1 & UT6; 
o Streams are stable and forested; 
o Preservation of these two headwater streams builds on other preserved headwaters in the 
watershed and on the site and provides many of the same benefits and values discussed above 
for the other preservation streams; 
o The preservation of UT1 protects to the ridgeline and connects the project with additional 
National Forest and NHP managed areas and UT1 reenters the project site downstream; and 
o Similar landscape settings on adjacent slopes are developed with roads and houses and the 
protection offered by the project limits future development in these tributaries. 
 Wildlands is proposing a 4:1 credit ratio on Enhancement II streams.  Proposed intervention measures 
include treatment of dense thickets of invasive species, addressing minor bank erosion from vertical 
banks and mid‐channel bars with structures and/or bank grading, planting of a native riparian buffer on 
both banks for at least 150’, and cattle exclusion from the buffer along the lower portion of East Buffalo 
Creek.  Old farm crossings, where present, will be removed and renaturalized. 
 Wildlands is proposing a 1.5:1 credit ratio on Enhancement I streams.  Streams require reconstruction to 
reestablish a stable profile and dimension, at a minimum and to enhance degraded habitat. Invasive 
species will be treated, cattle excluded, and a woody riparian species planted within the buffer which 
will typically be 150’ or greater. 
 Wildlands is proposing a 1:1 credit ratio on UT3 Reach 2, the only site restoration stream.  A buffer 
typically 150’ or greater will be established along the reach.  Cattle will be excluded from the stream 
valley and the stream will be relocated to this natural valley from its current position ditched along East 
Buffalo Road. 
1
Jake McLean
From:Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Tuesday, January 15, 2019 7:24 AM
To:Leslie, Andrea J; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US); Shawn Wilkerson; Jake McLean; Price,
Zan (George)
Cc:Andrea Eckardt; Haupt, Mac; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (US)
Subject:RE: [External] RE: East Buffalo Mitigation IRT Site Walk Notes (UNCLASSIFIED)
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Shawn/Jake/Andrea, 
The only additional notes I had, that I didn't see already captured had to do with the two disconnected streams 
proposed (UT1 & UT6). My notes indicated that these were not being accepted for credit as part of the bank due to their 
disconnected nature, however, as always final credit ratios will be set as part of the draft plan review.  

Regards, 

Steve Kichefski  
Regulatory Project Manager  
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office  
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208  
Asheville, NC 28801  
(828)‐271‐7980 Ext. 4234  

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.  To help us ensure we 
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at 
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 to complete the survey online. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Leslie, Andrea J [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, January 14, 2019 10:31 AM 
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson 
<[e-mail]>; Jake McLean <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George) 
<[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV 
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: [External] RE: East Buffalo Mitigation IRT Site Walk Notes 

Hi Shawn, 

Sorry for long lag time in response.  I also think that you have captured the discussion well.  It's a site with great 
opportunity for habitat protection and enhancement.  Here are a few comments to add to Todd's: 

‐ There are several references to "NHP Managed Areas".  Change NHP managed areas to NHP Natural Areas. 
‐I noted multi‐flora rose on UT2 and multi‐flora and privet on UT5; this should be treated.  I recommend that reaches 
proposed for preservation should be surveyed for invasives and those found treated. 
2

Andrea 

_____________________________________________ 
Andrea Leslie 
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator NC Wildlife Resources Commission 
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B 
Marion, NC 28752 
828‐803‐6054 (office) 
828‐400‐4223 (cell) 
www.ncwildlife.org 

Get NC Wildlife Update delivered to your inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.  

Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third 
parties. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 1:50 PM 
To: Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Jake McLean <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George) 
<[e-mail]>; Steve Kichefski <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Kim Browning 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] RE: East Buffalo Mitigation IRT Site Walk Notes 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verified. Send all suspicious email as an 
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> 

Shawn,  I think most of the discussion was captured.  A few additional points that were in my field notes: 
1. UT2 seemed to have more sediment than some of the other preservation reaches (except UT5), and the buffer 
vegetation was younger, so the trib was generally not as high quality. 
2. UT3 had several hundred feet of underground flow that disconnected it from the upper watershed.  This area needed 
to be identified. 
3. East Buffalo Creek main stem (upstream of the confluence with Ut2 Reach 2) appeared to have areas that could use 
bank stabilization, especially on the right bank where the grass was mowed.  This area is a candidate for E2 (2.5:1) if the 
amount work needed justifies the ratio.  In the revised pre‐prospectus, this reach is still shown at a 4:1 ratio. 
4. The buffer width was discussed, and IRT applauded the fact that the buffer is proposed to be much wider than the 
minimum requirement.  It was also discussed that the wider buffers would be considered toward justification for the 
proposed credit ratios, rather than being considered using the non‐standard buffer credit tool.   This is primarily due to 
the extent of preservation proposed on the site. 

Thanks, 

Todd Tugwell 
Mitigation Project Manager 
Wilmington District, US Army Corps of Engineers 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
3
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
(919) 554‐4884 ext. 58 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Shawn Wilkerson [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2019 6:51 AM 
To: Jake McLean <[e-mail]>; Price, Zan (George) <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV 
USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, 
Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: East Buffalo Mitigation IRT Site Walk Notes 

All: 

Generally speaking, does the updated pre‐prospectus reflect the agreed upon approach and credit ratios for this site 
based on our site walk in November?  We are planning on moving forward with the site in this manner unless anyone 
has any comments or questions. 

Thanks, 

Shawn 

From: Jake McLean <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, December 12, 2018 9:36 AM 
To: Price, Zan (George) <[e-mail]>; Kichefski, Steven L CIV USARMY CESAW (US) 
<[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>; Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY 
CESAW (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]> 
Subject: East Buffalo Mitigation IRT Site Walk Notes 

Good Morning, 

Please find the site walk notes attached, along with updated pre‐prospectus and figures. Based on our discussions in the 
field, and follow‐up work, we've prepared updates to the project approach and an explanation of these updates is 
provided at the end of the meeting notes. 

We hope that you can review and provide comment/feedback on this revised approach and we would be happy to have 
a quick call to discuss this in the next couple of weeks.  We want to make sure that we have your general buy‐in to the 
revised approach so that we can proceed with the project. 
4

Please let me know if you have any comments on the minutes. 

Thanks, 
Jake 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Jake McLean  |  Water Resource Engineer, Project Manager 

O: 828.774.5547 M: 828.545.3865 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. <BlockedBlockedhttp://www.wildlandseng.com/> 

167‐B Haywood Road 

Asheville, NC 28806 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

1 

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank 
 East Buffalo Mitigation Site ‐ Graham County, NC 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc. is proposing the creation of the Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank 
(“Bank”) in the Little Tennessee Basin, Cataloging Unit 06010204. The umbrella bank currently includes 
one site in the Little Tennessee River Basin, the East Buffalo Mitigation Site located in Graham County, 
North Carolina (Figure 1). The bank will provide 3,697 cold stream mitigation credits.  
The East Buffalo Mitigation Site encompasses 255 acres and will include restoration, enhancement and 
preservation of East Buffalo Creek and several unnamed tributaries (Figure 2). The project streams 
proposed for restoration and enhancement have been degraded over time by agricultural use. The 
implementation of the project will result in ecological improvements to the project streams within the 
Little Tennessee River Basin. Among these are improvements to aquatic and riparian habitat, reduction 
of nutrient and sediment loads, connection of the onsite streams to their floodplains, restoration of 
native riparian buffers, and preservation of existing high‐quality streams and riparian buffers. The 
attached figures illustrate the location of the bank site as well as the mitigation activities proposed for 
the site. A summary of the site’s proposed credits follows:   
 Credit Summary: East Buffalo Mitigation Site 
Approach Length (LF) Ratio Stream Mitigation Credits 
Restoration 1271 1:1 1271 
Enhancement I 551 1.5:1 367 
Enhancement II 2,432 4:1 608 
Preservation 8,942 7:1 1,277 
Preservation 1,744 10:1 174 
Total 14,940  3,697 

Directions: East Buffalo Mitigation Site 
To get to the East Buffalo Mitigation Site, from Asheville, NC, follow I‐40 West and US‐74 West to NC‐28 
North in Nantahala.  Continue on NC‐28 North to Robbinsville for 20 miles.  Take US‐129 North/Tapoco 
Road to East Buffalo Circle (4.6 miles).  Turn right onto East Buffalo Circle.  In 2.3 miles turn right onto 
East Buffalo Road.  The site is at the intersection of East Buffalo Road and Buffalo Lane.  (35° 21’ 50” N, 
83° 48’ 32” W) 
¬«129
Cheoah Mountains
Nantahala National Forest - Cheoah Ranger District
Cheoah Mountains
Nantahala National Forest - Cheoah Ranger District
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Little Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC
Service Area - HUC 06010204
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
NCDMS Conservation Easements
Project Parcel
Natural Heritage Element Occurrences (Current)
Animal
Natural Community
Plant
^_
Site Location
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles ¹
PHILLIPSPATTON (D) & LAURA5662.00-91-5351
200'
200'200'
150'UT6 UT5UT1
UT2
UT3
UT4
UT4
aEast Buffalo CreekUT1 - Reach 1UT1 -Reach 2
UT2 - Reach 1
UT3 - Reach 1
UT4 - Reach 1
UT4 -Reach 2
UT4a - Reach 1
UT4a - Reach 2
UT3 -Reach 3
UT3 -Reach 2
UT2 - Reach 2East Buffalo Creek - Reach 1
US FOREST SERVICE5528.00-38-1681
LOVELACE JESSELOVELACE KRISTAN5672.00-21-6922
Nantahala National Forest
Figure 2 Concept Map
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Little Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹2014 Aerial Photography
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250 Feet
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Graham County Parcels
Project Parcel
Proposed Conservation Easement Boundary
NCDMS Conservation Easements
Concept Streams (14,940 ft)
Stream Restoration (1:1) (1,271 ft)
Stream Enhancement I (1.5:1) (551 ft)
Stream Enhancement II (4:1) (2,432 ft)
Stream Preservation (7:1) (8,942 ft)
Stream Preservation (10:1) (1,744 ft)
Non Project Streams
Topographical Contour (20')

January 6, 2019

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review of the Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Prospectus:
East Buffalo Site (SAW-2019-01296)

Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC
Attn: Mr. Shawn Wilkerson
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203

Dear Mr. Wilkerson:

This letter is in regard to your prospectus document for the proposed Yadkin Valley
Umbrella Mitigation Bank. The proposal consists of the establishment and operation of a 255-
acre stream mitigation bank located at the intersection of East Buffalo Road and Buffalo Lane,
near Robbinsville, Graham County, North Carolina (35.36389; -83.80889).

The Corps determined the prospectus document was complete and issued a public notice
(P/N # SAW-2019-01296) on July 17, 2019. The purpose of this notice was to solicit the views
of interested State and Federal agencies and other parties either interested in or affected by the
proposed work. In addition, the Corps and members of the Interagency Review Team (IRT)
conducted a field review of the proposed mitigation site on November 19, 2018. Attached are
comments received in response to the public notice or the initial field visit memo from the NC
Wildlife Resources Commission, the NC Division of Water Resources, the NC State Historic
Preservation Office, the Cherokee Nation and a field visit memo incorporating comments from
the attending IRT members.
The Corps has reviewed the information provided and considered the comments received
in response to the public notice and the field site visits. We have determined that the proposed
mitigation bank appears to have the potential to restore and protect aquatic resources within the
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE

Lower Little Tennessee watershed 8-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 06010204 of the Upper
Tennessee River Basin. Therefore, the bank sponsor may proceed with preparation of a draft
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI).
Please provide a response to the attached comments with your draft plan submittal. We
appreciate your interest in restoring and protecting waters of the United States. If you have
questions concerning the path forward for the proposed mitigation bank, please do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone] extension 4234.

Sincerely,

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager

Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
Todd Bowers, USEPA
Mac Haupt, NCDWR
Erin Davis, NCDWR
Byron Hamstead, USFWS
Andrea Leslie, NCWRC
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Scott Jones, USACE

CESAW-RG/Kichefski December 4, 2020

MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT: Proposed Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB) Comment
Response (SAW-2019-01296)

PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received in response to the preliminary
site visit or the Prospectus document during the 30-day comment period in accordance
with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule.

Zan Price, NCDWR
The following comments received via email January 9, 2019 in addition to comments incorporated
into field visit memo.
1. I generally don’t have any issues with the updated pre-prospectus. I don’t recall seeing UT
1 or UT6 on the November site visit so I can’t comment on those reaches.

Andrea Leslie, NCWRC
Comments during the site visit were incorporated into the field visit memo except for the ones
noted below, which were received via email January 14, 2019.

1. There are several references to "NHP Managed Areas". Change NHP managed areas to
NHP Natural Areas.
2. I noted multi-flora rose on UT2 and multi-flora and privet on UT5; this should be treated. I
recommend that reaches proposed for preservation should be surveyed for invasives and
those found treated.

Elizabeth Toombs, Cherokee Nation, August 15, 2019
See attached comment letter.

Renee Gledhill-Early, SHPO, August 19, 2019
See attached comment letter.

Steve Kichefski/Todd Tugwell, USACE
General comments not captured in the field visit memo that was received via email from
Wildlands on December 12, 2018:

1. All resource labels used in the jurisdictional delineations should be the same or referenced
in the plan submittal for comparison.
2. Please be aware that final mitigation ratios will be determined at the draft mitigation plan
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
151 PATTON AVENUE

stage when a more comprehensive project submittal is available for evaluation.
3. UT2 seemed to have more sediment than some of the other preservation reaches (except
UT5), and the buffer vegetation was younger, so the trib was generally not as high quality.
4. UT3 had several hundred feet of underground flow that disconnected it from the upper
watershed. This area needed to be identified.
5. East Buffalo Creek main stem (upstream of the confluence with Ut2 Reach 2) appeared to
have areas that could use bank stabilization, especially on the right bank where the grass
was mowed. This area is a candidate for E2 (2.5:1) if the amount work needed justifies the
ratio. In the revised pre-prospectus, this reach is still shown at a 4:1 ratio.
6. The buffer width was discussed, and IRT applauded the fact that the buffer is proposed to
be much wider than the minimum requirement. It was also discussed that the wider buffers
would be considered toward justification for the proposed credit ratios, rather than being
considered using the non-standard buffer credit tool. This is primarily due to the extent of
preservation proposed on the site.
7. Field visit notes indicated that UT1 and UT6 were not being accepted for credit as part of
the bank due to their disconnected nature, however, as always final credit ratios will be set
as part of the draft plan review should Wildlands feel they should be included with the
project.
8. As discussed during the preliminary site visit, any crossings or buffer infringement by the
power lines north of East Buffalo Road will be considered when evaluating project streams
or wetlands.
9. Elaborate with draft plan submittal how the proposed work will affect any
existing wetlands alongside the current or relocated channels.
10. The remaining USACE comments were given during the site visit and included
within the site visit memo attached.

Steve Kichefski
Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Field Office

August 15, 2019

Steve Kichefski
United States Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: SAW-2019-01296, Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank

Mr. Steve Kichefski:

The Cherokee Nation (Nation) is in receipt of your correspondence about SAW-2019-01296, and
appreciates the opportunity to provide comment upon this project. Please allow this letter to serve
as the Nation’s interest in acting as a consulting party to this proposed project.

The Nation maintains databases and records of cultural, historic, and pre-historic resources in this
area. Our Historic Preservation Office reviewed this project, cross referenced the project’s legal
description against our information, and found no instances where this project intersects or adjoins
such resources. Thus, the Nation does not foresee this project imparting impacts to Cherokee
cultural resources at this time.

However, the Nation requests that the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) halt all
project activities immediately and re-contact our Offices for further consultation if items of cultural
significance are discovered during the course of this project.

Additionally, the Nation requests that the USACE conduct appropriate inquiries with other
pertinent Tribal and Historic Preservation Offices regarding historic and prehistoric resources not
included in the Nation’s databases or records.

If you require additional information or have any questions, please contact me at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
[e-mail]
918.453.5389

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 19, 2019

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Little Tennessee River Basin,
SAW-2019-01296, Graham County, ER 19-2305

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

We have received the public notice for the above project for review and have the following comment.

There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation and the density of archaeological sites in the area, as well as the
recorded Cherokee history in the Buffalo Town area, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites at the project location.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
The archaeological survey is recommended for that portion of the project area with slopes of fifteen percent or
less. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Two paper copies and one digital copy of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one digital and
one paper copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as
they are available and well in advance of any construction activities.

A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/programs/environmental-review/archaeological-
consultants. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,

Ramona Bartos, Deputy
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

August 19, 2019

Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006

Re: Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Little Tennessee River Basin,
SAW-2019-01296, Graham County, ER 19-2305

Dear Mr. Kichefski:

We have received the public notice for the above project for review and have the following comment.

There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area has
never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources. Based
on the topographic and hydrological situation and the density of archaeological sites in the area, as well as the
recorded Cherokee history in the Buffalo Town area, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric
or historic archaeological sites at the project location.

We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project.
The archaeological survey is recommended for that portion of the project area with slopes of fifteen percent or
less. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction activities.

Two paper copies and one digital copy of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one digital and
one paper copy of the appropriate site forms, should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as
they are available and well in advance of any construction activities.

A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/programs/environmental-review/archaeological-
consultants. The archaeologists listed, or any other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the
recommended survey.

The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation’s Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Date: 3/2/2020

Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation
Carolina Northern Flying
Squirrel
(Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Gray Bat
(Myotis grisescens)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Indiana Bat
(Myotis sodalist)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. The site is located
outside any critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this
species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences
exist within the proposed project area.
Northern Long-eared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Bog Turtle
(Clemmys muhlenbergii)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Spotfin Chub
(Erimonax monachus)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. The site is located
outside any critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this
species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences
exist within the proposed project area.
Species / Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7 / Eagle Act Determination Notes / Documentation
Appalachian Elktoe
(Alasmidonta raveneliana)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. The site is located
outside any critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this
species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences
exist within the proposed project area.
Virginia Spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana)
Suitable habitat present May effect, not likely to
adversely affect
Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 and although there is
suitable habitat, no individual species were found. USFWS will be
notified immediately if any species are found. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Rock Gnome Lichen
(Gymnoderma lineare)
Not suitable habitat
present
No effect Field Survey conducted on April 18, 2019 determined no individual
species or suitable habitat were found to exist. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the proposed
project area.
Critical Habitat No critical habitat
present

Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.

Mimi Caddell Environmental Scientist 3/2/2020
_______________________________________________________________ ___________________________
Signature /Title Date
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 1/8
IPaC resource list
This report is an automatically generated list of species and other resources such as critical habitat
(collectively referred to as trust resources) under the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (USFWS)
jurisdiction that are known or expected to be on or near the project area referenced below. The list
may also include trust resources that occur outside of the project area, but that could potentially be
directly or indirectly aected by activities in the project area. However, determining the likelihood and
extent of eects a project may have on trust resources typically requires gathering additional site-
specic (e.g., vegetation/species surveys) and project-specic (e.g., magnitude and timing of proposed
activities) information.
Below is a summary of the project information you provided and contact information for the USFWS
oce(s) with jurisdiction in the dened project area. Please read the introduction to each section that
follows (Endangered Species, Migratory Birds, USFWS Facilities, and NWI Wetlands) for additional
information applicable to the trust resources addressed in that section.
Location
Graham County, North Carolina
Local oce
Asheville Ecological Services Field Oce
 [phone]
 [phone]
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801-1082
http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr.html
U.S. Fish & Wildlife ServiceIPaC
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 2/8
Endangered species
This resource list is for informational purposes only and does not constitute an analysis of project
level impacts.
The primary information used to generate this list is the known or expected range of each species.
Additional areas of inuence (AOI) for species are also considered. An AOI includes areas outside of
the species range if the species could be indirectly aected by activities in that area (e.g., placing a
dam upstream of a sh population, even if that sh does not occur at the dam site, may indirectly
impact the species by reducing or eliminating water ow downstream). Because species can move,
and site conditions can change, the species on this list are not guaranteed to be found on or near the
project area. To fully determine any potential eects to species, additional site-specic and project-
specic information is often required.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary
information whether any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of
such proposed action" for any project that is conducted, permitted, funded, or licensed by any Federal
agency. A letter from the local oce and a species list which fullls this requirement can only be
obtained by requesting an ocial species list from either the Regulatory Review section in IPaC (see
directions below) or from the local eld oce directly.
For project evaluations that require USFWS concurrence/review, please return to the IPaC website and
request an ocial species list by doing the following:
1. Draw the project location and click CONTINUE.
2. Click DEFINE PROJECT.
3. Log in (if directed to do so).
4. Provide a name and description for your project.
5. Click REQUEST SPECIES LIST.
Listed species and their critical habitats are managed by the Ecological Services Program of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the sheries division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA Fisheries ).
Species and critical habitats under the sole responsibility of NOAA Fisheries are not shown on this list.
Please contact NOAA Fisheries for species under their jurisdiction.
1. Species listed under the Endangered Species Act are threatened or endangered; IPaC also shows
species that are candidates, or proposed, for listing. See the listing status page for more
information.
2. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an oce of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of Commerce.
The following species are potentially aected by activities in this location:
Mammals
1
2
NAME STATUS
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 3/8
Reptiles
Fishes
Clams
Flowering Plants
Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/2657
Endangered
Gray Bat Myotis grisescens
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6329
Endangered
Indiana Bat Myotis sodalis
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside
the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5949
Endangered
Northern Long-eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/9045
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6962
SAT
NAME STATUS
Spotn Chub Erimonax monachus
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside
the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1521
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Appalachian Elktoe Alasmidonta raveneliana
There is nal critical habitat for this species. Your location is outside
the critical habitat.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5039
Endangered
NAME STATUS
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 4/8
Lichens
Critical habitats
Potential eects to critical habitat(s) in this location must be analyzed along with the endangered
species themselves.
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS AT THIS LOCATION.
Migratory birds
THERE ARE NO MIGRATORY BIRDS OF CONSERVATION CONCERN EXPECTED TO OCCUR AT THIS LOCATION.
Tell me more about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds.
Virginia Spiraea Spiraea virginiana
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1728
Threatened
NAME STATUS
Rock Gnome Lichen Gymnoderma lineare
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3933
Endangered
Certain birds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act .
Any person or organization who plans or conducts activities that may result in impacts to migratory
birds, eagles, and their habitats should follow appropriate regulations and consider implementing
appropriate conservation measures, as described below.
1. The Migratory Birds Treaty Act of 1918.
2. The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940.
Additional information can be found using the following links:
Birds of Conservation Concern http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/managed-species/
birds-of-conservation-concern.php
Measures for avoiding and minimizing impacts to birds
http://www.fws.gov/birds/management/project-assessment-tools-and-guidance/
conservation-measures.php
Nationwide conservation measures for birds
http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/management/nationwidestandardconservationmeasures.pdf
1
2
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 5/8
Nationwide Conservation Measures describes measures that can help avoid and minimize impacts to all birds at any
location year round. Implementation of these measures is particularly important when birds are most likely to occur
in the project area. When birds may be breeding in the area, identifying the locations of any active nests and avoiding
their destruction is a very helpful impact minimization measure. To see when birds are most likely to occur and be
breeding in your project area, view the Probability of Presence Summary. Additional measures and/or permits may be
advisable depending on the type of activity you are conducting and the type of infrastructure or bird species present
on your project site.
What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my specied location?
The Migratory Bird Resource List is comprised of USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) and other species that
may warrant special attention in your project location.
The migratory bird list generated for your project is derived from data provided by the Avian Knowledge Network
(AKN). The AKN data is based on a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science datasets and is queried
and ltered to return a list of those birds reported as occurring in the 10km grid cell(s) which your project intersects,
and that have been identied as warranting special attention because they are a BCC species in that area, an eagle
(Eagle Act requirements may apply), or a species that has a particular vulnerability to oshore activities or
development.
Again, the Migratory Bird Resource list includes only a subset of birds that may occur in your project area. It is not
representative of all birds that may occur in your project area. To get a list of all birds potentially present in your
project area, please visit the AKN Phenology Tool.
What does IPaC use to generate the probability of presence graphs for the migratory birds potentially occurring
in my specied location?
The probability of presence graphs associated with your migratory bird list are based on data provided by the Avian
Knowledge Network (AKN). This data is derived from a growing collection of survey, banding, and citizen science
datasets .
Probability of presence data is continuously being updated as new and better information becomes available. To
learn more about how the probability of presence graphs are produced and how to interpret them, go the Probability
of Presence Summary and then click on the "Tell me about these graphs" link.
How do I know if a bird is breeding, wintering, migrating or present year-round in my project area?
To see what part of a particular bird's range your project area falls within (i.e. breeding, wintering, migrating or year-
round), you may refer to the following resources: The Cornell Lab of Ornithology All About Birds Bird Guide, or (if you
are unsuccessful in locating the bird of interest there), the Cornell Lab of Ornithology Neotropical Birds guide. If a bird
on your migratory bird species list has a breeding season associated with it, if that bird does occur in your project
area, there may be nests present at some point within the timeframe specied. If "Breeds elsewhere" is indicated,
then the bird likely does not breed in your project area.
What are the levels of concern for migratory birds?
Migratory birds delivered through IPaC fall into the following distinct categories of concern:
1. "BCC Rangewide" birds are Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) that are of concern throughout their range
anywhere within the USA (including Hawaii, the Pacic Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands);
2. "BCC - BCR" birds are BCCs that are of concern only in particular Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the
continental USA; and
3. "Non-BCC - Vulnerable" birds are not BCC species in your project area, but appear on your list either because of
the Eagle Act requirements (for eagles) or (for non-eagles) potential susceptibilities in oshore areas from certain
types of development or activities (e.g. oshore energy development or longline shing).
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 6/8
Although it is important to try to avoid and minimize impacts to all birds, eorts should be made, in particular, to
avoid and minimize impacts to the birds on this list, especially eagles and BCC species of rangewide concern. For
more information on conservation measures you can implement to help avoid and minimize migratory bird impacts
and requirements for eagles, please see the FAQs for these topics.
Details about birds that are potentially aected by oshore projects
For additional details about the relative occurrence and abundance of both individual bird species and groups of bird
species within your project area o the Atlantic Coast, please visit the Northeast Ocean Data Portal. The Portal also
oers data and information about other taxa besides birds that may be helpful to you in your project review.
Alternately, you may download the bird model results les underlying the portal maps through the NOAA NCCOS
Integrative Statistical Modeling and Predictive Mapping of Marine Bird Distributions and Abundance on the Atlantic
Outer Continental Shelf project webpage.
Bird tracking data can also provide additional details about occurrence and habitat use throughout the year, including
migration. Models relying on survey data may not include this information. For additional information on marine bird
tracking data, see the Diving Bird Study and the nanotag studies or contact Caleb Spiegel or Pam Loring.
What if I have eagles on my list?
If your project has the potential to disturb or kill eagles, you may need to obtain a permit to avoid violating the Eagle
Act should such impacts occur.
Proper Interpretation and Use of Your Migratory Bird Report
The migratory bird list generated is not a list of all birds in your project area, only a subset of birds of priority concern.
To learn more about how your list is generated, and see options for identifying what other birds may be in your
project area, please see the FAQ “What does IPaC use to generate the migratory birds potentially occurring in my
specied location”. Please be aware this report provides the “probability of presence” of birds within the 10 km grid
cell(s) that overlap your project; not your exact project footprint. On the graphs provided, please also look carefully at
the survey eort (indicated by the black vertical bar) and for the existence of the “no data” indicator (a red horizontal
bar). A high survey eort is the key component. If the survey eort is high, then the probability of presence score can
be viewed as more dependable. In contrast, a low survey eort bar or no data bar means a lack of data and,
therefore, a lack of certainty about presence of the species. This list is not perfect; it is simply a starting point for
identifying what birds of concern have the potential to be in your project area, when they might be there, and if they
might be breeding (which means nests might be present). The list helps you know what to look for to conrm
presence, and helps guide you in knowing when to implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize potential
impacts from your project activities, should presence be conrmed. To learn more about conservation measures, visit
the FAQ “Tell me about conservation measures I can implement to avoid or minimize impacts to migratory birds” at
the bottom of your migratory bird trust resources page.
Facilities
National Wildlife Refuge lands
Any activity proposed on lands managed by the National Wildlife Refuge system must undergo a
'Compatibility Determination' conducted by the Refuge. Please contact the individual Refuges to
discuss any questions or concerns.
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 7/8
THERE ARE NO REFUGE LANDS AT THIS LOCATION.
Fish hatcheries
THERE ARE NO FISH HATCHERIES AT THIS LOCATION.
Wetlands in the National Wetlands Inventory
Impacts to NWI wetlands and other aquatic habitats may be subject to regulation under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act, or other State/Federal statutes.
For more information please contact the Regulatory Program of the local U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
District.
WETLAND INFORMATION IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME
This can happen when the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map service is unavailable, or for very
large projects that intersect many wetland areas. Try again, or visit the NWI map to view wetlands at
this location.
Data limitations
The Service's objective of mapping wetlands and deepwater habitats is to produce reconnaissance level information
on the location, type and size of these resources. The maps are prepared from the analysis of high altitude imagery.
Wetlands are identied based on vegetation, visible hydrology and geography. A margin of error is inherent in the use
of imagery; thus, detailed on-the-ground inspection of any particular site may result in revision of the wetland
boundaries or classication established through image analysis.
The accuracy of image interpretation depends on the quality of the imagery, the experience of the image analysts, the
amount and quality of the collateral data and the amount of ground truth verication work conducted. Metadata
should be consulted to determine the date of the source imagery used and any mapping problems.
Wetlands or other mapped features may have changed since the date of the imagery or eld work. There may be
occasional dierences in polygon boundaries or classications between the information depicted on the map and the
actual conditions on site.
Data exclusions
Certain wetland habitats are excluded from the National mapping program because of the limitations of aerial
imagery as the primary data source used to detect wetlands. These habitats include seagrasses or submerged aquatic
vegetation that are found in the intertidal and subtidal zones of estuaries and nearshore coastal waters. Some
deepwater reef communities (coral or tubercid worm reefs) have also been excluded from the inventory. These
habitats, because of their depth, go undetected by aerial imagery.
Data precautions
Federal, state, and local regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over wetlands may dene and describe wetlands in a
dierent manner than that used in this inventory. There is no attempt, in either the design or products of this
3/2/2020 IPaC: Explore Location
https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/location/RSZH52DHXRAZ5ECS3GR365P3JA/resources#wetlands 8/8
inventory, to dene the limits of proprietary jurisdiction of any Federal, state, or local government or to establish the
geographical scope of the regulatory programs of government agencies. Persons intending to engage in activities
involving modications within or adjacent to wetland areas should seek the advice of appropriate federal, state, or
local agencies concerning specied agency regulatory programs and proprietary jurisdictions that may aect such
activities.
APPENDIX 6
Supplementary Design Information
Morphological Parameter Tables
(Existing Conditions, Reference Reaches, Proposed Design Conditions)
Design Discharge Overlaid with NC Regional Curve
Invasive Vegetation Treatment Techniques
min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min maxstream typedrainage area DA sq mibankfull cross‐sectional areaAbkfSFavg velocity during bankfull eventvbkffpswidth at bankfullwbkffeetmaximum depth at bankfulldmaxfeetmean depth at bankfulldbkffeetbankfull width to depth ratiowbkf/dbkflow bank height feetbank height ratioBHRfloodprone area widthwfpafeetentrenchment ratioERmax pool depth at bankfulldpoolfeetpool depth ratiodpool/dbkfpool width at bankfullwpoolfeetpool width ratiowpool/wbkfBkf pool cross‐sectional area ApoolSFpool area ratioApool/Abkfpool‐pool spacingp‐p feet 6.0 26.0 6.0 26.0 6.0 26.0 9.0 17.0 6.0 20.0 2.5 15.6 11.0 48.0 6.0 29.0 5.0 15.0pool‐pool spacing ratiop‐p/Wbkf0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.3 1.5 0.9 1.7 1.3 4.3 0.5 3.3 1.1 4.8 0.8 3.9 0.7 2.1valley slopeSvalleyfeet/ footchannel slopeSchannelfeet/ footsinuosity KNote: Stream pattern parameters other than sinuosity not reported due to limited channel pattern inherent of stream types (step‐pool morphology) located within steep valleys.  N/A ‐ Channelized stream channel with limited bed form profile variability. Stream profile parameters not reported for Enhancement II reaches. Parameter Notation UnitsEast Buffalo Creek Reach 1UT1 UT2 R2 UT3 R2 UT3 R3B3a B4a E4b A4a B4East Buffalo Creek Reach 3B3/E3bEast Buffalo Creek Reach 2A3/B3a0.77 0.08 0.08 0.1 0.2311 3.9 3.0 2.9 7.40.9417.20.9311.76.4 5.2 5.2 8.9 5.217.5 10.2 4.6 4.8 10.05.421.18.49.31.2 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.90.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 0.71.60.81.81.328 26.5 6.8 8.0 13.61.2 0.7 1.2 1.8 1.825.91.31.87.41.0 1.0 1.4 2.1 1.91.7N/A N/A 2.5 2.437.2 16.8 19.9 6.3 11.42.1 1.7 4.4 1.3 1.11.50.852.61.30.0694 0.0330N/A N/A 2.7 5.3 10.7N/A N/A 1.8 1.41.30.05060.04731.07UT5 R2A4/B4a0.072.94.50.0601 0.0879 0.0840 0.0812 0.0352N/A N/A 4.5 5.3 9.0N/A N/A 1.1 0.9N/A N/A 0.90.0562N/AN/A0.11000.09751.13Existing Conditions Geomorphic ParametersEast Buffalo Creek20.02.7N/AN/AN/AN/A7.30.70.418.30.60.91.07 1.24 1.08 1.171.00.91.061.022.82.42.41.89.81.115.41.072.5N/AN/AN/AN/AN/AN/A0.03810.0360 0.0711 0.0780UT4 R2A4/B40.126.54.07.41.50.98.31.50.05830.03731.564.32.911.81.61.92.18.21.19.6
Description Notation Units min max min max min max min max min max min max min max min maxstream typedrainage areaDA sq mibankfull dischargeQbkfcfsbankfull cross‐sectional areaAbkfSFaverage bankfull velocityvbkffpswidth at bankfullwbkffeetmaximum depth at bankfulldmaxfeetmean depth at bankfulldbkffeetbankfull width to depth ratiowbkf/dbkfdepth ratiodmax/dbkflow bank heightbank height ratioBHRfloodprone area widthwfpafeetentrenchment ratioERsinuosityK1.1 1.2belt widthwbltfeetmeander width ratiowblt/wbkfNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAmeander lengthLmfeetNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAmeander length ratioLm/wbkfNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAradius of curvatureRcfeetNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAradius of curvature ratioRc/ wbkfNA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NA NAvalley slopeSvalleyfeet/ footchannel slopeSchannelfeet/ footriffle slopeSrifflefeet/ foot0.0240 0.2000 0.0810 0.2900 0.0250 0.0730 0.0110 0.1400 0.0500 0.1000riffle slope ratioSriffle/Schannel0.3 2.5 0.8 2.9 0.6 1.8 0.2 2.1 0.7 1.5pool slopeSpoolfeet/ foot0.000 0.170 0.000 0.170 0.000 0.015 0.004 0.061 0.010 0.030pool slope ratioSpool/Schannel0.00 2.09 0.00 1.70 0.00 0.40 0.06 0.90 0.20 0.40pool‐to‐pool spacingLp‐pfeet6 321017143118271119 1121pool spacing ratioLp‐p/wbkf1.5 7.8 1.5 2.5 2.2 4.9 3.0 4.4 1.1 1.9 2.0 3.7maximum pool depth at bankfulldpoolfeetpool depth ratiodpool/dbkfpool width at bankfullwpoolfeetpool width ratiowpool/wbkfpool bankfull cross‐sectional areaApoolSFpool area ratioApool/Abkfd16mmd35mmd50mmd84mmd95mmd99mmNANANANANAReachwide CountCoarse GravelNANANANANA0.0475NANANANANANANANA10.91.32.591.21.19NA0.0490UT to Kelly BranchB4/B4a0.08235.75.97.91.10.750.075.0150.0280.0400.01.06NANANANA1.21.57.11.36.22.0Reachwide CountSmall Cobble0.710.71.61.61.0142.5NA0.19170.1813UT2 to East Buffalo (from prior DMS mitigation project)A3a+0.04163.05.25.60.80.5NANACoarse GravelNANANANA7.01.05.91.3Reachwide Count1.7NA0.08400.0650257.0>2048UT to Hampton CreekA4/B4a0.25314.66.66.81.00.710.01.41.01.012Coarse Gravel0.48.019.0102.36.11.07.11.9Reachwide CountNANANA0.06801.61.71.01.0213.45.06.21.00.610.10.71.71.04.38.81.2279.11.3 1.8 1.61.0 0.7 0.80.6 0.4 0.59.3 12.81.7 2.610.3 7.0 18Reference Reach Geomorphic ParametersIronwood TributaryUT to South Fork Fishing CreekUT to Austin Branch (upstream)UT to Austin Branch (downstream)UT to Gap Branch0.02 0.12 0.12B5a A4/B4a A4/B4a A4/B4a0.044.4193.80.7 0.8 1.25.0 4.1 6.74.9 4.1 7.3 6.22.7 1.8 3.6826276.21.3 1.0 1.00.1418 0.1025 0.1000 0.0480NA NA1.21.25 1 1.2NA NANANA0.1139 0.0815 0.0986 0.0400NA NA 1.7NANANA1.7 1.3NA NA 3.2 2.4 2.5 1.9NA NA 1.3 1.4NA NA 8.8 8.8d50Very Coarse Sand Very Coarse Gravel Very Coarse GravelParticle Size Distribution from Reachwide Count Riffle Count Riffle CountReachwide CountCoarse Sand1.2 59.0 59.0NA NA 2.6NA NA 9.4 9.42.164.0 256.0128 256.024.0 170.0 170.0A5a+0.03130.260.50.911997NA2.10.80.3 42.0 42.00.1 11.0 11.011.0 130.0 130.0
Design Morphologic Parameters - East Buffalo Creek Mitigation Site Notation UnitsTypical Section ValuesMin MaxTypical Section ValuesMin MaxTypical Section ValuesMin MaxTypical Section ValuesMin MaxTypical Section ValuesMin MaxTypical Section ValuesMin Maxstream typedrainage area DA sq midesign dischargeQ cfs 92 16 22 36 24 13bankfull cross‐sectional areaAbkfSF 14.63.54.57.65.22.7average velocity during bankfull eventvbkffps 6.44.64.84.84.75.0width at bankfullwbkffeet 15.07.08.011.08.55.8maximum depth at bankfulldmaxfeet1.31.80.71.00.70 1.100.90 1.300.8 1.20.7 0.9mean depth at bankfulldbkffeet 1.00.50.60.70.60.5maximum depth ratiodmax/davg1.31.9 1.61.61.51.61.7bankfull width to depth ratiowbkf/dbkf15.514.014.016.014.012.0low bank heightfeet 1.70.800.961.050.960.85bank height ratioBHR1.01.01.01.01.01.0floodprone area widthwfpafeet21.0 36.010.0 17.011.0 19.018.0 33.011.920.08.0 15.0entrenchment ratioER1.42.41.42.41.4 2.41.6 3.01.42.41.4 2.6valley slopeSvalleyfeet/ footchannel slopeSchnlfeet/ footriffle slopeSrifflefeet/ foot0.029 0.1080.045 0.1660.044 0.1790.021 0.0630.030 0.1090.070 0.207riffle slope ratioSriffle/Schnl0.62.20.62.20.6 2.20.6 1.80.6 2.20.8 2pool slopeSpfeet/ foot0.000 0.0200.000 0.0310.000 0.0330.000 0.0140.0020 0.01260.005 0.176pool slope ratioSp/Schnl0.00.40.00.40.0 0.40.0 0.40.0 0.40.1 1.7pool‐to‐pool spacingLp‐pfeet12426206 2213 339 249 25pool spacing ratioLp‐p/wbkf0.82.80.82.80.8 2.81.2 31.0 2.81.5 4.3pool cross‐sectional areaSF18.9 40.74.69.96.3 13.59.9 21.2 16.7 6.7 14.53.8 7.1pool area ratio1.32.81.32.81.4 3.01.3 2.8 1.9 1.3 2.81.4 2.6maximum pool depthfeet1.93.51.02.01.1 2.31.4 2.8 2.2 1.2 2.41.0 1.5pool depth ratio2.03.62.04.02.0 4.02.0 4.0 2.6 2.0 4.02.2 3.2pool width at bankfullfeet18.0 25.58.4 11.99.6 14.413.2 18.7 15.2 10.2 14.55.2 7.5pool width ratio1.21.71.21.71.2 1.81.2 1.7 1.5 1.2 1.70.9 1.3sinuosityKNote: Stream pattern parameters other than sinuosity not reported due to limited channel pattern inherent of stream types (step‐pool morphology) located within steep valleys.  Pattern1.041.021.171.061.051.200.0490.07550.06940.0350.04970.0975Slope.0504.0770.0812.0371.0583.1140Cross‐Section0.930.080.100.230.120.07B3aB4aB4aB4B4aB4aEast Buffalo Reach 2UT2 Reach 2UT3 Reach 2UT3 Reach 3UT4 Reach2UT5 Reach 2
East Buffalo
Creek Reach 2
(US of UT5 in
field)
UT2 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 2 UT3 Reach 3 UT4 Reach 2 UT5
DA (acres)596 51 64 150 78 47
DA (sq. mi.)0.93 0.08 0.10 0.23 0.12 0.07
Qbkf (cfs) Qbkf (cfs) Qbkf (cfs) Qbkf (cfs) Qbkf (cfs)
1-yr event 2234843
1.2-yr event 69 12 14 26 16 11
1.5-yr event 99 18 21 38 24 17
1.8-yr event 121 22 26 47 30 21
2-yr event 132 24 28 51 32 23
5-yr 252 44 52 93 59 40
10-yr 347 61 71 128 81 55
XS1
XS2
XS3
XS4 89
XS5
XS6 26
XS7
XS8 39
XS9
XS10*13
XS11*16
XS12*
XS13*26
XS14*
XS15
XS16
XS17
XS18
XS19
XS20
exact calc 95 15 17 33 20 14
Alan Walker Curve exact calc 53 8 9 18 11 7
Max Q - Determined from
Manning's Equation at Surveyed
TOB
204
Qbkf from Reference Reach
Curve 77 20 23 36 25 19
89 16 26 39 26 13
TN Ref Reach Blue Ridge Curve 87 13 15 30 18 12
Rural Piedmont Curve 84 14 17 31 20
Weighted Design Q 84 17 21 35 23 15
Final Design Q 92 16 22 36 24 13
Mountain Regional Curve
Wildlands Tool -USGS Peak
Discharge Estimation for NC
Rural Piedmont
Manning's Equation at Surveyed
Riffle XS from Mecklenburg
Spreadsheets
Mountainy = 100.64x0.7615R² = 0.8769Alan Walkery = 55.699x0.7855R² = 0.9931Site Reference Reachesy = 81.791x0.5081R² = 0.9749TN Blue Ridgey = 91.78x0.774R² = 0.92411101001000100000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000Discharge (cfs)Drainage Area (square miles)East Buffalo Creek Design Discharge PlotMountain DataAlan Walker CurveSelect Reference Reaches for CurveDesign DischargesSurveyed Project Reaches (Manning's Eqn.)TN Reference Reach Regional Curve Summary Data for Blue Ridge EcoregionPower (Mountain Data)Power (Alan Walker Curve)Power (Select Reference Reaches for Curve)Power (TN Reference Reach Regional Curve Summary Data for Blue Ridge Ecoregion)Appendix 6 Discharge AnalysisEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Little Tennessee 06010204Graham County, NC
Standard Invasive Vegetation Treatment Techniques 
Invasive Vegetation 
Species  Standard Removal Techniques 
Honeysuckle 
(Lonicera japonica) 
Small infestations of L. japonica can be pulled by hand. Monitor to remove any re‐
sprouts. Care should be taken to bag and remove the plants, including mature fruits 
to prevent re‐establishment. Large infestations of L. japonica will usually require a 
combination of cut stump and foliar herbicide treatments. Where vines have grown 
into the tree canopy, cut each stem as close to the ground as possible. Treat the 
freshly cut surface of the rooted stem with a 25 percent solution of glyphosate or 
triclopyr. Remove the twining vines to prevent them from girdling and killing desirable 
vegetation. Groundcovers of L. japonica can be treated with a foliar solution of 2 
percent glyphosate or triclopyr plus a 0.5 percent non‐ionic surfactant to thoroughly 
wet all the leaves. 
Chinese Privet 
(Ligustrum 
sinense) 
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a 
surfactant: a glyphosate herbicide as a 3‐percent solution (12 ounces per 3‐gallon 
mix) in the late fall or early winter when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, 
or elsewhere, Arsenal AC* as a 1‐percent solution (4 ounces per 3‐gallon mix). 
Backpack mist blowers can broadcast glyphosate as a 3‐percent solution (12 ounces 
per 3‐gallon mix) or Escort XP* at 1 ounce per acre (0.2 dry ounces per 3‐gallon mix 
and 10 gallons per acre) during winter for safety to dormant hardwoods. Summer 
applications of glyphosate may not be as effective as other times and require a higher 
percent solution. The best time for Arsenal AC* and Escort XP* is summer to fall. For 
stems too tall for foliar sprays and when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, 
apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20‐percent solution (5 pints per 3‐gallon mix) in a 
labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or fuel oil or 
diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply Stalker* as 
a 6‐ to 9‐percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 3‐gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil 
product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or fuel oil or diesel fuel (where 
permitted) to young bark as a basal spray making certain to treat all stems in a clump; 
or cut and immediately treat the stump tops with Arsenal AC* as a 5‐percent solution 
(20 ounces per 3‐gallon mix) or Velpar L* as a 10‐percent solution in water (1 quart 
per 3‐gallon mix) with a surfactant. When safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, 
immediately treat stump tops and sides with Garlon 3A or with a glyphosate herbicide 
as a 20‐percent solution (5 pints per 3‐gallon mix) in water with a surfactant. ORTHO 
Brush‐B‐Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for treating cut‐stumps 
and available in retail garden stores (safe to surrounding plants). For large stems, 
make stem injections using Arsenal AC* or when safety to surrounding vegetation is 
desired, Garlon 3A or a glyphosate herbicide using dilutions and cut‐spacings specified 
on the herbicide label (anytime except March and April). An EZ‐Ject tree injector can 
help to reach the lower part of the main stem; otherwise, every branching trunk must 
be hack‐and‐squirt injected. 
English Ivy (Hedera 
helix) 
Use string trimmer to expose waxy cell walls to herbicide. Thoroughly wet all leaves 
with 3‐5% solution of Garlon 3A or Garlon 4 with non‐ionic surfactant immediately 
after using string trimmer. Cut and treat vines where growing into canopy.  
Invasive Vegetation 
Species  Standard Removal Techniques 
Mimosa 
(Albizia julibrissin) 
Trees: Make stem injections using Arsenal AC* or when safety to surrounding 
vegetation is desired, Garlon 3A or Milestone in dilutions as specified on the herbicide 
label (anytime except March and April). For felled trees, apply the herbicides to stump 
tops immediately after cutting. ORTHO Brush‐B‐Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are 
effective undiluted for treating cut‐stumps and available in retail garden stores (safe 
to surrounding plants). 
Saplings: Apply a basal spray to young bark using Garlon 4 as a 20‐percent solution (5 
pints per 3‐gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a 
penetrant, or fuel oil or diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted 
Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply Stalker* as a 6‐ to 9‐percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 
3‐gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil, kerosene, or diesel fuel 
(where permitted). 
Resprouts and seedlings: Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following 
herbicides in water with a surfactant: 
From June to August, either Escort XP at 1 ounce per acre (0.2 ounces per 3‐gallon 
mix) plus a glyphosate herbicide as a 2‐percent solution addition (8 ounces per 3‐
gallon mix) or Milestone VM Plus at 6 to 9 pints per acre (1.5 to 3 pints per 3‐gallon 
mix and 10 gallons per acre). 
From July to September, Transline* † or Milestone as a 0.25‐percent solution plus 
Garlon 3A as a 4‐percent solution (1 ounce plus 5 ounces per 3‐gallon mix). 
Princess Tree 
(Paulownia 
tomentosa) 
Foliar Spray Method: This method should be considered for large thickets of 
paulownia seedlings where risk to non‐target species is minimal. Air temperature 
should be above 65°F to ensure absorption of herbicides. 
Glyphosate: Apply a 2% solution of glyphosate and water plus a 0.5% non‐ionic 
surfactant to thoroughly wet all leaves. Use a low pressure and coarse spray pattern 
to reduce spray drift damage to non‐target species. Glyphosate is a non‐selective 
systemic herbicide that may kill non‐target partially‐sprayed plants. 
Triclopyr: Apply a 2% solution of triclopyr and water plus a 0.5% non‐ionic sur‐factant 
to thoroughly wet all leaves. Use a low pressure and coarse spray pattern to reduce 
spray drift damage to non‐target species. Triclopyr is a selective herbicide for 
broadleaf species. In areas where desirable grasses are growing under or around 
paulownia, triclopyr can be used without non‐target damage. 
Cut Stump Method: This control method should be considered when treating 
individual trees or where the presence of desirable species precludes foliar 
application. Stump treatments can be used if the ground is not frozen. 
Glyphosate: Horizontally cut stems at or near ground level. Immediately apply a 25% 
solution of glyphosate and water to the cut stump making sure to cover the outer 
50% of the stump. 
Triclopyr: Horizontally cut stems at or near ground level. Immediately apply a 50% 
solution of triclopyr and water to the cut stump making sure to cover the outer 20% 
of the stump. 
https://www.se‐eppc.org/manual/princess.html 
Invasive Vegetation 
Species  Standard Removal Techniques 
Multiflora Rose 
(Rosa polyantha) 
Apply foliar spray of 4% glyphosate solution to completely wet all foliage. For larger 
stands basal spray with Garlon 3A or Garlon 4 with penetrant oil. Machinery is useful 
in removing large areas.  

APPENDIX 7
Photograph Log

East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 1

East Buffalo Creek Reach 1 East Buffalo Reach 2 

East Buffalo Reach 3 UT1 

UT2 Reach 1 UT2 Reach 2 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 2

UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 2 

UT3 Reach 3 UT4a 

UT4b UT4 Reach 1 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 3

UT4 Reach 2 UT5 Reach 1 

UT6 UT7 

Wetland A Wetland B 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 4

Wetland C Wetland D – Photo 1 

Wetland D – Photo 2 Wetland E 

Wetland F Wetland G 
East Buffalo Mitigation Site – Representative Site Photos (Little Tennessee 06010204) Page 5

Wetland H Wetland I 

Wetland J  

APPENDIX 8
Financial Assurance Letter from UP2Save

dodoop signature verification: di Ip.u=IMAI-ioGh-cliou
sir•
Unique Places
To Save
March 24I 2020
Andrea Eckardt
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Dear Ms. Eckardt,
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not -for -profit organization located in the
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term
steward for the East Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project ("Site") located in Graham County, North Carolina. The
Site consists of an approximate 259.84-acre conservation easement area. As the conservation easement
grantee and long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are enforced and maintained Into perpetuity.
Specific responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage and fencing (if applicable) for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are addressed following
protocols contained in the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy.
UP2S shall
receive a
stewardship endowment
and
administrative fee from Wildlands
Engineering, Inc
("Wildlands°),
the Site
sponsor, to ensure annual
Site
inspections occur and the terms of
the conservation
easement are legally defended Into perpetuity. UP2S
funds from either performance/monitoring bonds c
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project.
�.�'�� siae%otzo9 Prn eor
PNHOVGBGHPD-YIUS
Jeff Fisher, Board Chair
Unique Places To Save
also agrees to act as the responsible party that accepts
casualty Insurance to successfully complete the East
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
y4w.f% I*
f�7i'ri%�HF7i�i-
3 Zy Z�
Date
PO Box 1183 •Chapel Hill, NC 27514 . 919-428-2040 infona uniqueplacestosave.orc

APPENDIX 9
Preliminary Plans
SITE
N
Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Little Tennessee River Basin 06010204
Graham County, North Carolina
Title Sheet 0.1
Project Overview 0.2
Project Valley Overview 0.2.1
Wetland Crediting 0.2.2
General Notes and Symbols 0.3
Typical Sections 1.1-1.8
Stream Plan and Profile Sheets
East Buffalo 2.1.1-2.1.4
UT1 2.2.1
UT2 2.3.1-2.3.2
UT3 2.4.1-2.4.4
UT4 2.5.1
UT5 2.6.1
Planting Plan 3.0-3.3
Invasives Treatment Plan 3.4
Erosion and Sediment Control Reserved
Additional Grading 5.0-5.3
Details 6.1-6.9
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG!
IT'S THE LAW!
CALL 1-800-632-4949N.C. ONE-CALL CENTER
Sheet Index
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No. F-0831
167-B Haywood Rd.
Asheville, NC 28806
Jake McLean, PE
828-774-5547
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE F
OR
CO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
PRELIMINARY PLANS
ISSUED MARCH 25, 2020
WITH DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Cover Notes.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaTitle Sheet005-45020HBENJM0.1March 25, 2020Surveying:
Brad Kee
Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA
P.O. Box 2566
Asheville, NC 28801
828-575-9021
Bank Sponsor:
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC
USACE Project Manager
Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801
(828) 271- 7980
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
NCDWR No. XXX-XXXX
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831
P
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NOTUS
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'250'500'750'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
0.2
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Project Overview RAMLONGHORN, LLCPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0043DB: 374 PG: 420PC: DB PG: 1000RAMLONGHORN, LLCPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0043DB: 374 PG: 420PC: DB PG: 1001RICHARD WAYNE PENNINGTON, JR.& WIFE, CYNTHIA PENNINGTONPOTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0042DB: 240 PG: 770CARL D. LEE &WIFE, JOAN, B. LEEPIN: 5662-00-09-0024DB: 260 PG: 609PG: 5 PG: 980RICHARD PENNINGTON AND WIFE,MARGARET PENNINGTONPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0042DB: 128 PG: 799REF: DB: 126 PG: 713REF: DB: 117 PG: 746HUGH DARRELL ORR ANDWIFE, PATRICIA ORRPIN:5662-00-09-0028DB:72 PG: 553JESSE LOVELACE ANDWIFE, KRISTAN LOVELACEPORTION OF PIN: 5671-01-00-0022DB:348 PG: 844(TRACT 2 MYERS INDIVIDUAL DEED)U.S.F.S. TRACT N 723cPB: 4 PG: 608U.S.F.S. TRACT 1091aPB: 4 PG: 608JESSE LOVELACE ANDWIFE, KRISTAN LOVELACE PORTION OF PIN: 5671-01-00-0022DB: 348 PG: 844(TRACT 2 MYERS TRUST DEED)U.S.F.S. TRACT N 1091aDB: 42 PG: 247REF: DB: 83 PG: 94U.S.F.S. TRACT N 752oJAMES DARRELL COLLINS, SR.AND WIFE, ROMA GAIL COLLINSPIN: 5662-00-09-0033 PORTION OF DB: 214 PG: 363BO COLLINS AND WIFE,HELEN M. COLLINSPIN: 5662-00-09-0033DB: 367 PG: 550RICHARD PENNINGTON ANDWIFE, MARGARET PENNINGTONPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0042DB: 128 PG: 799REF: DB: 126 PG: 713BONNIE GERRYRICHARD SCHLEYROBERT G. CUSHMAN (LE)HARRIETTE C. CUSHMAN (LE)PIN: 5662-00-04-0006DB: 352 PG: 603PB: 5 PG: 980BRITTANY DANIELLECARPENTERPIN: 5662-00-07-0020DB: 345 PG: 163WILLIAM L. PRITCHETT JR.VALERIE N.PRITCHETTPIN: 5662-00-07-0011DB: 141 PG: 579PB: 4 PG: 29LOTS 11 & 18SUSAN INMANWILLIAM H. HOUNSHELLAND WIFE, CAROLYNHOUNSHELLPIN: 5662-00-07-004ADB: 330 PG: 487PB: DB PG: 2023PB: 4 PG: 29LOTS 4 & 19ARTHUR GREER ANDWIFE, SUSAN GREERPIN: 5662-00-07-0001DB: 315 PG: 588PB: 4 PG: 29LOT 1KLAUS HANNU MELARTI ANDWIFE, MARITA ULRIKA MELARTIPIN: 5662-00-04-0001DB: 246 PG: 605PB: 4 PG: 241REF: DB:83 PG: 640EASEMENT EXCLUSIONAREA #214.9 ACRESLOT 2SEE TABLE 1LOT 3SEE TABLE 1TABLE 1. ADDITIONAL LANDOWNER INFORMATIONLOT 2LARRY D. MURRELL ANDWIFE, JEANEEN R. MURRELLPIN: 5662-00-07-0002DB: 259 PG: 157PB: 4 PG: 29LOT 2LOT 3STEPHEN D. POLACHEK ANDWIFE, DEBORAH L. POLACHEKPIN: 5662-00-07-0003DB: 328 PG: 687PB: 5 PG: 351 LOT 3REF: PB: 4 PG: 29CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
CECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CEC
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E CECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEEXISTING LOWER DIRTROAD TO BE ABANDONEDAND CROSSINGS REMOVEDEXISTING UPPER DIRT ROADTO BE NATURALIZEDEXISTING LOWERDIRT ROADUT3UT1UT2UT4UT4AUT4UT6UT7UT5EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT3UT2EAST BUFFALO ROADUT4BHISTORIC FIELD/ROADOVERBURDENTO BEREMOVEDBURIEDHYDRICSOILSEASEMENT EXCLUSION AREA #12.0 ACRES (THROUGH RECOMBINATION)
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION0'80'120'200'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
0.2.1
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Project Valley OverviewUT3 UT1UT4AUT4UT6UT7
UT
5
UT3UT2EASEMENT EXCLUSIONAREA #214.9 ACRESEAST BUFFALO ROADSHEET 5.2SHEET 5.1SHEET 2.2.1SHEET 2.4.1SHEET 2.3.1SHEET 2.4.2SHEET 2.4.3SHEET 2.4.4SHEET 2.1.4SHEET 2.1.3SHEET 2.3.2SHEET 2.1.1SHEET 2.1.2SHEET 2.6.1SHEET 2.5.1OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESTATION 318+86END UT2 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT2 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT ISTA. 422+25END UT3 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 2 - RESTORATIONNO STREAMWORK ON UT4BSTA. 1003+66EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 2003+96END UT1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1000+00BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 -ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1005+74END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA. 1013+57END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2BEGIN REACH 3 - ENHANCMENT IISTA 6002+48END UT5 REACH 2STA 1017+06END EAST BUFFALO CREEKREACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 4032+03END UT3 REACH 2BEGIN UT3 REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT ISTA. 5032+37END UT4 REACH 2STA 1014+30END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2BEGIN EAST BUFFALO REEK REACH 3 -ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1008+37 CONTINUE EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH2STA 3025+32END UT2 REACH 25000+65END UT4 REACH 1 -PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT4 REACH 2 -ENHANCEMENT ISTA 6000+00END UT5 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT5 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IIPROPOSED POWERLINE RELOCATION,ABANDON OLD LINEAND EASEMENTEXISTING POWERLINE TO BERELOCATED AS SHOWNEAST BUFFA
LO
CREEKFEMA CROSSSECTIONS (TYP)
OHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEEXISTING STREAMALIGNMENT, HARVESTBED MATERIAL FORREUSE, THEN FILLPROPOSED STREAMALIGNMENTDISTURBANCE TO BE MINIMIZEDDURING CONSTRUCTION OF UT3EAST BUFFALO ROADUT3UT2EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT
5UT4
ABCDDDDEFHGIJUT4AKGRADE OUT HISTORIC ROAD BED ANDCROWNED FIELD TO RELIC HYDRIC SOILS,FINAL GRADING TO BE DETERMINED BASEDON LICENSED SOIL SCIENTIST EVALUATIONOF OVERBURDEN DEPTHS AND HYDRIC SOILSPLUG AND REMOVEFIELD LOCATEDDRAIN TILE OUTLETPLANT EXISTING WETLANDS PERPLANTING PLAN SHEETS ASPRIMARY ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITY(TYP)0+001+00
1+69
0+001+002+002+540+001+002+002+54XS 2XS 1PROPOSED LOCATION OFRELOCATED UTILITY LINEREMOVE CLAYDRAIN TILE TOUPGRADIENTPROPERTY LIMITSEXCLUSION PARCEL VIA RECOMBINATION20702075208020852090207020752080208520900+000+501+001+502+002+50HISTORIC FIELD/ROADOVERBURDENTO BEREMOVEDBURIEDHYDRICSOILSMAINSTEM20552060206520702075205520602065207020750+000+501+001+501+70HISTORIC FIELD/ROADOVERBURDENTO BEREMOVEDBURIEDHYDRICSOILSMAINSTEMRESTOREDTOADJACENTVALLEYLOW POINTDITCHEDMAINSTEM0'50'100'150'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\Shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg March 26, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
0.2.2
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Wetland Crediting
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NO
TUS
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION WETLAND RESOURCESNAMEEXISTING WETLAND ACREAGERESTORED ACREAGEAPPROACHWetland A0.07N/AN/A1Wetland B0.03N/AN/A1Wetland C0.01N/AN/A1Wetland D1.28 (TOTAL)0.41EnhancementWetland D1.28 (TOTAL)0.66RehabilitationWetland E0.230.23EnhancementWetland F0.040.04EnhancementWetland G0.01N/AN/AWetland H0.01N/AN/AWetland I0.020.01EnhancementWetland J0.050.05EnhancementRelic Wetland K0.001.06ReestablishmentTotal1.752.47Wetland Re-establishment Cross SectionsRE-ESTABLISHMENT (1:1)REHABILITATION (1.5:1)ENHANCEMENT (3:1)XS 2XS 1WETLANDS A, B, C ARE CONSISTENT WITH OLD STREAMBED AND ARE NOT BEING SOUGHT FOR WETLAND CREDIT1PROPOSED GROUNDWATER GAUGECREDITSPROPOSED RATION/A3:11.5:13:13:13:13:11:10.000.000.000.1350.4420.0780.015N/AN/A0.0050.0171.0571.748N/AN/AN/AN/AGAGES WILL BE INSTALLED AT INDICATEDLOCATIONS IN MARCH 2020 TO RECORDWETLAND HYDROLOGY DURINGGROWING SEASONMITIGATION PLAN NOTE:
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Cover Notes.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaGeneral Notes and Symbols005-45020HBENJM0.3March 25, 2020Existing Thalweg
Existing Property Line
Existing Major Contour
Existing Minor Contour
Existing Overhead Utility
Existing Overhead Utility Easement
Existing Power Pole
Existing Fence
Existing Storm Pipe
Existing Soil Road
Existing Wetland
Existing Tree
Existing Bedrock
Existing Building
Existing Treeline
Survey Control Point
Existing NCDOT Right of Way
Existing Top Of Bank
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Thalweg Alignment
Proposed Bankfull
Proposed Major Contour
Proposed Minor Contour
Proposed Safety Fence
Proposed Silt Fence
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
Proposed LOD Exclusion
Easement Exclusion Area
Mapped FEMA Cross Section
Proposed Overhead Utility
Proposed Overhead Utility Easement
Proposed Power Pole
Proposed Fence
Proposed Log J-Hook
See Detail 4, Sheet 6.4
Proposed Log Vane
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.4
10+00
OUE OUE
100
100
PROJECT NOTES:
Topographic survey was completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA in July 2019.
Parcel boundary survey completed by Kee Mapping and Surveying, PA in October 2019.
Topographic data supplemented with Lidar data from Feb - April 2017.
Riffle selection will be varied based on available materials at the Engineers' discretion. Field
coordination will be required.XXExisting Features Proposed Features
Proposed Various Constructed
Riffles Per Plans
See Sheet 6.4
Proposed Brush Toe
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 1
Proposed Bank Grading and
Invasive Treatment
See Plans for Additional Notes
Proposed Floodplain Roughening
Proposed Vegetated Stone Toe
Protection
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 4
Proposed Structures
SAF SAF
[x][x]
CE CE CE
LOD LOD
Construction Sequence:
The anticipated construction sequence is listed below.
Initial Site Preparation
1.Contact North Carolina “One Call” Center (1.800.632.4949) before any excavation.
2.Contact Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources (252-946-6481) before any work begins on the project and notify them of the start date.
3.Mobilize equipment and materials to the site.
4.Identify and establish construction entrance, staging and stockpile areas, haul roads, silt fence, tree protection fencing, safety fencing, and temporary stream crossings as indicated on the
plans for work areas.
5.All haul roads shall be monitored for sediment loss daily. In the event of sediment loss, silt fence or other acceptable sediment and erosion control practices, such as straw wattles, shall be
installed.
6.Set up temporary facilities, locate equipment within the staging area, and stockpile materials needed for the initial stages of construction within the stockpile area(s).
7.Install and maintain an onsite rain gauge and log book to record the rainfall amounts and dates. Complete the self-inspection as required by NCDEQ permit.
Stream Construction
8.Perform any necessary clearing and grubbing in phases as work progresses. Bank vegetation and vegetation immediately adjacent to live channels shall be left undisturbed as long as possible.
On a reach by reach basis, remove all non-native and invasive vegetation within limits of grading prior to beginning the channel construction for the reach.
9.Construction of all channels are to be done in the dry. Construction should generally progress from upstream to downstream to prevent sediment runoff from upstream construction affecting
completed downstream reaches. Use a pump around as shown on the plans and discussed in the Erosion Control Notes. Existing channels or ditches or diversion may also be used to route
stream flow in lieu of pump-around.
10.Construction of all channels are to be done in the dry. Construction should generally progress from upstream to downstream to prevent upstream construction affecting completed
downstream reaches. Use a pump around as shown on the plans and discussed in the General Notes.
11.Where feasible, more than one offline section may be constructed concurrently. Offline sections shall be tied online sequentially from downstream to upstream.
12.As work progresses, remove and stockpile the top three inches of soil from the active grading area. Stockpiled topsoil shall be kept separate for onsite replacement prior to floodplain seeding.
13.Construct the proposed stream channel to the grade specified in the cross-sections and profile.
14.Grade the adjacent floodplain area according to grades shown on the plan.
15.Various types of constructed riffles are specified on the plans. Contractor shall build the specific types of constructed riffles at locations shown on the plans. Changes in constructed riffle type
must be approved by the Designer.
16.Install in-stream structures (riffles, angled log sill, log sill with root wad, double log drops,and in-bank bioengineering such as brush toe and sod mats) after channel grading is completed
according to details and specifications. Sod mats should be used in lieu of coir fiber matting, where available, to stabilize all stream banks on site as the preferential stabilization method. Coir
fiber matting may be used where sod mats are not available or if coir fiber matting is preferred at the discretion of the Designer.
17.Seed (with specified temporary and permanent seed mix) and straw mulch areas where the coir fiber matting is to be installed.
18.Install coir fiber matting according to plans and specifications.
19.Backfill abandoned channel sections with stockpiled soil according to the grades shown on the plans. Non-native and invasive vegetation (e.g. Chinese privet) shall be removed from the
existing channel prior to backfilling.
20.Prepare floodplain for seeding by applying stockpiled topsoil to any areas of floodplain that have been cut below the topsoil horizon between bankfull (top of bank) and the top of terrace or
grading limits, ripping, and raking/smoothing. Seed with specified temporary and permanent seed mix and mulch. Any areas within the conservation easement that have not been graded
shall be treated according to the planting plan.
21.If at any time circumstances should arise where water has been turned into the new channel and additional work must be done on the floodplain, erosion control devices will be installed to
protect the new channel from sedimentation.
22.Once all phases of channel and floodplain construction are complete, prepare the floodplain areas for planting per the specifications.
Construction Sequence (continued):
Construction Demobilization
25. Remove temporary stream crossings.
24. Install livestakes and herbaceous plugs along the stream banks according to the plans and specifications or as directed by designer.
25. The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site.
26. Complete the removal of any additional stockpiled material from the site.
27. Demobilize grading equipment from the site.
28. All rock and other stockpiled materials must be removed from the limits of disturbance and conservation easement. All areas outside the
conservation easement shall be returned to pre-project conditions or better.
29. Seed, mulch, and stabilize staging areas, stockpile areas, haul roads, and construction entrances. Pasture seed mix is to be applied to areas of
disturbance outside of the conservation easement.
Proposed Rock Step
Proposed Log Step
Proposed Cascading
Riffle-Pool Sequence
Proposed Pipe Outlet
Protection
Proposed Rock Slide
Proposed Rock Drop
Proposed Tree Removal
Proposed Lunker Log
Proposed Vernal Pool
OU OU OU
OUE OUE
SAFSAFProposed Tree SaveXXXOUOUOU
Proposed Rock Cascade
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.1March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaEast Buffalo Creek Reach 2Typical SectionsEast Buffalo Creek Reach 2 - Riffle
STA 1005+50 - 1013+92
East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 - Pool
STA 1005+50 - 1013+92
2.5:
1

(
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
2.5:1 (
V
A
RI
E
S)
9.75'
20'
0.5'
9.75'
3.5'
(VARIES 2.5-4.5')
VARIES4.5'VARIES 4.5'
6:1
3:1
6:1
3:1
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
3.5:1 3.5:1
4.5'
15'
6'4.5'VARIES6'VARIES 6'
6:1
3:1
6:1
3:1
1.3'1.6'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.2March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaEast Buffalo Creek Reach 3Typical SectionsEast Buffalo Creek Reach 3 - Riffle
STA 1013+92 - 1017+16
East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 - Pool
Minimal profile work is proposed. At
installed channel narrowing structures,
Contractor shall adapt Reach 2 typical as
directed by Engineer.
4.5'
15'
6'4.5'
VARIESVARIES
6'
3:1
1.3'1.6'3.5:1
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
REMOVE LEVY AND/OR REMOVE
INVASIVES AND RESLOPE BANK
WHERE NECESSARY TO PHYSICALLY REMOVE
PRIVET FROM BANKS OR GRADE BANKS FOR
STABILITY, USE TYPICAL DIMENSIONS AND
BENCHING SLOPES AND APPLY MATTING.
ADAPT AS NECESSARY TO SAVE DESIRABLE
VEGETATION.
IN OVERWIDE CHANNEL SEGMENTS THAT ARE
IMPACTING HABITAT OR STABILITY, APPLY
STREAM STRUCTURES AND NARROW CHANNEL
BY BACKFILLING VANE ARM WITH COBBLENOTE: APPLY SLOPES AND WIDTHS FROM TYPICAL SECTION
PROVIDED IN APPROXIMATE TERMS WHEN REMOVING PRIVET,
GRADING OUT EXISTING LEVY ON CREEK, OR INSTALLING
STRUCTURES TO NARROW BASE FLOW CHANNEL.
4 TO 6:1 (
A
L
L

B
E
N
C
H
I
N
G
)
6'
REFER TO GRADING PLAN -
SHAPE VALLEY PER PROPOSED CONTOURS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.3March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT2 Reach 2Typical SectionsUT 2 Reach 2 - Riffle
STA 3003+95 - 3007+33
UT2 Reach 2 - Pool
STA 3003+80 - 3007+42
2.2
5
:
1

(
V
A
R
I
E
S
)
2.25:1
(
V
A
RI
E
S)
2.0'
(VARIES 1.0'-2.0')
9'
4.5'
3'
6:1 6:1
3'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
3:1 3:1
VARIESMIN 2' (OR 0.66' VERT.)
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
3:1±3:1±
2.25'
7'
2.5'2.25'
0.7'0.8'
4'
6:1
3:1
4'
6:1
3:1
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
VARIESMIN 2' (OR 0.66' VERT.)
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.4March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 2ATypical SectionsUT 3 Reach 2A - Riffle
STA: 4000+52 - 4004+53
UT 3 Reach 2A - Pool
STA: 4000+52 - 4004+53
2.2
5
:
1
2.25:1
10'
5'
2.0'
(VARIES 1.1'-2.3')
6:1
3:1
VARIES
3:1
6:1
3'VARIES
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
3'
3:1 3:1
0.7'
6:1
3:13:1
6:1
2.1'
8'
1.9'1.9'2.1'
0.9'
4'VARIES4'VARIES
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
VARIES
3:1
REFER TO GRADING PLAN -
SHAPE VALLEY PER PROPOSED CONTOURS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.5March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 2BTypical SectionsUT 3 Reach 2B - Riffle
STA: 4004+53 - 4010+46
UT 3 Reach 2B - Pool
STA: 4004+53 - 4010+46
2.5:
1
10'
5'
2.0'
(VARIES 1.0' - 2.0')
1.2'VARIES1.2'VARIES
0.3'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
2:1
2:1
2.5:1
3:13:1
2.5:
1
2.5:1
0.5'
2:1
2:1
1.5'
10'
3.5'3.5'1.5'
0.7'
1.2'VARIES1.2'VARIES
0.9'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
EXISTING GROUND
REFER TO GRADING PLAN -
SHAPE VALLEY PER PROPOSED CONTOURS
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.6March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 3Typical SectionsUT 3 Reach 3 - Riffle
STA: 4010+46 - 4014+26
UT 3 Reach 3 - Pool
STA: 4010+46 - 4014+26
2.5:
1 2.5:1
6.25'
13'
0.5'6.25'
2.5'
VARIES 2' - 4'
3'VARIES3'VARIES
6:1
3:1
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
3:1
6:1
1.26'
REFER TO GRADING PLAN -
SHAPE 3' WIDE BERM PER PROPOSED CONTOURS
2:1
3:1
+
/
-
3:1 +/
-
2.3'
11'
3.2'3.2'2.3'
1'0.8'
6:1
3:1
3:1
6:1
4'VARIES4'VARIES
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.7March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT4 Reach 2Typical SectionsUT 4 Reach 2 - Riffle
STA: 5000+52 - 5002+29
UT 4 Reach 2 - Pool
STA: 5000+52 - 5002+29
2.5:1
4.6'
12'
4.6'2.8'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
2.2'
VARIES 2.0' - 4.0'
2.25'MIN 1.5' (OR 0.5' VERT.)
6:1
3:1
(VARIE
S
)
3:1
6:1
2.25'VARIES
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
3:1 +
/
-3:1 +/
-
2.5'
8.5'
2.5'
0.8'
3.5'
PROPOSED STREAM
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
1'
4'
6:1
3:1
6:1
4'VARIES MIN 1.5' (OR 0.5' VERT.)
3:1
(VARIE
S
)
FILL EXISTING CHANNEL
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
005-45020HBENJM1.8March 25, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT5 Reach 2Typical SectionsUT 5 Reach 2 - Riffle
STA: 6000+67 - 6002+48
UT 5 Reach 2 - Pool
STA: 6000+65 - 6002+48
3.5'
8'
1'3.5'
1.16'
REMOVE PRIVET AND GRADE SLOPEAPPLY MATTING OR SOD
MAT WHEN AVAILABLE
PLACE STONY MATERIAL
HARVESTED FROM
EXISTING BED
TREAT OR REMOVE
INVASIVES AS DIRECTED
APPLY SAME NOTE AS ABOVE
WITH REFERENCE TO TYPICAL
AND EXISTING BED GRADING
APPLY MATTING OR OVEREXCAVATE
AND PLACE SOD MAT
4 TO 6:1 (
A
L
L

B
E
N
C
H
I
N
G
)
EXISTING GROUND
TRENCH IN MATTING
WHERE USED
3:1 3:1
3:1 3:1
2.4'
5.8'
1'2.4'
0.8'
REMOVE PRIVET
AND RESLOPE
APPLY SOD MAT, OR APPLY SOIL IN LIGHTLY
COMPACTED 12" LIFTS AND WRAP OVER
ONE ROLL OF COIR MATTING
TRENCH IN MATTING
WHERE USED
PLACE STONY MATERIAL
HARVESTED FROM
EXISTING BED (TYP)
TREAT OR PHYSICALLY
REMOVE INVASIVES AS
DIRECTED
TYPICAL SECTION, DO NOT BUILD TO EXACT DIMENSIONS BUT INSTEAD ACHIEVE
APPROXIMATE DIMENSIONS BY FITTING STONE AND MATTED SOIL LIFTS TO
EXISTING CHANNEL SHAPE AND MAINTAINING BED STRUCTURE (PROFILE)
MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO EXISTING STREAM BED BUT MOVE AROUND MATERIAL AS
NECESSARY TO CREATE DESIRED LOW FLOW CHANNEL ~1' IN WIDTH
APPLY SOD MAT TO
APPROXIMATE
TYPICAL
4 TO 6:1
4 TO 6:1 (
A
L
L

B
E
N
C
H
I
N
G
)
EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
208020852090209521002105211020802085209020952100210521101000+001000+501001+001001+501002+001002+501003+001003+501004+001004+20EXISTING GROUNDLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
209521002
0
9
0
2
0
9
5
2100
2105 2110 2115 2120
2085209020952100210521102115 STA. 1003+66EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 3+96END UT1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1000+00BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCEMENT IIEAST BUFFALO CREEKUT1STA 1000+00 TO 1001+50CUT-STUMP TREATMENT OF INTERMITTENTINVASIVES ALONG BANKSUPPLEMENTAL LIVESTAKING AS NEEDEDREMOVE UPSTREAM TREE IN ROW OF 3REMOVE/RELOCATE 2" ALDER AS NECESSARYREMOVE TREES AND LEVYPHYSICAL REMOVAL OF MULTIFLORAROSE AND HONEYSUCKLE -RESEED AND MAT BANKREMOVE LARGE PRIVET ANDLAY BACK TERRACE SLOPE AT 3:1HARVEST PLACED BOULDERS FOR REUSESTA 1004+80 TO 1005+00RESTORE USING EAST BUFFALO R2 TYPSHIFT ALIGNMENT TO RIGHT1000+001001+001002+001003+001004+00STABILIZE WITH MATTINGMATCH LINE - ST
A

1
0
0
4
+
2
0
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.1.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II:1. TREAT PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION ON RIGHTBANK PER PLANTING PLAN3. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON LEFT BANK4. SAVE ALL TREES NOT SPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL
20502055206020652070207520802085205020552060206520702075208020851004+201004+501005+001005+501006+001006+501007+001007+501008+001008+50EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADE-8.9%-6.7%-0.0%STA = 1005+50ELEV = 2074.28STA = 1005+70ELEV = 2072.31STA = 1005+74ELEV = 2070.31STA = 1005+95
ELEV = 2070.51STA = 1006+00ELEV = 2068.51STA = 1006+17
ELEV = 2069.09STA = 1006+21ELEV = 2067.59STA = 1006+45ELEV = 2065.43STA = 1006+72ELEV = 2063.45STA = 1006+81
ELEV = 2065.26
STA = 1006+99
ELEV = 2063.51STA = 1007+05ELEV = 2060.61STA = 1007+13
ELEV = 2062.91
STA = 1007+32
ELEV = 2061.34STA = 1007+38ELEV = 2059.14STA = 1007+46
ELEV = 2060.64
STA = 1007+64
ELEV = 2058.89STA = 1007+68ELEV = 2057.25STA = 1007+72ELEV = 2058.69STA = 1007+73ELEV = 2058.69STA = 1007+77ELEV = 2056.78STA = 1007+81
ELEV = 2058.49
STA = 1007+92
ELEV = 2057.33
STA = 1008+07
ELEV = 2056.83
STA = 1008+24
ELEV = 2055.46STA = 1008+28ELEV = 2053.46STA = 1008+32ELEV = 2055.36STA = 1007+97ELEV = 2055.13STA = 1008+42
ELEV = 2054.69STA = 1008+46
ELEV = 2051.22
STA = 1005+81ELEV = 2071.91
STA = 1006+04
ELEV = 2070.11 STA = 1006+25ELEV = 2068.69STA = 1006+50
ELEV = 2067.23 STA = 1006+25ELEV = 2068.69STA = 1006+28ELEV = 2067.79STA = 1006+30ELEV = 2068.37STA = 1006+39
ELEV = 2067.63
STA = 1006+52
ELEV = 2067.23STA = 1006+54
ELEV = 2064.84STA = 1006+60
ELEV = 2066.39STA = 1006+67
ELEV = 2065.86
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA
SFHA SFHA SFHA
SF
H
A
SF
H
AXXXXXXXXXXX20
7
0
2075 20802085
2060
2065
2070
20
7
5
2080
STA 1008+37EAST BUFFALO CREEK - RESTORATIONSTA 3025+32UT2 REACH 2 - END ENHANCEMENT ISTA 1005+50END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCMENT IIBEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATIONREMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)HARVEST EXISTING MATERIAL FOR REUSE INEAST BUFFALO CREEK, REACH 2 RESTORATION,THEN FILL EXISTING CHANNELROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGEAST BUFFALO CREEKUT2PHYSICAL REMOVAL OF MULTIFLORAROSE AND HONEYSUCKLE -RESEED AND MAT BANKFILL EXISTING CHANNELSTA 1004+80 TO 1005+00OVERWIDE STREAMRESTORE USING EAST BUFFALO R2 TYP3007+333005+003006+003007+001004+001005+001006+001007+001008+00207520752
0
6
020652070
205520602065MATCH LINE - STA 1004+20
MATCH
L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

1
0
0
8
+
5
0
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.1.2
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II:1. TREAT PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION ON RIGHTBANK PER PLANTING PLAN3. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON LEFT BANK4. SAVE ALL TREES NOT SPECIFICALLYIDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL
20302035204020452050205520602065203020352040204520502055206020651008+501009+001009+501010+001010+501011+001011+501012+001012+501013+00EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-3.7%-5.8%-4.8%-4.2%-4.5%-3.7%-4.3%-3.2%-4.1%STA = 1008+77ELEV = 2052.51STA = 1008+82ELEV = 2049.61STA = 1009+04ELEV = 2050.86STA = 1009+11ELEV = 2048.59STA = 1009+29ELEV = 2049.36STA = 1009+33ELEV = 2047.36STA = 1009+37ELEV = 2049.36STA = 1009+46ELEV = 2048.55STA = 1009+50ELEV = 2046.39STA = 1009+58ELEV = 2048.05STA = 1009+69ELEV = 2047.08STA = 1009+73ELEV = 2045.08STA = 1009+77ELEV = 2046.98STA = 1009+90ELEV = 2046.00STA = 1009+95ELEV = 2043.30STA = 1010+16ELEV = 2044.47STA = 1010+20ELEV = 2042.97STA = 1010+37ELEV = 2043.14STA = 1010+41ELEV = 2041.04STA = 1010+51
ELEV = 2042.54
STA = 1010+67
ELEV = 2041.37STA = 1010+72
ELEV = 2039.45
STA = 1010+99
ELEV = 2040.32STA = 1011+03ELEV = 2038.18STA = 1011+09
ELEV = 2040.02
STA = 1011+25
ELEV = 2039.27STA = 1011+30ELEV = 2037.47STA = 1011+34
ELEV = 2039.27
STA = 1011+46
ELEV = 2038.79STA = 1011+51ELEV = 2036.68STA = 1011+56
ELEV = 2038.38
STA = 1011+75
ELEV = 2037.52STA = 1011+80ELEV = 2035.62STA = 1011+84
ELEV = 2037.52STA = 1012+08ELEV = 2034.63STA = 1012+13
ELEV = 2036.33
STA = 1012+32
ELEV = 2035.61STA = 1012+37ELEV = 2033.71STA = 1012+42
ELEV = 2035.51
STA = 1012+61
ELEV = 2034.69STA = 1012+66ELEV = 2032.79STA = 1012+70
ELEV = 2034.59
STA = 1012+89
ELEV = 2033.98STA = 1012+94ELEV = 2031.88STA = 1010+26ELEV = 2043.97 STA = 1009+17ELEV = 2050.36
STA = 1012+03
ELEV = 2036.73
STA = 1008+60ELEV = 2053.72STA = 1008+88ELEV = 2052.11STA = 1010+01ELEV = 2045.40
STA = 1010+90
ELEV = 2040.82
SFHASFHAOUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLODLODOUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLODLODXXXX
XXX2040204520502055
20352040
2045 20502055ROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGCONSTRUCT FLOOD FLOWREENTRY POINT USING NATIVESTONE AND SOIL MIXSCARIFY AND RESEEDEXISTING FARM ROADUT5EAST BUFFALO
CREEK
EXISTING F
A
R
M

R
O
A
D
EAST BUFFALO CREEKE
A
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
L
O

C
R
E
E
K

-

R
E
S
T
O
R
A
T
I
O
N REMOVE EXISTING FENCE(LIVESTOCK TO BE REMOVEDFROM SITE)SEE UT5 ENHANCEMENT IIPLAN SHEET 2.6.13007+331009+001010+001011+001012+001013+006002+0020502055204020452035204
0
MATCH LINE - STA 1008+50
MATCH LINE - STA 1013+00
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.1.3
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)
201520202025203020352040204520152020202520302035204020451013+001013+501014+001014+501015+001015+501016+001016+501017+001017+50EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-3.7%-3.2%-4.1%-4.3%-1.7%STA = 1013+02ELEV = 2033.58STA = 1013+26ELEV = 2032.59STA = 1013+35ELEV = 2030.59STA = 1013+39ELEV = 2032.39STA = 1013+82ELEV = 2029.03STA = 1013+94ELEV = 2030.63STA = 1013+46ELEV = 2030.23STA = 1013+63ELEV = 2031.71STA = 1013+77ELEV = 2031.09STA = 1014+12ELEV = 2030.32
STA = 1017+15
ELEV = 2019.15
SFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHASFHALODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODSAFSAFSAFCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD
LOD LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODSAFSAFSAFCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
X
X
XX2020
20
2
5
2030
2030203520402045202520252030 STA. 1013+57EAST BUFFALO CREEK R2 - RESTORATIONSTA 6002+48END UT5 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1013+92END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2- RESTORATIONBEGIN EAST BUFFALO REEK REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1017+16END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT IIEAST BUFFALO CREEKEXISTING
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

R
O
A
D REMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)PROPOSED SINGLE LOG VANE1013+001014+001015+001016+001017+00
10
1
8
+
0
06002+00203520352035MATCH LINE - STA 1013+00
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.1.4
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and ProfileENHANCEMENT II:1. REMOVE PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. RIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATION ON LEFT BANK PER PLANTING PLAN3. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON RIGHT BANK4. REMOVE LIVESTOCK0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)
20802085209020952100210521102115208020852090209521002105211021150+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+004+02EXISTING GROUNDLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
20952
1
0
0 21052110 211521202125
2090
209521002105211021152120
208520902095 0+001+002+003+004+00UT1E
A
S
T

BU
F
F
A
LO

C
R
E
E
KUT1 STA: 0+00BEGIN UT1 ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 1003+66EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 3+96END UT1 - ENHANCEMENT II1002+0010
0
3
+
0
0
1
0
0
4
+
0
0
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.2.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT1
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II:1. TREAT PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON BOTH BANKS PER PLANTING PLAN
21002105211021152120212521302135210021052110211521202125213021352999+503000+003000+503001+003001+503002+003002+503003+003003+50EXISTING GROUNDSTA = 3001+01
ELEV = 2128.16
STA = 3001+56
ELEV = 2117.39
STA = 3001+89
ELEV = 2110.23
STA = 3002+22
ELEV = 2107.07
STA = 3002+35
ELEV = 2104.05
STA = 3002+48
ELEV = 2102.53STA = 3002+29ELEV = 2104.33STA = 3001+43
ELEV = 2118.98 STA = 3001+03ELEV = 2127.75STA = 3001+31
ELEV = 2120.62
-9.6%-21.4%-12.8%-4.4%-11.8%-38.5%-13.1%-19.2%-26.3%PROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLEXISTING 36" CMPINV.IN 2035.69'INV.OUT 2028.01'OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODCE CE CE CECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODCE CE CE CECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
XXXX2100
2105
2
1
1
0 212021252090
2095
2100
210
5
21
1
021
1
521202125213021352140
209
0
2095
2
1
0
0
2135214021452150215521602165217021752180218521502155
MATCH LIN
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
0
3
+
4
5
2105
2
1
1
0
21
1
52120STATION 3000+95BEGIN UT2 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IPROPOSED START OF UTILITY RELOCATION -TIE BACK TO EXISTING POLE OR ADD NEWPOLE BEYOND AS SHOWN IN PLANSFILL AND ABANDONEXISTING DITCHUT2UT2EA
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
L
O

R
O
A
DCONSTRUCT ACCESS ROADTO PROPOSED OVERHEADUTILITY EASEMENTSTATION 3001+37END UTILITY EASEMENTREMOVE OR CUT-STUMPTREAT PRIVET, SLOPE AND MATBANKS WHERE DISTURBEDSTA 3002+48 TO 3003+953001+003002+003003+0021
1
0
21
1
5
2
1
2
02125
2
1
1
0
21
1
52120 RETAIN EXISTING 36" CMPINV. IN 2035.69'INV. OUT 2028.01'STA. 3002+48BEGIN BANK GRADING ANDINVASIVE TREATMENTREMOVE OR CUT-STUMP2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.3.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT2
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)NOTE:APPLY CASCADING RIFFLE-POOLSEQUENCE WHERE INDICATED IN PLANVIEW, USE WITH DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.1
2050205520602065207020752080208520902050205520602065207020752080208520903003+503004+003004+503005+003005+503006+003006+503007+003007+50STA = 3003+99ELEV = 2080.86
STA = 3007+33
ELEV = 2055.40
STA = 3006+55
ELEV = 2059.66
STA = 3004+35ELEV = 2077.50STA = 3004+69ELEV = 2074.62
STA = 3006+24
ELEV = 2062.11 EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-8.0%-9.3%-8.0%-8.1%-5.5%OUEOUEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2060206520702065207020
7
5
2075
2080 2085 2090 2095 20802085209020952100
UT2EAST BU
F
FA
LO
CREEKSTA. 3003+95RESUME FULL APPLICATIONOF TYPICAL SECTIONSREMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN CONSERVATIONEASEMENTFILL EXISTING CHANNELSTA 1008+41EAST BUFFALO CREEK - RESTORATIONSTA 3007+33END UT2 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKING3007+333003+003004+003005+003006+003007+001007+001
0
0
8
+
0
0
2060
2
0
6
5
2
0
7
0
2055206020652.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.3.2
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT2
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)NOTE:APPLY CASCADING RIFFLE-POOLSEQUENCE WHERE INDICATED INPLAN VIEW, USE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.1
2060206520702075208020852090209521002105211021152060206520702075208020852090209521002105211021154000+004000+504001+004001+504002+004002+504003+004003+504003+80STA = 4000+49ELEV = 2104.10STA = 4003+71ELEV = 2062.37STA = 4003+75
ELEV = 2063.95
STA = 4000+55ELEV = 2103.12STA = 4000+56ELEV = 2100.14STA = 4000+62ELEV = 2102.44STA = 4000+70ELEV = 2101.30STA = 4000+71ELEV = 2098.97STA = 4000+77ELEV = 2100.68STA = 4000+79ELEV = 2100.22STA = 4000+80ELEV = 2097.36STA = 4000+88ELEV = 2099.24 STA = 4000+94ELEV = 2098.33STA = 4000+94ELEV = 2096.45STA = 4001+48ELEV = 2091.50
STA = 4001+68
ELEV = 2088.90
STA = 4001+85
ELEV = 2086.80
STA = 4002+02
ELEV = 2084.60
STA = 4002+20
ELEV = 2082.38
STA = 4002+38
ELEV = 2080.08
STA = 4002+61
ELEV = 2077.21
STA = 4002+77
ELEV = 2075.11
STA = 4002+94
ELEV = 2073.02
STA = 4003+08
ELEV = 2071.17
STA = 4003+25
ELEV = 2068.96STA = 4003+27ELEV = 2066.54STA = 4003+30ELEV = 2068.51STA = 4003+33ELEV = 2068.22STA = 4003+33ELEV = 2065.99STA = 4003+38
ELEV = 2067.72
STA = 4003+47
ELEV = 2066.75STA = 4003+48ELEV = 2064.48STA = 4003+53
ELEV = 2066.29
STA = 4003+56ELEV = 2065.81STA = 4003+57ELEV = 2063.35STA = 4003+63
ELEV = 2065.25STA = 4003+69
ELEV = 2064.43
STA = 4001+22ELEV = 2094.76STA = 4001+00ELEV = 2097.57 EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-12.7%STATION 4001+00REPEAT CASCADINGRIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCEEXISTING 36" CMPINV.IN 2108.24'INV.OUT 2104.07'OUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEX2
0
6
5
2070
2075
2080
2085
2090
2095
2090
2095
210021052110211521202125STA. 4000+52BEGIN UT3 REACH 2A - RESTORATIONHARVEST BOULDERS AND STONEAND FILL EXISTING CHANNELEXISTING POWER LINETHROUGH FIELD TOBE ABANDONEDUT3EAST BUFFALO ROAD
STABILIZE ROAD PIPEOUTLET AND SPREAD FLOWINTO PROPOSED BUFFERROUGHEN FLOOD
FLOW
PATHUSING
ONS
ITE
WOOD
ANDDENSE L
IVESTAK
INGSTA. 400+70END ROWBEGIN UT3 REACH 2ARESTORATION CREDIT4000+004001+004002+004003+004004+0020
7
5
20
8
0
2
0
8
5
2
0
9
0
20
9
5
2100
20652070207520802085209020952100RETAIN EXISTING 36" CMPINV. IN 2108.24'INV. OUT 2104.07'RETAIN EXISTING 24" CMPINV. IN 2093.58'INV. OUT 2089.30'MATCH L
I
N
E

-

S
T
A

4
0
0
3
+
8
0
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5 ABCD20652070TYPSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.4.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT3
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)NOTE:APPLY CASCADING RIFFLE-POOLSEQUENCE WHERE INDICATED INPLAN VIEW, USE INSET PROFILEWITH DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.1INSET 1INSET 1
2030203520402045205020552060206520702030203520402045205020552060206520704003+804004+004004+504005+004005+504006+004006+504007+004007+504008+004008+30-4.8%-4.8%STA = 4006+10ELEV = 2046.13STA = 4006+12ELEV = 2045.63STA = 4006+20
ELEV = 2045.75STA = 4006+25ELEV = 2044.15STA = 4006+45
ELEV = 2044.62STA = 4006+50ELEV = 2043.02STA = 4006+61
ELEV = 2043.91STA = 4006+66ELEV = 2042.31STA = 4006+80
ELEV = 2043.05STA = 4006+85ELEV = 2041.45STA = 4007+02
ELEV = 2042.04STA = 4007+07ELEV = 2040.44STA = 4007+22
ELEV = 2041.15STA = 4007+27ELEV = 2039.55STA = 4007+45
ELEV = 2040.07STA = 4007+50ELEV = 2038.47STA = 4007+69
ELEV = 2038.99STA = 4007+74ELEV = 2037.39STA = 4007+83
ELEV = 2038.36STA = 4007+88ELEV = 2036.76STA = 4008+03
ELEV = 2037.45STA = 4008+08ELEV = 2035.85STA = 4008+19
ELEV = 2036.79
STA = 4008+25ELEV = 2035.09STA = 4004+76ELEV = 2053.98STA = 4004+81ELEV = 2052.38STA = 4004+95ELEV = 2052.78STA = 4005+00ELEV = 2051.18STA = 4005+22ELEV = 2051.18STA = 4005+27ELEV = 2049.58STA = 4005+38ELEV = 2050.17STA = 4005+43ELEV = 2048.57STA = 4005+57ELEV = 2049.02STA = 4005+62ELEV = 2047.42STA = 4005+83
ELEV = 2047.21STA = 4005+86ELEV = 2046.21STA = 4008+29ELEV = 2036.39STA = 4004+85ELEV = 2053.68STA = 4005+04ELEV = 2052.48STA = 4005+31ELEV = 2050.88 STA = 4005+47ELEV = 2049.87STA = 4005+66ELEV = 2048.72
STA = 4005+91
ELEV = 2047.20
STA = 4006+14
ELEV = 2046.13
STA = 4006+29
ELEV = 2045.45
STA = 4006+54
ELEV = 2044.32
STA = 4006+70ELEV = 2043.61STA = 4006+89
ELEV = 2042.75
STA = 4007+11
ELEV = 2041.74
STA = 4007+31ELEV = 2040.85STA = 4007+78
ELEV = 2038.69
STA = 4007+92ELEV = 2038.06STA = 4008+12
ELEV = 2037.15
STA = 4007+54
ELEV = 2039.77
STA = 4003+92ELEV = 2062.23STA = 4004+07ELEV = 2060.62STA = 4004+21ELEV = 2059.26STA = 4004+40ELEV = 2057.26STA = 4004+66ELEV = 2054.60EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSEDBANKFULL-4.5%-6.1%-10.2%STATION 4004+66END CASCADINGRIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCE-5.5%-6.3%-5.2%-5.9%-5.7%-5.3%-5.5%-5.3%-5.3%-6.7%-5.5%-4.8%-6.6%-7.5%OUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE20402045
20502055 2060 20652070
2040
2
0
4
5
2050
20552060206520702075
HARVEST EXISTING STREAM BEDMATERIAL AND FILL EXISTINGCHANNELEXISTING POWER LINETHROUGH FIELD TOBE RELOCATEDOUTSIDE OF BUFFERUT3EAST BUFFALO ROADSTA 4004+53END UT3 R2ABEGIN UT3 R2BROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGSTABILIZE ROAD PIPEOUTLET AND SPREAD FLOWINTO PROPOSED BUFFERROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKING4004+004005+004006+004007+004008+0020
4
0
2
0
4
52050205520602065207020602065 RETAIN EXISTING 18" CMPINV. IN 2052.31'INV. OUT 2048.23'MATCH LINE - STA 4003+80
MATCH LINE - STA 4008+
3
0
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.4.2
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT3
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)NOTE:APPLY CASCADING RIFFLE-POOLSEQUENCE WHERE INDICATED IN PLANVIEW, USE INSET 1 PROFILE (PREVIOUSPAGE) WITH DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.1APPLY CASCADERIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCEFROM INSET 1, PAGE 2.4.1
201020152020202520302035204020102015202020252030203520404008+304008+504009+004009+504010+004010+504011+004011+504012+004012+50STA = 4008+48ELEV = 2034.08STA = 4008+73ELEV = 2033.09STA = 4008+88ELEV = 2033.93STA = 4008+93ELEV = 2032.33STA = 4009+07ELEV = 2033.19STA = 4009+15ELEV = 2032.89 STA = 4008+68ELEV = 2034.69STA = 4009+35ELEV = 2032.05STA = 4009+39ELEV = 2030.49STA = 4009+51ELEV = 2030.93 STA = 4009+57ELEV = 2030.43STA = 4009+79ELEV = 2028.90STA = 4010+01ELEV = 2026.42STA = 4010+04ELEV = 2026.42STA = 4010+06
ELEV = 2027.17
STA = 4010+25
ELEV = 2026.18STA = 4010+27ELEV = 2025.43STA = 4010+30ELEV = 2025.43STA = 4010+32ELEV = 2026.18STA = 4010+33ELEV = 2026.14STA = 4010+36ELEV = 2025.17STA = 4009+55ELEV = 2029.33STA = 4009+85ELEV = 2028.39STA = 4009+99
ELEV = 2027.17 STA = 4008+43ELEV = 2035.68STA = 4010+60
ELEV = 2024.99STA = 4010+65ELEV = 2023.19STA = 4010+70ELEV = 2024.69STA = 4010+82
ELEV = 2024.32STA = 4010+87
ELEV = 2022.52 STA = 4010+92
ELEV = 2024.02
STA = 4011+11
ELEV = 2023.21STA = 4011+17ELEV = 2021.31STA = 4011+26
ELEV = 2022.81
STA = 4011+34
ELEV = 2022.41
STA = 4011+86ELEV = 2018.78STA = 4011+91
ELEV = 2020.28
STA = 4011+51
ELEV = 2021.85STA = 4011+57ELEV = 2020.05STA = 4011+61
ELEV = 2021.55
STA = 4011+81
ELEV = 2020.58STA = 4011+37ELEV = 2021.66STA = 4011+40
ELEV = 2022.26
STA = 4012+04
ELEV = 2019.57STA = 4012+09ELEV = 2017.77STA = 4012+14ELEV = 2019.27STA = 4012+32
ELEV = 2018.33STA = 4012+38ELEV = 2016.53STA = 4012+42
ELEV = 2018.03
STA = 4008+52ELEV = 2035.38STA = 4008+77ELEV = 2034.39STA = 4008+97ELEV = 2033.63 STA = 4009+42ELEV = 2031.57STA = 4010+39
ELEV = 2025.92STA = 4009+83ELEV = 2027.30STA = 4009+11ELEV = 2031.59
EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-3.0%-4.4%-3.9%-7.2%-3.8%-4.3%-4.4%-4.3%-4.3%-7.1%-7.2%-5.3%-3.8%-4.9%-4.6%-3.0%-4.1%-4.9%-3.6%-5.0%-5.4%-5.1%-5.4%OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELODCECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELODCECECECE2020202520302020
2025
20302035 2030 2035 2040UT4
UT3STA. 4010+46END UT3 REACH 2B - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT ISTA. 5002+29END UT4 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IEXISTING POWER LINETHROUGH FIELD TOBE ABANDONED4008+004009+004010+004011+004012+004013+005002+295002+00
20302035
20202020203020202025MATCH LINE - STA 4008+30
MATCH LINE - STA 4012+50
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.4.3
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT3
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)
20052010201520202025200520102015202020254012+504013+004013+504014+004014+50-0.1%-4.5%-3.1%-4.4%-2.2%-3.4%-0.1%-4.5%-3.1%-4.4%-2.2%-3.4%STA = 4014+29
ELEV = 2011.99
STA = 4012+89ELEV = 2016.06STA = 4012+84ELEV = 2014.56STA = 4013+93
ELEV = 2012.87STA = 4013+88ELEV = 2011.37STA = 4013+59
ELEV = 2013.65
STA = 4013+50
ELEV = 2012.15
STA = 4013+41
ELEV = 2014.14
STA = 4013+21
ELEV = 2015.04
STA = 4013+12
ELEV = 2015.35STA = 4013+17ELEV = 2013.54STA = 4012+79ELEV = 2016.43 STA = 4012+65ELEV = 2017.04STA = 4012+55ELEV = 2017.34STA = 4012+60ELEV = 2015.54STA = 4013+83
ELEV = 2013.12
STA = 4014+19
ELEV = 2012.00 EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-2.6%-3.1%OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHELODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEX
X X X X X
20102015202020252030203520402020202520302015202020252030203020302
0
1
5
2020
STA. 4014+26END UT3 REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT IPROPOSED STARTOF POWERLINERELOCATIONNO CHANNEL WORK OR STREAMCREDITING PROPOSED ON UT4AUT3UT4AEAST BUFFALO ROADREMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)4012+004013+004014+004014+47OUE MIN. 30 FT FROMSTREAM BANKFULL20152020202020152020MATCH LINE - STA 4012+50
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.4.4
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT3
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)
202020252030203520402045205020202025203020352040204520505000+005000+505001+005001+505002+005002+30-2.6%-4.1%-2.6%-4.1%STA = 5000+52ELEV = 2035.00
STA = 5002+29ELEV = 2026.23STA = 5000+94
ELEV = 2031.36
STA = 5002+02
ELEV = 2026.96EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-2.6%-8.6%-4.1%EXISTING 24" CMPINV.IN 2037.40'INV.OUT 2033.90'STA = 5000+08ELEV = 2037.40STA = 5000+52ELEV = 2033.90
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
DCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUELODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD
LO
D
LO
D
LO
DCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
2025203020302035STA. 5000+52BEGIN UT4 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT ISTA. 4010+46END UT3 REACH 3 - RESTORATIONBEGIN UT3 REACH 4 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 5002+29END UT4 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IREMOVE SPRING HOUSEPROTECT 24" CMP CULVERT TO REMAININV IN: 2037.40INV OUT: 2033.90'U
T
3UT4EAST BUFFALO ROAD
UT
3
STRUCTURE LOCATION TO BEDESIGNATED IN THE FIELD BASEDON JUNCUS STABILIZATION4010+
0
0
40
1
1
+
0
0
5
0
0
2
+
2
95000+005001+005002+002030203020
2
5 STA. 5000+65END ROWBEGIN UT4 REACH 2 -RESTORATION CREDIT2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.5.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT4
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)NOTE:APPLY CASCADING RIFFLE-POOLSEQUENCE WHERE INDICATED IN PLANVIEW, USE DETAIL 3, SHEET 6.1
20252030203520402045205020552060202520302035204020452050205520606000+006000+506001+006001+506002+006002+50-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%STA = 6000+67ELEV = 2042.49STA = 6000+76ELEV = 2041.47
STA = 6000+99
ELEV = 2040.04
STA = 6001+21
ELEV = 2039.08
STA = 6001+37
ELEV = 2038.36
STA = 6001+69
ELEV = 2036.96
STA = 6001+87
ELEV = 2036.17
STA = 6002+07
ELEV = 2035.25
STA = 6002+43
ELEV = 2032.81
STA = 6000+92
ELEV = 2040.36STA = 6000+79ELEV = 2040.27STA = 6000+86
ELEV = 2040.81STA = 6001+02ELEV = 2038.91STA = 6001+11
ELEV = 2039.50STA = 6001+23ELEV = 2038.30STA = 6001+28
ELEV = 2038.75STA = 6001+40ELEV = 2037.24STA = 6001+49
ELEV = 2037.83STA = 6001+51ELEV = 2037.04STA = 6001+59
ELEV = 2037.41STA = 6001+71ELEV = 2036.18STA = 6001+75
ELEV = 2036.67STA = 6001+88ELEV = 2035.12STA = 6001+97
ELEV = 2035.71
STA = 6002+15
ELEV = 2034.76STA = 6002+18ELEV = 2033.56STA = 6002+23
ELEV = 2034.19STA = 6002+26ELEV = 2033.02STA = 6002+31
ELEV = 2033.65STA = 6002+10ELEV = 2034.13-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-7.1%-6.9%-12.0%-6.9%-4.4%-7.1%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2040
2035UT5EAST BUFFALO CREEKSTA. 1013+57EAST BUFFALO CREEK - RESTORATIONSTA 6002+48END UT5 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 6000+67BEGIN UT5 - ENHANCEMENT IIREMOVE EXISTING CULVERTOLD EAST BUFFALO CREEK CHANNELTO BE FILLED AFTER REUSE OFMATERIAL IN NEW CHANNEL1012+001013+00
1014+006000+006001+006002+002035
20402035204020452045
2035
2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT
5
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
2.6.1
March 25, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT5
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II:1. REMOVE PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. PLANT MINIMUM 150' TYP. BUFFER ON RIGHTBANK3. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON LEFT BANK4. SAVE ALL TREES NOT SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIEDFOR REMOVAL
Streambank Planting ZoneLive Stakes: > 8' TOBSpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv. SpacingMin. SizeStratumPercent OfStemsSalix nigraBlack Willow82-80.5" cal.Canopy30%Salix sericeaSilky Willow82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy25%Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy20%Sambucus canadensisElderberry82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy10%Physocarpus opulifoliusNinebark82-80.5" cal.Shrub15%Total100%Live Stakes: < 8' TOBSalix sericeaSilky Willow82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy40%Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy25%Sambucus canadensisElderberry82-80.5" cal.Subcanopy10%Physocarpos opulifoliusNinebark82-80.5" cal.Shrub25%Total100%Herbaceous PlugsJuncus effususCommon Rush53-52.0" plugHerb50%Carex luridaShallow Sedge53-52.0" plugHerb20%Carex crinitaFringed Sedge53-52.0" plugHerb15%Cyperus strigosusStraw-colored Flatsedge53-52.0" plugHerb15%Total100%X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg March 24, 2020
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Planting Plan
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
3.0
March 25, 2020 Note:Permanent Riparian seeding inall disturbed areas withinConservation Easement andright-of-ways.NCDOT Right-of-way plantingsubject to NCDOT approval.See Detail 1, Sheet 6.7 forLive Staking instructions onstreambanks.Note:OPTIONAL: TRANSPLANTS andCONTAINERIZED PLANTS to beused at Engineer's discretionfor streambank and floodplainplanting.Low Growing Species Utility Right-of-way Planting ZoneStreambank Planting ZoneSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
IONRiparian Seeding - Open CanopyPure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)Approved DateSpecies NameCommon NameStratumDensity (lbs/acre)All YearPanicum ancepsFall PanicumHerb2.0All YearPanicum virgatumSwitchgrassHerb1.0All YearSchizachyrium scopariumLittle BluestemHerb1.5All YearSorghastrum nutansIndiangrassHerb2.0All YearEchinochloa muricataBarnyard GrassHerb1.0All YearDichanthelium clandestinumDeertongueHerb2.0All YearElymus virginianaVirginia Wild RyeHerb2.5All YearElymus ripariusRiver Bank Wild RyeHerb1.0All YearCarex vulpinoideaFox SedgeHerb1.5All YearJuncus effususCommon RushHerb0.5All YearJuncus tenuisPath RushHerb0.5All YearHeliopsis helianthoidesOxeye SunflowerHerb1.0All YearSenna hebecarpaWild SennaHerb1.0All YearBidens aristosaBur-marigoldHerb1.0All YearRudbeckia hirtaBlackeyed SusanHerb1.0All YearCephalanthus occidentalisButton BushShrub0.520.0Riparian Planting ZoneSpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. CaliperSizeStratumPercentOf StemsPlatanus occidentalisSycamore126-12'0.25"Canopy20%Prunus serotinaBlack Cherry126-12'0.25"Canopy15%Diospyros virginianaPersimmon126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Quercus rubraNorthern Red Oak126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Acer negundoBoxelder126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Ulmus rubraSlippery Elm126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Betula lenta*Sweet Birch126-12'0.25"Canopy7%Betula nigraRiver Birch126-12'0.25"Canopy5%Nyssa sylvaticaBlack Gum126-12'0.25"Canopy5%Asimina trilobaPaw Paw126-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%Corylus americana**American Hazelnut126-12'0.25"Subcanopy3%* Can substitute Magnolia fraseri or Tilia americana if not available100%**Can substitute Lindera benzoin or Halesia caroliniana if not availableWetland PlantingSpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. Caliper SizeStratumPercent OfStemsBare RootPlantanus occidentalisSycamore12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy20%Betula nigraRiver Birch12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy10%Alnus serrulataTag Alder12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Tilia americanaWhite Basswood12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy10%Acer negundoBoxelder12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy10%Acer rubrumRed Maple12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy5%Ulmus rubraSlippery Elm12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy10%Live StakeSalix nigra*Black Willow12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy15%Salix sericea*Silky Willow12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%Cephalanthusoccidentalis*Buttonbush12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%*Can use bare root plants based on availability and project team discretion100%**If any varieties are unavailable, option to increase to 30% sycamore.Temporary SeedingApproved DateTypePlanting Rate (lbs/acre)Jan 1 - May 1Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Ground Agricultural Limestone2000Soil conditioner (Humic DG)50In-houseStraw Mulch4000May 1 - Aug 15German Millet (Setaria italica)40Ladino/Red/Crimson Clover20Ground Agricultural Limestone2000Soil conditioner (Humic DG)50In-houseStraw Mulch4000Aug 15 - Dec 30Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Ladino/Red/Crimson Clover20Ground Agricultural Limestone2000Soil conditioner (Humic DG)100In-houseStraw Mulch4000Note: All disturbedareas.See Detail 3, Sheet 6.7 forBare Root installation instructions.Riparian Planting ZoneRiparian SeedingWetland Planting ZoneTemporary SeedingShrub and Low Growing SpeciesSpeciesCommon NameMaxSpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. Caliper SizeStratumPercentOf StemsAlnus serrulataTag Alder12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy15%Itea virginicaVirginia Sweetspire12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Ilex verticillataWinterberry12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Rhododendron maximumRosebay Rhododendron12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub15%Kalmia latifoliaMountain Laurel12 ft6-12'0.25"Shub10%Physocarpus opulifoliusNinebark12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Sambucus canadensisElderberry12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Euonymus americanusStrawberry Bush12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Lindera benzoinSpicebush12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%*No planting within access ways (15-20' corridor used for vehicular maintenance access)100%**Substitutes include Calycanthus floridus, Clethra acuminata, Viburnum acerfolium, and Leucothoe fotanesianaSupplemental Shaded Area Riparian Planting ZoneSupplemental Shaded Area Riparian Planting ZoneSpecies*Common NameMaxSpacingIndiv.SpacingMin.CaliperSizeStratumPercentOf StemsAlnus serrulataTag alder126-12'0.25"Canopy20%Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire126-12'0.25"Canopy20%Itex veritcillata Winterberry126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark126-12'0.25"Canopy20%Sambucus canadenis Elderberry126-12'0.25"Canopy20%Viburnum lentago Nannyberry126-12'0.25"Canopy10%*Shade tolerant Riparian Planting Zone species may be substituted100%
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
3.1
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Planting Plan
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION0'80'160'240'(HORIZONTAL)NOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESHEET 3.2SHEET 3.3EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT5 UT7 UT6UT4A
EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT3E
A
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
L
O

RO
A
D
EAST BUFFALO ROAD
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
3.2
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Planting Plan
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION0'40'80'120'(HORIZONTAL)NOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE OHE OHE OHE
SAFCE
CE
CE
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEMATCHLINE SHEET 3.2EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT4UT
5UT4AUT3
E
A
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
LO

RO
A
D
0'40'80'120'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
3.3
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Planting Plan
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
IONOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEMATCHLINE SHEET 3.2
UT1UT2UT3EAST BUFFALO
CREEKEAST BUFFALO ROAD
0'80'160'240'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg March 24, 2020
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
3.4
March 25, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Invasives Treatment Plan
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
IONINVASIVE REMOVAL NOTES:*NO EXCAVATED SOIL TO BE USED ON PROPOSED STREAMBANKS DUE TO INVASIVE ROOT PRESENCEDENSE INFESTATION APPROXIMATE LIMITSRICHARD WAYNE PENNINGTON, JR &WIFE, CYNTHIA PENNINGTONPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0042DB: 240 PG: 770RICHARD PENNINGTON ANDWIFE, MARGARET PENNINGTONPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0042DB: 128 PG: 799REF: DB: 126 PG: 713REF: DB: 117 PG: 746HANNU MELARTI ANDWIFE, ULRIKA MELARTIPIN: 5662-00-04-0006DB: 288 PG: 501CARL D. LEE ANDWIFE, JOAN B. LEEPIN: 5662-00-09-0024DB: 260 PG: 609PG: 5 PG: 980BO COLLINS AND WIFE,HELEN M. COLLINSPIN: 5662-00-09-0033DB: 367 PG: 550HUGH DARRELL ORR ANDWIFE, PATRICIA ORRPIN: 5662-00-09-0028DB: 72 PG: 553RAMLONGHORN, LLCPORTION OF PIN: 5662-00-09-0043DB: 374 PG: 420PC: DB PG: 1000HANNU MELARTI ANDWIFE, ULRIKA MELARTI(THROUGH SUBDIVISION ANDRECOMBINATION)OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESTAGING AREAAREA TO BE MONITORED FORINVASIVE BULL THISTLE ANDCANADA THISTLEDENSE PRIVET AND MULTIFLORAINFESTATION TO BE PHYSICALLYREMOVED DURING SITE GRADINGREMOVE DENSE PRIVET ANDMULTIFLORA ROSE INFESTATIONSPHYSICALLY WHERE POSSIBLE ANDTHROUGH CUT-STUMP/SPRAYTREATMENT ELSEWHEREINVASIVE ENGLISHIVY TO BEREMOVED DURINGSITE GRADINGINVASIVE ENGLISH IVY TO BECHEMICALLY TREATED MULTIPLESEASONS BEGINNING SPRING 2020(APPROXIMATE AREA)CHEMICALLY TREATPRIVET IN WOODSBETWEEN UT5 & UT7DENSE PRIVET INFESTATION ON BOTH BANKSTO BE REMOVED DURING SITE GRADING *DENSE PRIVET INFESTATION ON BOTH BANKSTO BE REMOVED DURING SITE GRADING *MULTIFLORA AND PRIVET TO BECHEMICALLY TREATED(APPROXIMATE AREA)PRIVET ALONG BANK TO BECHEMICALLY TREATED WITHCUT-STUMP METHOD ANDBANKS SUPPLEMENTALLYLIVESTAKEDSEE PLANTING NOTES FORPRIMARY AND SECONDARYROAD NATURALIZATION ONSHEET 5.0EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT5 UT7 UT6UT4A
EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT3E
A
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
L
O

RO
A
D
EAST BUFFALO ROAD
0'100'200'300'(HORIZONTAL)East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Road Naturalization and Crossing Removal Overview
Additional Grading
005-45020
HB
EN
JM
5.0
March 25, 2020 NUT2 REACH 1 CULVERTSHEET 5.1UT3 REACH 1 CULVERTSHEET 5.2UT4 REACH 1 CULVERTSHEET 5.3Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCON
S
T
RU
C
T
ION
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwg March 24, 2020UT5UT7UT6EAST BUFFALO
CREEKUT2UT1UT4UT4AUT4BUT3PRIMARY SOIL ROAD DECOMMISSIONING·OBSTRUCT VEHICULAR PASSAGE THROUGH INTERMITTENT OBSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD WITH BOULDERS, TREES OR BERMS/GRADING TO REDUCE THEPASSABLE WIDTH FOR THE PREVENTION OF TRUCKS AND 4-WHEELER TRAFFIC TO THE EXTENT PRACTICABLE USING ON-SITE MATERIALS.·NATURALIZE EXISTING FORD AND CULVERTED STREAM CROSSINGS AS PROVIDED ON SUBSEQUENT SHEETS, RESTORING PROPER DIMENSION, PATTERN ANDPROFILE TO STREAMS.·CROSSINGS WILL BE LIVE-STAKED AND VARIABLY NATURALIZED WITH TRANSPLANTS, WOOD OR BOTH FROM ADJACENT AREAS.·RESTORE FLOW ALONG ROADS BY REGRADING ROADS TO DISPERSE RUNOFF AND SHED WATER BEFORE FLOW IS CONCENTRATED. ·INSTALL AN AVERAGE OF TWO WATER SHEDDING SECTIONS AND AT LEAST 10 TREES WILL BE PLANTED EVERY 300', AND MORE FREQUENTLY WHERE THEFACTORS OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA, GRADIENT, AND EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS WARRANT. SECTIONS WILL BE SELECTED TO MAXIMIZE THEIREFFECTIVENESS AND WITH CONSIDERATION OF CONTRIBUTING DRAINAGE AREA FROM UPGRADIENT SLOPES. WATER SHEDDING SECTIONS WILL INCLUDEDOWNSLOPE BRUSH AND DEBRIS TO REDISTRIBUTE FLOWS NATURALLY WITHIN THE BUFFER. DUE TO THE FREQUENCY OF PROPOSED ENHANCEMENTS, ITIS ANTICIPATED THAT ONLY SMALL SCALE SHORT-TERM DISPERSAL MEASURES WILL BE NECESSARY.·MAJOR GULLIES ALONG ROADS WILL BE PLUGGED AND GRADED OUT OVER SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THEIR LENGTH IN ORDER TO PROMOTEREVEGETATION OF OLD ROAD BEDS.·NATURALIZE THE ROAD PARALLELING UT3 REACH 1 UPSTREAM OF WHERE IT CROSSES THE LOWER ROAD. DUE TO THE STEEP NATURE OF THE AREA ANDSUNKEN CONDITION OF THE ROAD, THIS MAY REQUIRE ROCKY SWALE OUTLETS TO THE CREEK WITH BRUSH CHECK DAMS TO REDUCE SHORT-TERM RISK OFSEDIMENT LOADING. INSTALL A MINIMUM OF THREE OUTLETS TO THE CREEK TO FORCE WATER OFF OF THE SUNK-IN ROAD, AND APPLY BRUSH AND OTHERBLOCKAGES INTERMITTENTLY ALONG THE ROAD TO FURTHER DIMINISH IMPACTS AND DISPERSE CONCENTRATED RUNOFF.SECONDARY SOIL ROAD DECOMMISSIONING·ALONG THE UPPER ROAD, THE FORD CROSSINGS NEAR THE STREAM ORIGINS OF UT4 & UT4B WILL BE LIVE-STAKED AND NATURALIZED WITH HAND-WORK. IN ADDITION, THE APPROACHES TO THESE UPPER CROSSINGS WILL BE TREATED TO DIVERT RUNOFF OFF OF THE ROAD SECTION INTO THE BUFFER IN THESAME MANNER AS FOR THE PRIORITY 1 ROAD SECTIONS WHERE A MINIMUM OF TWO WATER SHEDDING SECTIONS ARE ESTABLISHED EVERY 300'. ·ALL PRIORITY 2 ROADS WILL BE TREATED TO ENSURE THEY SHED WATER AT THIS FREQUENCY WHERE THEY ARE NOT CURRENTLY SHEDDING WATER IN ANATURAL PATTERN. ·ALONG ROADS SITUATED ON RIDGELINES, OBSTRUCTIONS WILL BE ESTABLISHED AND TREES PLANTED AT A FREQUENCY OF ONE OBSTRUCTION AND 10TREES PER 300'. END PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEND SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEND SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEND PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEND SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEND SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART SECONDARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONSTART PRIMARY ROAD NATURALIZATIONEAST BUFFALO ROA
D
REGRADE ENTRY OFF PAVED ROAD TODETER VEHICULAR ACCSESREGRADE ENTRY OFF PAVED ROADTO DETER VEHICULAR ACCSESEND PRIMARY ROADNATURALIZATIONSTART PRIMARY ROADNATURALIZATIONEXCLUSION AREA #2LOOSEN SOIL ALONG EXISTINGFARM ACCESS ROAD FORPLANTING - ACCESS ROAD TOBE ABANDONED
0+00
0+
6
7
217
0
2175
218
0
2185
EXISTING SOIL ROAD
BEGIN
PROFILE
RESTORATION
END
PROFILE
RESTORATION
REMOVE
EXISTING
SUBSURFACE
DRAIN
EXISTING
STREAM
ALIGNMENT
APPLY
CASCADING
RIFFLE-POOL
SEQUENCE
DETAIL ON
SHEET 6.1 0+000+80CONDUCT
PRIMARY
DECOMISSIONING
ALONG SOIL
ROAD PER
BULLETS ON
SHEET 5.0
2165
2170
2175
2180
2185
2165
2170
2175
2180
2185
0+00 0+50 0+80
REMOVE
EXISTING
SUBSURFACE
DRAIN
USE RIFFLE
CROSS SECTION
DIMENSIONS
FROM
UPSTREAM
REFERENCE
REACH.
EXISTING
GRADE
STABILIZE
ERODING
SLOPE
2163
2165
2170
2175
2163
2165
2170
2175
0+00 0+50 0+67
STA = 0+18.78
ELEV = 2169.86
STA = 0+46.75
ELEV = 2166.94
REMOVE EXISTING
SUBSURFACE DRAIN
USE POOL AND RIFFLE
DIMENSION FROM
UPSTREAM REFERENCE
EXISTING GRADE
NPLAN VIEW
PROFILE AT CROSSING ℄ - LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE
(HORIZONTAL)
0'10'20'30'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
0'1'2'3'
(VERTICAL)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT2 Reach 1 Crossing RemovalAdditional Grading005-45020HBENJM5.1March 25, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020UT
2
0+000
+
7
8
0+00
0+80
22
1
0
2
2
1
5
222022252
2
3
0
EXISTING
STREAM
ALIGNMENT
PROPOSED
STREAM
ALIGNMENT
APPROXIMATE
LOCATION OF
EXISTING
SUBSURFACE DRAIN
BEGIN
PROFILE
RESTORATION
APPLY
CASCADING
RIFFLE-POOL
SEQUENCE
DETAIL ON
SHEET 6.1
CONDUCT PRIMARY DECOMISSIONING
ALONG SOIL ROAD PER BULLETS ON SHEET
5.0
2210
2215
2220
2225
2230
2235
2210
2215
2220
2225
2230
2235
0+00 0+50 0+80
EXISTING
GRADE
APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF
EXISTING SUBSURFACE DRAIN TO
BE REMOVED
USE RIFFLE CROSS SECTION
DIMENSIONS FROM UPSTREAM
REFERENCE REACH.
2205
2210
2215
2220
2205
2210
2215
2220
0+00 0+50 0+78
USE POOL AND RIFFLE
DIMENSION FROM
UPSTREAM REFERENCE
APPLY WOOD AND ROCK
GRADE CONTROL
FEATURES AT DROPS PER
DETAIL SHEET 6.1
REMOVE PIPE
NPLAN VIEW
PROFILE AT CROSSING ℄ - LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE
(HORIZONTAL)
0'10'20'30'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
0'1'2'3'
(VERTICAL)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT3 Reach 1 Crossing RemovalAdditional Grading005-45020HBENJM5.2March 25, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020U
T
3
0+
0
0
0
+
8
00+000+80239023952400APPLY CASCADING
RIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCE
DETAIL ON SHEET 6.1
USE PRIMARY DECOMISSIONING
ALONG SOIL ROAD PER BULLETS
ON SHEET 5.0
PROPOSED/EXISTING
STREAM ALIGNMENT
EXISTING FORD CROSSING. NO
CULVERT FOUND DURING SITE
INVESTIGATION.
APPROXIMATE BEGIN STREAM
PROFILE RESTORATION
APPROXIMATE END
STREAM WORK
2390
2395
2400
2405
2390
2395
2400
2405
0+00 0+50 0+80
EXISTING GRADE
USE RIFFLE AND POOL CROSS
SECTION DIMENSIONS FROM
UPSTREAM REFERENCE REACH.
LOCATION OF EXISTING FORD
CROSSING 2383
2385
2390
2395
2400
2383
2385
2390
2395
2400
0+00 0+50 0+80
EXISTING GRADE
USE POOL AND RIFFLE
DIMENSION FROM
UPSTREAM REFERENCE
APPLY WOOD AND ROCK
GRADE CONTROL
FEATURES AT DROPS PER
DETAIL SHEET 6.1
NPLAN VIEW
PROFILE AT CROSSING ℄ - LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
PROFILE
(HORIZONTAL)
0'10'20'30'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(HORIZONTAL)
0'5'10'15'
(VERTICAL)
0'1'2'3'
(VERTICAL)East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaUT4 Reach 1 Ford NaturalizationAdditional Grading005-45020HBENJM5.3March 25, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020U
T
4
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.1March 25, 2020Cascading Riffle
Not to Scale
2
6.1
Cascade / Step-Pool Spacing Table
Species Name POOL SPACING (PS)
RANGE
PS-A PS-B PS-C POOL
LENGTH
CASCADE
SLOPE
RANGE1
East Buffalo Creek -
Reach 2 12-42'2-9'3-11%
UT2 - Reach 2 6-20'4.5-15%
4 CASCADE-POOL
SEQUENCES
PS-A
CASCADING
RIFFLE, SEE DETAIL
PS-B PS-CPOOLLENGTH(VARIES)ADD BRUSH OR
LOG REVETMENTS
AS SHOWN IN
PLAN VIEW AND
PER THE
ASSOCIATED
DETAILS
INCORPORATE WOOD INTO EVERY 10TH
CASCADE (APPROXIMATELY 1 PER 100')
PS-D
UT3 - Reach 2B 8-28'2-6%
UT3 - Reach 2A 6-22'4-18%
PS-D
5-10'
2-9'
3-10.5'
9-24'UT4 - Reach 2 3-11%9-24'
1 Low and high ranges to be used sparingly, individual segments may exceed high range in which case rock cascade and/or rock slide details shall apply
MATCH PROPOSED
GRADE (BANKFULL -
Dmax) TO WITHIN -0.2
TO +0.1' AT HEAD OF
EACH CASCADE
MICROPOOL (TYP) - INCORPORATE
INTO CASCADING RIFFLES
POOL(TYP)
9-25'UT5
POOL SPACING (PS)
NOTES:
·CONTRACTOR MAY VARY POOL
SPACING BUT SHALL COMPLETE
SEQUENCES TOTALING TO
SEQUENCE LENGTH PROVIDED IN
TABLE
·ROCK CASCADE OR ROCK SLIDE
STRUCTURES SHALL BE USED
INSTEAD OF CASCADING RIFFLES
FOR SLOPES >15-20%
·INCORPORATE LOG OR ROCK STEPS
(FOOTERED STRUCTURES) FROM
SHEET 6.2 AS DIRECTED
·SEQUENCES ARE DETAILED OUT ON
THE PLANS FOR EAST BUFFALO
CREEK AND UT3 BRANCHES-
CHANGES TO THESE REACHES MUST
BE APPROVED BY DESIGNER
SEQUENCE
LENGTH
A+B+C+D
DROPS OF UP TO 1.0' MAY BE USED AT POOL
ENTRANCES OR STEEPER WHEN PROTECTED
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
SEE SECTION B-B' FOR
SIZE
LENGTH VARIES PER PLAN
Section A-A'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
Section B-B'
A
B
B'
STRUCTURE SIZE
RIFFLE MATERIAL
(MIN)
2" MAX
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
12-18" RIFFLE THICKNESS
RIFFLE MATRIX
MUST CONTAIN AT LEAST 30% GRAVEL AND SAND FINES
TO MAINTAIN FLOW AT SURFACE OF RIFFLE
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
STONE TO ALSO BE WORKED INTO
BANKS MIN 2' TO PREVENT WEAK
SPOTS ALONG CHANNEL MARGINS
STRUCTURE OR 60% STRUCTURE SIZE
RIFFLE MATERIAL
Cascading Riffle-Pool Sequence
Not to Scale
3
6.1
Rock Cascade
Not to Scale
1
6.1
NOTES:
·USE AS DIRECTED WITH DETAIL 3/6.1 IN LIEU OF
CASCADING RIFFLES WHERE AVERAGE SLOPE EXCEEDS
15-20% (ROCK SLIDE MAY ALSO BE USED FOR THIS
SCENARIO).
·MINIMUM SIZE FOR BOULDERS SHALL BE 2' x 2' x 1'.
·VOID SPACES BETWEEN BOULDERS ON CASCADE
SHALL BE FILLED WITH SMALLER NATIVE ROCK WHERE
AVAILABLE.
·IF NATIVE ROCK IS NOT AVAILABLE, QUARRIED ROCK
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE SAME SIZES.
·ALL SMALLER ROCK SHALL BE HETEROGENEOUS AND
WELL MIXED.
Profile
5:1
Section A-A'
BACKFILL WITH GRADED MIX OF
SMALL BOULDERS, COBBLE, GRAVEL
AND SAND
CASCADE HEIGHT VARIESPER PROFILEDOUBLE STACK
BOULDER / ROCK MIX.
FILL ALL GAPS BETWEEN
LARGE BOULDERS
SL
O
P
E

V
A
R
I
E
S
(3
3
%

M
A
X
)
NATIVE ROCK EQUIVALENT
TO CLASS I RIPRAP, VOIDS FILLED
WITH ONSITE GRAVEL AND SAND
(TYP)
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING SOIL
TERRACE EXISTING
SLOPE
FOOTER BOULDER TO EXTEND
18" BELOW POOL INVERT
Riffle Sequence Plan View
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF BANK
A B
A'B'
CASCADE
FLOW
C
C'
Section B-B'
5:1 5:1
FOOTER BOULDER
HEADER BOULDER
DmaxDmaxOVEREXCAVATE 1-2', BACKFILL WITH
WELL-GRADED MIX OF SMALL BOULDERS,
COBBLE, GRAVEL AND SAND
5:1
DpoolVEGETATED STONE TOE PROTECTION
AROUND POOL MARGINS AS SPECIFIED BY
DESIGNER, SEE SECTION C-C'
POOL INVERT PER TYPICAL
SECTION OR PROFILE
Section C-C'
VEGETATED STONE TOE PROTECTION
AROUND POOL MARGINS WHERE
SPECIFIED BY DESIGNER.
SEE DETAIL 4, SHEET 6.3
ROCK DROPS, SEE 2/6.2, VARY
CONFIGURATIONS AS SHOWN
MICROPOOLS
NOTE ABOUT DETAILS:
DETAILS 1/6.1, 2/6.1, 1/6.2, 2/6.2 ARE TO BE USED
TO CONSTRUCT SEQUENCES SHOWN IN 3/6.1.
DESIGNER MAY INCORPORATE OTHER GRADE CONTROL
STRUCTURES.
A'
2 UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2 are Enhancement, use where indicated on plans
Plan View
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE F
OR
CO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
7-15%5-8'
SPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
10'20'12'22'64'
7'15'9'14'45'
Low Mobility Mix Material
Species Name
Class A (2-6")
Class 1 (5-17")
Minimum
Structure Size
Riffle Material
East Buffalo Creek -
Reach 2
60% Class A / 1
equal mix
UT2 - Reach 2
UT3 - Reach 2B
UT3 - Reach 2A
UT4 - Reach 2
14.5"UT5 - Reach 2
8"
11"
15"
12"
8.5"
UT3 - Reach 2B 7"
60% Class A / B
equal mix
Class B (5-12")
60% Class A / 1
equal mix
60% Class A / B
equal mix
60% Class A / B
equal mix
60% Class A / B
equal mix
60% Class A / B
equal mix
Riffle
Matrix 2'2'7'15'9'14'45'
N/ASPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
SPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS N/A
N/A
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.2March 25, 2020Log Step
Not to Scale
3
6.2
POOL
(TYP)
Rock Drop
Not to Scale
2
6.2
BACKFILL EQUAL RIFFLE
MIX FROM PROJECT
RIFFLE TABLE
Arched
Angled
Irregular
ELEVATION POINT
VARIES BY STEP
ARRANGEMENT
SEE PROFILE FOR
ELEVATION
DOUBLE THALWEG OR
VARIABLE THALWEG
PLACEMENT
THALWEG ON UPSTREAM 1/3 OF
ANGLED STEP (SIMILAR TO SINGLE
ARM VANE). e.g. SEE LOG STEP
DETAIL SECTION A-A'
Types of Step
Configurations
FLOW
Rock Step
Not to Scale
4
6.2
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
Profile View
Plan View
STREAMBED
RIFFLE BACKFILL
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
FLOW
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
FLOW
POOL LENGTH PER PROFILE
SILL ELEVATION PER
PROFILE
POOL DEPTH PER PROFILE
12" - 15" DIAMETER
HEADER LOG
Section A - A'
EMBED LOG
5' (MIN.)
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)12" - 15" DIAMETER LOG
CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH
0° - 15° ANGLE
PER FIELD DIRECTION
BACKFILL
0'-0.2'PER PLANS ORFIELD DIRECTIONA
NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC
POOL
ADD ROOT WAD, BRUSH TOE,
OR TRANSPLANTS TO LARGER
STREAMS AS DIRECTED BY
ENGINEER
NOTE:
·FOOTER LOG TO BE ADDED IF DROP IS
MORE THAN HEADER LOG DIAMETER.
12" - 15" DIAMETER
FOOTER LOG
2-4"
BOTTOM WIDTH (TYPICAL SECTIONS)
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
POOL
Profile View
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRICPlan View
AA'
ANCHOR BOULDERS 2' INTO
BANK (HEADERS AND
FOOTERS), BOTH SIDES
FLOW
POOL WIDEN BOTTOM WIDTH
TO TYPICAL STRUCTURE
POOL DIMENSION
MAY BE HORSE SHOE SHAPED, ARCHED
(SHOWN), ANGLED OR IRREGULAR.
CONTRACTOR TO VARY OR SHAPE AS
DIRECTED. IN OUTSIDE OF BEND, ANGLED
WITH SLOPING ARM IS TYPICALLY REQUIRED.
Section A-A'12" (MIN.)BACKFILL EQUAL RIFFLE
MIX FROM PROJECT
RIFFLE TABLE
BACKFILL
DEPTH 18"
MINIMUM
BY 3' LENGTH
BASE FLOW
THALWEG TO BE 2-4"
LOWER THAN ADJACENT
AREAS OF ROCK STEP
ARCHED DROP
IRREGULAR DROPANGLED DROP
NOTES:
·DROP TYPE MAY BE VARIED IN THE FIELD BY DESIGNER. IN GENERAL,
VARY DROP TYPE OFTEN WITH ROUGHLY EQUAL NUMBERS OF EACH
DROP TYPE WITHIN A REACH.
·DETAIL TO BE APPLIED IN CONJUNCTION WITH DETAIL 3/6.1
(CASCADING RIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCE).
·SECTION VIEWS REPRESENT ARCHED ROCK DROP VARIATION.
MODIFY SECTIONS AS NEEDED TO ACCOMMODATE OTHER
VARIATIONS .
·BOULDER SIZE TABLES PER REACH TO BE ADDED TO 100% PLANS.A'A2-4"
BOTTOM WIDTH (TYPICAL SECTIONS)
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
HEADER BOULDER
FOOTER BOULDER
ANCHOR BOULDERS 2' INTO
BANK (HEADERS AND
FOOTERS), BOTH SIDES18" (MIN.)MIDDLE OF ROCK STEP 2-4"
LOWER THAN BANKS OF ROCK STEP
Section A-A'
POOL
Profile View
BOULDER
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
BACKFILL
DEPTH 12"
MINIMUM
BY 2' LENGTH
BASE FLOW
SEE DETAIL 3/6.1 FOR CASCADE CONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN ROCK DROPS
Rock Slide
Not to Scale
1
6.2
Plan View
MATERIAL VARIES FROM CLASS I OR
II STONE TO BOULDERS TO LARGE
ON-SITE STONE IF AVAILABLE - USE
LARGEST STONE AVAILABLE
NOTES:
·USE AS DIRECTED WITH DETAIL 3/6.1 IN LIEU OF
CASCADING RIFFLES WHERE AVERAGE SLOPE EXCEEDS
15-20% (ROCK CASCADE MAY ALSO BE USED FOR THIS
SCENARIO).
·MINIMUM SIZE FOR BOULDERS SHALL BE 4' x 2' x 1'.
·VOID SPACES BETWEEN BOULDERS ON SLIDE SHALL BE
FILLED WITH SMALLER NATIVE ROCK WHERE
AVAILABLE.
·IF NATIVE ROCK IS NOT AVAILABLE, QUARRIED ROCK
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN THE SAME SIZES.
·ALL SMALLER ROCK SHALL BE HETEROGENEOUS AND
WELL MIXED.
Profile SLIDE HEIGHT VARIES(3' MAX)DOUBLE STACK
BOULDER SLIDE ROCK ATOP ROCK MIX
FILL ALL GAPS BETWEEN
LARGE BOULDERS
S
L
O
P
E

V
A
R
I
E
S
(4
5
%
M
A
X
)
NATIVE ROCK EQUIVALENT
TO CLASS I RIPRAP, VOIDS FILLED
WITH ONSITE GRAVEL AND SAND
(TYP)
FILTER FABRIC
EXISTING SOIL
TERRACE EXISTING
SLOPE
FOOTER OR LARGE SLOPING
HEADER BOULDER TO EXTEND
18" BELOW POOL INVERT
OVEREXCAVATE 1-2', BACKFILL WITH
WELL-GRADED MIX OF SMALL BOULDERS,
COBBLE, GRAVEL AND SAND
POOL INVERT PER TYPICAL
SECTION OR PROFILE
NOTE:
·BOULDER SIZE TABLES PER REACH
TO BE ADDED TO 100% PLANS.BANKFULLWIDTH2' MIN2' MIN
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.3March 25, 2020Brush Toe
Not to Scale
1
6.3
Vegetated Stone Toe Protection
Not to Scale
3
6.3
FLOW
A
A'
Plan View
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
TOP
O
F
B
A
N
K
(
T
Y
P
)
TOE
O
F
S
L
O
P
E
(
T
Y
P
)
TOE
O
F
S
L
O
P
E
(
T
Y
P
)
TOP
O
F
B
A
N
K
(
T
Y
P
)
DENSELY PACKED WOODY DEBRIS
BRUSH MATERIAL TO BE INSTALLED
FLUSH WITH BANK
TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL)
Section A-A'
DENSELY PACKED BRUSH, WOODY DEBRIS AND SOIL
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
BACKFILL
TOE OF SLOPE
3'
NATIVE SOIL
ELEV. 6" BELOW
POOL DEPTH
ELEV. 6" ABOVE
DOWNSTREAM
RIFFLE INVERT
NOTES:
·OVEREXCAVATE 2-3' BEYOND TOE OF BANK.
·INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED ON-SITE
AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY COMPACT
BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
·BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY PARALLEL
AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY UPSTREAM.
·INSTALL FILTER FABRIC OVER BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS.
·INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER BRUSH/WOODY LAYER ACCORDING
TO TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
·SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND
BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
FILTER FABRIC (WHERE
SPECIFIED BY DESIGNER)
WIDTH PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
3-6" PER DESIGNER
CHANNEL BOTTOMSection A-A'
ON-SITE ALLUVIUM/SOIL BACKFILL
CLASS 1/A/B, OR EQUAL SIZE,
STONE TOE (TYPICAL)
CHANNEL BED
A'
A
EXISTING ERODED BANK
WHERE APPLICABLE
(IN OTHER SITUATIONS
OVEREXCAVATION MAY BE
REQUIRED TO PLACE STONE)
Plan View
FLOW
EMBED STONE 1.0' (MIN)
BELOW CHANNEL BED
Profile View
BASE FLOW
ELEVATION 0.25-0.5'FLOW
MATTING
FILL VOIDS WITH ALLUVIUM
AND SOIL
NOTES:
·CONTRACTOR TO USE NATIVE STONE AND
MATERIAL WHENEVER AVAILABLE.
·IN POOLS, RUN TO 1' BELOW MAX POOL
THALWEG DEPTH AT 1:1 MAX SLOPE.
·AS DIRECTED, USE LARGER OR SMALLER MIX
OF ON-SITE OR OFF-SITE MATERIAL FOR STONE
TOE AND BACKFILL.
·WHERE SPECIFIED AS BID ALTERNATE,
ENGINEER MAY REQUIRE THAT COIR
WATTLE/LOG BE USED - INSTALL PER
MANUFACTURER RECOMMENDATIONS.
FILL BETWEEN TOE AND
BANK PER PLAN OR AS
SPECIFIED IN FIELD
KEY INTO BANK AT UPSTREAM
AND DOWNSTREAM LIMITS TO
PROTECT AGAINST FLOW
CUTTING BEHIND
APPLY JUNCUS SEED, TOPDRESS
TO PROTECT SEED
DISTANCE FROM BASE FLOW
TO THALWEG (DEPTH OF STONE
TOE) VARIES BASED ON RIFFLE
AND POOL DEPTHS
CHANNEL BED (THALWEG)1' MIN.BELOWTHALWEGSheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.4March 25, 2020Log J-Hook
Not to Scale
4
6.4Yθ
SCOUR
POOL
FLOW
Plan View TOE OF SLOPE
FILTER FABRIC
EXTENDS 5' MIN.
Section B-B'
Section A-A'
A'
A
B
B'HTOP OF BANK
OFFSET HEADER LOG
0.25' TO 0.5' UPSTREAM
OF FOOTER LOG
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
FLOW
VAN
E

A
R
M
LENG
T
H
(X)
SLOPE (S)
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOG
HEADER LOG
FOOTER LOGNONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
PLACE HEADER BOULDER
TO PREVENT LOG FROM SHIFTING.
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
PLACE HEADER BOULDERS
WITH 1' TO 2' CLEAR SPACE
BETWEEN ROCKS
EXTE
N
D

5
'
INTO
B
A
N
K
BANK TIE IN
NOTE:
·MEASURE FROM BANK TIE ALONG
BACK OF LOG
1
6.4
Constructed Riffle - Large Stream
Not to Scale
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)RIFFLE BOTTOMWIDTH PERTYPICAL SECTIONSPlan View
A A'
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
B
B'
HEAD OF RIFFLE
Profile A-A'
Section B-B'
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
CR-CR
FLOW
NOTES:
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT
WILL BE SHOWN IN THE PLANS.
REFER TO LOG/ROCK SILL
DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL
STRUCTURE.
·RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A
WELL-GRADED MIXTURE OF FINE
GRAVELS TO LARGE COBBLE
WITH A D50 = 6 INCHES.
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
Jazz Riffle Structure
Not to Scale
Plan View
Profile View
A-A'
TOE OF SLOPE
Log Section
B-B'
TOP OF BANK
FLOWFLOWA'
B
FLOW
B'
NOTES:
·STRUCTURES SHOULD VARY IN SIZE AND TYPE
WITHIN EACH RIFFLE.
·ROCK MAY BE SUBSTITUTED FOR LOGS AT
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION.
·IF A RIFFLE ENDS WITH A SILL IT WILL BE
SHOWN IN THE PLANS. REFER TO LOG/ROCK
SILL DETAIL FOR THIS FINAL STRUCTURE.
·RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A WELL-GRADED
MIXTURE OF FINE GRAVELS TO LARGE COBBLE
WITH A D50 = 6 INCHES.TOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANKA3
6.4
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
ROCK VANES MAY
BE USED IN PLACE
OF LOGS AT
ENGINEER'S DISCRETION
BURY INTO BANK 3' MIN. (TYP)
BANKFULL
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
6" SALVAGED ONSITE
COBBLE/GRAVEL
BED MATERIAL
LOG STRUCTURE
EXPOSED UNTIL
CENTER OF CHANNEL
CR-JZ
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
HFOOTER LOG
INVERT ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
HEADER LOG
Y
EXCAVATE POOL
PER PROFILE
θ
1'
1'
CLASS A STONE
BACKFILL (ON-SITE NATIVE
MATERIAL OR NO. 57 STONE)
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
HEADER LOG
CLASS B STONE
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
5' MIN. UPSTREAM
FOOTER LOG
STABILIZE VANE
WITH ONE BOULDER
ON EACH SIDE
X5'Log Vane
Not to Scale
2
6.4
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.5March 25, 2020NCG01 GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING EFFECTIVE: 04/01/19
GROUND STABILIZATION AND MATERIALS HANDLING PRACTICES FOR COMPLIANCE WITH
THE NCG01 CONSTRUCTION GENERAL PERMIT
Implementing the details and specifications on this plan sheet will result in the construction
activity being considered compliant with the Ground Stabilization and Materials Handling
sections of the NCG01 Construction General Permit (Sections E and F, respectively). The
permittee shall comply with the Erosion and Sediment Control plan approved by the
delegated authority having jurisdiction. All details and specifications shown on this sheet
may not apply depending on site conditions and the delegated authority having jurisdiction.
GROUND STABILIZATION SPECIFICATION
Stabilize the ground sufficiently so that rain will not dislodge the soil. Use one of the
techniques in the table below:
POLYACRYLAMIDES (PAMS) AND FLOCCULANTS
1.Select flocculants that are appropriate for the soils being exposed during
construction, selecting from the NC DWR List of Approved PAMS/Flocculants.
2.Apply flocculants at or before the inlets to Erosion and Sediment Control Measures.
3.Apply flocculants at the concentrations specified in the NC DWR List of Approved
PAMS/Flocculants and in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions.
4.Provide ponding area for containment of treated Stormwater before discharging
offsite.
5.Store flocculants in leak-proof containers that are kept under storm-resistant cover
or surrounded by secondary containment structures.
HAZARDOUS AND TOXIC WASTE
1.Create designated hazardous waste collection areas on-site.
2.Place hazardous waste containers under cover or in secondary containment.
3.Do not store hazardous chemicals, drums or bagged materials directly on the ground.
EQUIPMENT AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE
1.Maintain vehicles and equipment to prevent discharge of fluids.
2.Provide drip pans under any stored equipment.
3.Identify leaks and repair as soon as feasible, or remove leaking equipment from the
project.
4.Collect all spent fluids, store in separate containers and properly dispose as
hazardous waste (recycle when possible).
5.Remove leaking vehicles and construction equipment from service until the problem
has been corrected.
6.Bring used fuels, lubricants, coolants, hydraulic fluids and other petroleum products
to a recycling or disposal center that handles these materials.
LITTER, BUILDING MATERIAL AND LAND CLEARING WASTE
1.Never bury or burn waste. Place litter and debris in approved waste containers.
2.Provide a sufficient number and size of waste containers (e.g dumpster, trash
receptacle) on site to contain construction and domestic wastes.
3.Locate waste containers at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
4.Locate waste containers on areas that do not receive substantial amounts of runoff
from upland areas and does not drain directly to a storm drain, stream or wetland.
5.Cover waste containers at the end of each workday and before storm events or
provide secondary containment. Repair or replace damaged waste containers.
6.Anchor all lightweight items in waste containers during times of high winds.
7.Empty waste containers as needed to prevent overflow. Clean up immediately if
containers overflow.
8.Dispose waste off-site at an approved disposal facility.
9.On business days, clean up and dispose of waste in designated waste containers.
PAINT AND OTHER LIQUID WASTE
1.Do not dump paint and other liquid waste into storm drains, streams or wetlands.
2.Locate paint washouts at least 50 feet away from storm drain inlets and surface
waters unless no other alternatives are reasonably available.
3.Contain liquid wastes in a controlled area.
4.Containment must be labeled, sized and placed appropriately for the needs of site.
5.Prevent the discharge of soaps, solvents, detergents and other liquid wastes from
construction sites.
PORTABLE TOILETS
1.Install portable toilets on level ground, at least 50 feet away from storm drains,
streams or wetlands unless there is no alternative reasonably available. If 50 foot
offset is not attainable, provide relocation of portable toilet behind silt fence or place
on a gravel pad and surround with sand bags.
2.Provide staking or anchoring of portable toilets during periods of high winds or in high
foot traffic areas.
3.Monitor portable toilets for leaking and properly dispose of any leaked material.
Utilize a licensed sanitary waste hauler to remove leaking portable toilets and replace
with properly operating unit.
HERBICIDES, PESTICIDES AND RODENTICIDES
1.Store and apply herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in accordance with label
restrictions.
2.Store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in their original containers with the
label, which lists directions for use, ingredients and first aid steps in case of
accidental poisoning.
3.Do not store herbicides, pesticides and rodenticides in areas where flooding is
possible or where they may spill or leak into wells, stormwater drains, ground water
or surface water. If a spill occurs, clean area immediately.
4.Do not stockpile these materials onsite.
CONCRETE WASHOUTS
1.Do not discharge concrete or cement slurry from the site.
2.Dispose of, or recycle settled, hardened concrete residue in accordance with local
and state solid waste regulations and at an approved facility.
3.Manage washout from mortar mixers in accordance with the above item and in
addition place the mixer and associated materials on impervious barrier and within
lot perimeter silt fence.
4.Install temporary concrete washouts per local requirements, where applicable. If an
alternate method or product is to be used, contact your approval authority for
review and approval. If local standard details are not available, use one of the two
types of temporary concrete washouts provided on this detail.
5.Do not use concrete washouts for dewatering or storing defective curb or sidewalk
sections. Stormwater accumulated within the washout may not be pumped into or
discharged to the storm drain system or receiving surface waters. Liquid waste must
be pumped out and removed from project.
6.Locate washouts at least 50 feet from storm drain inlets and surface waters unless it
can be shown that no other alternatives are reasonably available. At a minimum,
install protection of storm drain inlet(s) closest to the washout which could receive
spills or overflow.
7.Locate washouts in an easily accessible area, on level ground and install a stone
entrance pad in front of the washout. Additional controls may be required by the
approving authority.
8.Install at least one sign directing concrete trucks to the washout within the project
limits. Post signage on the washout itself to identify this location.
9.Remove leavings from the washout when at approximately 75% capacity to limit
overflow events. Replace the tarp, sand bags or other temporary structural
components when no longer functional. When utilizing alternative or proprietary
products, follow manufacturer's instructions.
10.At the completion of the concrete work, remove remaining leavings and dispose of
in an approved disposal facility. Fill pit, if applicable, and stabilize any disturbance
caused by removal of washout.
EARTHEN STOCKPILE MANAGEMENT
1.Show stockpile locations on plans. Locate earthen-material stockpile areas at least
50 feet away from storm drain inlets, sediment basins, perimeter sediment controls
and surface waters unless it can be shown no other alternatives are reasonably
available.
2.Protect stockpile with silt fence installed along toe of slope with a minimum offset of
five feet from the toe of stockpile.
3.Provide stable stone access point when feasible.
4.Stabilize stockpile within the timeframes provided on this sheet and in accordance
with the approved plan and any additional requirements. Soil stabilization is defined
as vegetative, physical or chemical coverage techniques that will restrain accelerated
erosion on disturbed soils for temporary or permanent control needs.
A
A
BELOW GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
1:1
SIDE SLOPE
(TYP.)
10 MIL
PLASTIC
LINING
3'-0"MIN.& X'MAX.SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
ABOVE GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN
SECTION B-B
HIGH
COHESIVE &LOW FILTRATION
SOIL BERM
8"6"
2'
HIGHCOHESIVE &
LOW FILTRATION
SOIL BERM1:1 SIDE SLOPE
(TYP.)
10 MIL
PLASTIC LINING
B
B
3'-0"MIN.& X'MAX.A
SANDBAGS (TYP.)
OR STAPLES
SANDBAGS (TYP.)
OR STAPLES
SANDBAGS (TYP.)
OR STAPLES
SANDBAGS (TYP.)
OR STAPLES
NOTES:
1. ACTUAL LOCATION DETERMINED IN FIELD
2. THE CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURES SHALL BE
MAINTAINED WHEN THE LIQUID AND/OR SOLID REACHES
75% OF THE STRUCTURES CAPACITY.
3.CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE NEEDS TO BE CLEARY
MARKED WITH SIGNAGE NOTING DEVICE.
NOTES:
1. ACTUAL LOCATION DETERMINED IN FIELD
2. THE CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURES
SHALL BE MAINTAINED WHEN THE LIQUID
AND/OR SOLID REACHES 75% OF THE
STRUCTURES CAPACITY TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE
HOLDING CAPACITY WITH A MINIMUM 12
INCHES OF FREEBOARD.
3.CONCRETE WASHOUT STRUCTURE NEEDS TO
BE CLEARY MARKED WITH SIGNAGE NOTING
DEVICE.
ONSITE CONCRETE WASHOUT
STRUCTURE WITH LINER
CONCRETE
WASHOUT
CONCRETE
WASHOUT
PLAN
CLEARLY MARKED SIGNAGE
NOTING DEVICE (18"X24" MIN.)
CLEARLY MARKED SIGNAGE
NOTING DEVICE (18"X24" MIN.)
SILT FENCE
10'MIN10'
MIN
SECTION E: GROUND STABILIZATION
Required Ground Stabilization Timeframes
Note: After the permanent cessation of construction activities, any areas with temporary
ground stabilization shall be converted to permanent ground stabilization as soon as
practicable but in no case longer than 90 calendar days after the last land disturbing
activity. Temporary ground stabilization shall be maintained in a manner to render the
surface stable against accelerated erosion until permanent ground stabilization is achieved.
Site Area Description Timeframe variations
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
ditches, perimeter slopes and HQW Zones
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed unless
there is zero slope
Stabilize within this
many calendar
days after ceasing
land disturbance
7
7
7
14
None
None
(a)Perimeter dikes,
swales, ditches, and
perimeter slopes
(b)High Quality Water
(HQW) Zones
(c)Slopes steeper than
3:1
If slopes are 10' or less in length and are
not steeper than 2:1, 14 days are
allowed
(d)Slopes 3:1 to 4:1
(e)Areas with slopes
flatter than 4:1 14
-7 days for slopes greater than 50' in
length and with slopes steeper than 4:1
-7 days for perimeter dikes, swales,
ditches, perimeter slopes and HQW
Zones
-10 days for Falls Lake Watershed
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.6March 25, 2020NCG01 SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING EFFECTIVE: 04/01/19
PART III
SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION A: SELF-INSPECTION
Self-inspections are required during normal business hours in accordance with the table
below. When adverse weather or site conditions would cause the safety of the inspection
personnel to be in jeopardy, the inspection may be delayed until the next business day on
which it is safe to perform the inspection. In addition, when a storm event of equal to or
greater than 1.0 inch occurs outside of normal business hours, the self-inspection shall be
performed upon the commencement of the next business day. Any time when inspections
were delayed shall be noted in the Inspection Record.
NOTE: The rain inspection resets the required 7 calendar day inspection requirement.
PART III
SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION B: RECORDKEEPING
1.E&SC Plan Documentation
The approved E&SC plan as well as any approved deviation shall be kept on the site. The
approved E&SC plan must be kept up-to-date throughout the coverage under this permit. The
following items pertaining to the E&SC plan shall be documented in the manner described:
2. Additional Documentation
In addition to the E&SC Plan documents above, the following items shall be kept on the site
and available for agency inspectors at all times during normal business hours, unless the
Division provides a site-specific exemption based on unique site conditions that make this
requirement not practical:
(a)This general permit as well as the certificate of coverage, after it is received.
(b)Records of inspections made during the previous 30 days. The permittee shall record the
required observations on the Inspection Record Form provided by the Division or a similar
inspection form that includes all the required elements. Use of electronically-available
records in lieu of the required paper copies will be allowed if shown to provide equal access
and utility as the hard-copy records.
(c)All data used to complete the Notice of Intent and older inspection records shall be
maintained for a period of three years after project completion and made available upon
request. [40 CFR 122.41]
PART III
SELF-INSPECTION, RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
SECTION C: REPORTING
1.Occurrences that must be reported
Permittees shall report the following occurrences:
(a)Visible sediment deposition in a stream or wetland.
(b)Oil spills if:
·They are 25 gallons or more,
·They are less than 25 gallons but cannot be cleaned up within 24 hours,
·They cause sheen on surface waters (regardless of volume), or
·They are within 100 feet of surface waters (regardless of volume).
(a)Releases of hazardous substances in excess of reportable quantities under Section 311
of the Clean Water Act (Ref: 40 CFR 110.3 and 40 CFR 117.3) or Section 102 of CERCLA
(Ref: 40 CFR 302.4) or G.S. 143-215.85.
(b)Anticipated bypasses and unanticipated bypasses.
(c)Noncompliance with the conditions of this permit that may endanger health or the
environment.
2.Reporting Timeframes and Other Requirements
After a permittee becomes aware of an occurrence that must be reported, he shall contact
the appropriate Division regional office within the timeframes and in accordance with the
other requirements listed below. Occurrences outside normal business hours may also be
reported to the Division's Emergency Response personnel at [phone], (800)
858-0368 or [phone].SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.7March 25, 2020TOP OF BANK
TRANSPLANTED SOD
AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
NOTES:
·PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE
TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING & FERTILIZING.
·EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET
AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
·PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED.
·SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
·FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND COMPACT.
·ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
·PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH THAT
THEY TOUCH.
Section View
Riffle Installation Plan View
Riffle Installation CONSTRUCTED RIFFLE
Transplanted Sod Mats
Not to Scale
FLOW
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
4
6.7
Live Staking & Juncus Plugs
Not to Scale
Plan View
2' TO 3' LIVE STAKETAPERED AT BOTTOM1/2" TO 2"
DIAMETER
Live Stake Detail
NOTES:
·LIVESTAKES TO BE PLANTED IN RIPARIAN CORRIDOR
PLANTING ZONES DESIGNATED ON PLANTING PLAN.
·PLUGS TO BE PLANTED ON RESTORATION REACHES ONLY
UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE.
·IN ENHANCEMENT II AREAS, LIVESTAKES ONE OR BOTH
BANKS ONLY AS DIRECTED BY DESIGNER.
·LIVESTAKE NATURALIZED CROSSINGS ALONG EXISTING DIRT
ROAD SOUTH OF EAST BUFFALO (PAVED ROAD).
OTHERWISE, NO LIVESTAKING IN PRESERVATION AREAS.
2 ROWS AT 4'
STAGGERED SPACING
1 ROW AT 3' SPACING
3' OUTSIDE TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL
TOE OF SLOPE
JUNCUS PLUG (TYP)
Section View
LIVE STAKE (TYP)3'
TOE OF SLOPE
Containerized Planting
Not to Scale
2x CONTAINER WIDTH1.5x CONTAINERDEPTH2' TYPICAL
2
6.7
1
6.7
Bare Root Planting
Not to Scale
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT
DOWN INTO THE SOIL
TO THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE AND PULL
BACK ON THE HANDLE
TO OPEN THE PLANTING
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK
THE SHOVEL BACK AND
FORTH AS THIS CAUSES
SOIL IN THE PLANTING
HOLE TO BE
COMPACTED,
INHIBITING ROOT
GROWTH.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE
SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP
INTO THE PLANTING HOLE.
PULL THE SEEDLING BACK
UP TO THE CORRECT
PLANTING DEPTH (THE
ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE
1 TO 3 INCHES BELOW THE
SOIL SURFACE). GENTLY
SHAKE THE SEEDLING TO
ALLOW THE ROOTS TO
STRAIGHTEN OUT. DO
NOT TWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE
ROOTS J-ROOTED.
INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, SEVERAL
INCHES IN FRONT OF
THE SEEDLING AND
PUSH THE BLADE
HALFWAY INTO THE
SOIL. TWIST AND PUSH
THE HANDLE FORWARD
TO CLOSE THE TOP OF
THE SLIT TO HOLD THE
SEEDLING IN PLACE.
PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, DOWN TO
THE FULL DEPTH OF
THE BLADE.
PULL BACK ON THE
HANDLE TO CLOSE THE
BOTTOM OF THE
PLANTING HOLD. THEN
PUSH FORWARD TO CLOSE
THE TOP, ELIMINATING AIR
POCKETS AROUND THE
ROOT.
REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR
SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND
FIRM UP THE OPENING
WITH YOUR HEEL. BE
CAREFUL TO AVOID
DAMAGING THE SEEDLING.
NOTES:
1.ALL SOILS WITHIN THE BUFFER
PLANTING AREA SHALL BE
DISKED, AS REQUIRED, PRIOR
TO PLANTING.
2.ALL PLANTS SHALL BE
PROPERLY HANDLED PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION TO INSURE
SURVIVAL.
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH A TRIANGULAR
CROSS-SECTION, AND SHALL
BE 12 INCHES LONG, 4
INCHES WIDE AND 1 INCH
THICK AT CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED
TO AN APPORIATE LENGTH
TO PREVENT J-ROOTING.
RESTORED
CHANNEL
BANKFULL
BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN
Section View
3
6.7
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.8March 25, 20203
6.8
6' MAX. WITH WIRE
ORANGE SAFTY
FENCE
"T" OR "U" POST DRIVEN
MINIMUM OF 18" INTO GROUND
ATTACH SAFETY FENCE
TO METAL POSTS USING
METAL WIRE TIES
4' MIN.MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS
PHYSICAL PROPERTY TESTS REQUIREMENTS
MATERIAL N/A POLYETHYLENE
RECOMENDED COLOR N/A "INTERNATIONAL ORANGE"
TENSILE YIELD ASTM D638 AVE. 2000 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ULTIMATE TENSILE STRENGTH ASTM D638 AVE. 2900 LBS. PER 4' WIDE
ELONGATION AT BREAK (%)ASTM D638 GREATER THAN 1000%
CHEMICAL RESISTANCE N/A INERT TO MOST CHEMICALS AND ACIDS
18" MIN.Safety Fence
Not to Scale Soil Road Naturalization
Not to Scale
4
6.8
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
MUD MATS
SUPPORT LOG
12" Ø MIN.FILTER FABRIC
CLASS B
STONE
NOTES:
·CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
·MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAMBANKS.
DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL BOTTOM.
·INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
·MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF IN THE
CONSTRUCTION ROAD DOES NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
·STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE
OF THE MUD MAT.
·CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP
ANGLE ACCORDING TO EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
·CONTRACTOR MAY CROSS STREAM WITH OUT ANY SPECIAL
MEASURES PRIOR TO DAY LIGHTING STREAM.
10
5' DIM
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
Not to Scale
2
6.8
SOIL EXCAVATED IN
TRENCHLINE SHALL BE
PLACED ON UPHILL
SIDE OF ROLL
1"x1"x24" WOOD STAKE,
6' O.C.
8-10" DIA. FIBER ROLL
OF STRAW & BURLAP
TWINE MESH
PLACE SOIL EXCAVATED DURING
TRENCHING ON UPHILL SIDE OF ROLL
DRIVE STAKES
IN ON ALTERNATING
SIDES OF ROLL
OVERLAP ROLL EDGES 12"
AND SECURE TO PROVIDE
A TIGHT JOINT
6'-0"
MAX.
6'-0"
MAX.,
TYP.2" MIN4" MAXNOTES:
·FIBER ROLLS WILL BE PLACED AT THE
TOE OF SLOPE IN LOCATIONS WHERE
DISTURBED VALLEY SLOPES ARE
SLOPING TOWARDS THE ACTIVE
STREAM. FIBER ROLLS MAY BE PLACED
AT OTHER LOCATIONS AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
·RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO
RUN UNDER OR AROUND ROLL.
FL
O
W
Section View
Straw Wattles
Not to Scale
NEW CHANNEL
TOE OF DISTURBED
VALLEY SLOPE
1
6.8
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N
10:1 (MI
N
)
EXISTING GROUND
GULLEYING OF
SOIL ROAD
PROPOSED GROUND -
BUILD UP FOR DRAINAGE
AT OUTLETS UPSTREAM OF
BUILT UP SECTIONS, INSTALL
BRUSH OR OTHER NATIVE
MATERIALS TO DISPERSE
FLOW ACROSS HILLSIDE
Section View - Road
Grading to Route
Runoff into Buffer
FL
O
W
3:1 (
M
I
N
)
EXISTING GROUND
GULLEYING OF
SOIL ROAD
PROPOSED GROUND - ADD
IRREGULARITY IN GRADING,
AND/OR WITH BOULDERS
AND FELL TREES TO DETER USE
AT OUTLETS UPSTREAM OF
BUILT UP SECTIONS, INSTALL
BRUSH OR OTHER NATIVE
MATERIALS TO DISPERSE
FLOW ACROSS HILLSIDE
FL
O
W
Section View -
Road Demo to
Prevent Use
NOTES:
PRIMARY SOIL ROAD DECOMMISSIONING (SEE SHEET 5.X)
·OBSTRUCT VEHICULAR PASSAGE THROUGH INTERMITTENT
OBSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD WITH BOULDERS, TREES OR 3:1 MIN.
BERMS/GRADING TO REDUCE THE PASSABLE WIDTH FOR THE
PREVENTION OF TRUCKS AND 4-WHEELER TRAFFIC.
·REGRADING ROADS AT INTERVALS OF TWO PER 300' TO DISPERSE
RUNOFF AND SHED WATER BEFORE FLOW IS CONCENTRATED, AND
MORE FREQUENTLY WHERE THE FACTORS OF CONTRIBUTING
DRAINAGE AREA, GRADIENT, AND EXISTING ROAD CONDITIONS
WARRANT.
·PLANT A MINIMUM OF 10 TREES EVERY 300'
·MAJOR GULLIES ALONG ROADS SHALL BE GRADED OUT OVER AT LEAST
30% OF THEIR LENGTH, IT IS ACCEPTABLE TO LEAVE HUMMOCKY
TOPOGRAPHY.
·WHERE ROAD IS SUNK INTO LANDSCAPE, CUT SWALES EVERY 200-400'
TO CREEK TO OUTLET UPSLOPE RUNOFF. INSTALL BRUSH AND STONE
CHECK DAMS TO REDUCE WATER VELOCITIES AND TRAP SEDIMENT
FROM UPSLOPE.
SECONDARY SOIL ROAD DECOMMISSIONING (SEE SHEET 5.X)
·ALONG THE UPPER ROAD, NEAR THE STREAM ORIGINS OF UT4 & UT4B,
TREAT THE APPROACHES TO THESE UPPER CROSSINGS USING THE
ROAD GRADING TO ROUTE RUNOFF INTO BUFFER SECTION AT THE
SAME FREQUENCY AS FOR PRIMARY ROAD DECOMISSIONING.
·APPLY DETAIL IN OTHER LOCATIONS AS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT
WATER FLOWS THROUGH BUFFER INSTEAD OF ALONG ROAD.
·ALONG ROADS SITUATED ON RIDGELINES, OBSTRUCTIONS WILL BE
ESTABLISHED AND TREES PLANTED AT A FREQUENCY OF ONE
OBSTRUCTION AND 10 TREES PER 300'.
EXISTING GROUND
ROAD SUNK
BELOW GRADE
CUT SWALE THROUGH
EMBANKMENT TO OUTLET
WATER OFF CONFINED ROAD
INTO CREEK
INSTALL CHECK DAMS TO
REDUCE WATER VELOCITIES,
LIVESTAKE SWALEFL
O
W
Section View - Road Sunk
Below Adjacent Grade CREEK
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgMarch 24, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBENJM6.9March 25, 2020Erosion Control Matting
Not to Scale
Section View
ECOSTAKE (TYP)
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING (TYP)
Plan View
ECO STAKE (TYP)TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
TOE OF SLOPE 11"1.25"0.4"Eco Stake
TOP OF BANK
3' M
A
X
.
SPA
C
I
N
G
6" MIN. OVERLAP IN
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION
AT MAT ENDS
TOE STAKE (TYP)
0.6"
NOTES:
·ALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHOULD BE
INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE WEEKLY OR AFTER
0.25" OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24 HOURS.
·ANY MATTING FAILURES SHOULD BE REPAIRED
WITHIN 24 HOURS.
·TENTING (EROSION OCCURRING UNDERNEATH
INSTALLED MATTING) WILL REQUIRE PEELING
BACK MATTING, REPAIRING ANY RILLS, AND
REAPPLYING THE MATTING.
·USE 780 g/m2 DENSITY COIR MATTING.18"4"2"Toe Stake
2
6.9
8"4"
Temporary Silt Fence
Not to Scale
NOTES:
·USE WIRE A MINIUM OF 32" IN
WIDTH AND WITH A MINIMUM
OF 6 LINES OF WIRES WITH 12"
STAY SPACING.
·USE SILT FENCE A MINIMUM OF
36" IN WIDTH AND FASTEN
ADEQUATELY TO THE WIRES AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
·PROVIDE 5' STEEL POST OF THE
SELF-FASTENER ANGLE STEEL
TYPE. ANGLE STEEL TYPE.
WIRE
TOP AND BOTTOM STRAND
SHALL BE 10 GAUGE MIN.
MIDDLE AND VERTICAL WIRES
SHALL BE 12 1
2 GAGE MIN.
8' MAX. WITH WIRE
(6' MAX. WITHOUT WIRE)
SILT FENCE
EXISTING GROUND
SILT FENCE
COMPACTED FILL
STEEL POST2'-0" DEPTHEXTEND FABRIC
INTO TRENCH
3
6.9
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
INTAKE
HOSE
PUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
IMPERVIOUS DIKE
(SEE INSET "B")
10' X 5' STABILIZED OUTLET
USING CLASS B RIPRAP AND
NCDOT TYPE 2 FILTER FABRIC.
(SEE INSET "C")
INTAKE HOSE
DEWATERING
PUMP
DISCHARGE HOSE
DEWATERING BAG
(SEE INSET "A")
SAND BAG
(24" X 12" X 6")
OR STONE.IMPERVIOUS SHEETING
FLOW
FLEXIBLE DISCHARGE HOSE FROM
PUMP AROUND PUMP HELD IN PLACE
WITH SAND BAGS AS NEEDED.
10' MIN.
STABILIZED OUTLET USING CLASS B
RIPRAP TRENCHED INTO EXISTING
GROUND A MINIMUM OF 6". SIZE AND
LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED IN THE
FIELD BY THE ENGINEER.
FILTER FABRIC Inset "C"
Stabilized Outlet
Plan View
Inset "B"
Impervious Dike
EXISTING TERRAIN DEWATERING BAG
STREAM BED
FILTER FABRIC
8" of CLASS B RIPRAP
15' to 20'
NOTE:
·PROVIDE STABILIZED OUTLET TO
STREAMBED.10'15'
BAG PLACED ON
AGGREGATE
HIGH STRENGTH
DOUBLE STITCHED
"J" TYPE SEAMS.
SEWN IN SPOUT
HIGH STRENGTH STRAPPING
FOR HOLDING HOSE
IN PLACE.
FLEXIBLE
DISCHARGE HOSE
WATER FLOW
FROM PUMP
Inset "A"
Dewatering Bag
ACTIVE WORK AREA
DEWATERING
BAG
Pump Around System
Not to Scale
4
6.950'12'PUBLIC ROADCLASS A STONE
8" MIN. DEPTH
NOTES:
·PROVIDE TURNING RADIUS SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE
LARGE TRUCKS.
·LOCATE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE AT ALL POINTS OF INGRESS
AND EGRESS UNTIL SITE IS STABILIZED. PROVIDE FREQUENT
CHECKS OF THE DEVICE AND TIMELY MAINTENANCE.
·MUST BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH WILL PREVENT
TRACKING OR DIRECT FLOW OF MUD ONTO STREETS. PERIODIC
TOP DRESSING WITH STONE WILL BE NECESSARY.
·ANY MATERIAL TRACKED ONTO THE ROADWAY MUST BE
CLEANED IMMEDIATELY.
·USE CLASS A STONE OR OTHER COARSE AGGREGATE
APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
·PLACE FILTER FABRIC BENEATH STONE.
Construction Entrance
Not to Scale
1
6.9
FLOW
PUMP-AROUND SEQUENCE:
1.IMPLEMENT PUMP-AROUND WHERE REQUIRED BY THE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER.
2.IDENTIFY THE EXPECTED ACTIVE WORK AREA OF THE STREAM FOR EACH WORK DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DISTURB ONLY AS MUCH CHANNEL AS
CAN BE STABILIZED WITH SEEDING, MULCH, AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING BY THE END OF EACH WORK DAY. STREAM WORK SHOULD NOT BE
PERFORMED, AND PUMP-AROUND SHOULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED, IF STREAM FLOW EXCEEDS PUMP CAPACITY.
3.MOBILIZE PUMP-AROUND EQUIPMENT TO THE ACTIVE WORK AREA. POSITION PUMP INTAKE JUST UPSTREAM OF THE ACTIVE WORK AREA AND
POSITION DISCHARGE HOSE DOWNSTREAM OF THE ACTIVE WORK AREA. STABILIZE OUTLET AREA OF DISCHARGE HOSE AS SHOWN IN DETAIL. PUMP
AND HOSES MUST HAVE SUFFICIENT CAPACITY TO HANDLE TYPICAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS IN THE RESPECTIVE STREAMS, OR ANY CONDITION UNDER
WHICH THE CONTRACTOR DESIRES TO CONTINUE WORK.
4.INSTALL IMPERVIOUS DIKES DOWNSTREAM OF THE INTAKE HOSE AND UPSTREAM OF THE DISCHARGE HOSE. ENSURE NO WATER BYPASSES DIKES AND
ACTIVE WORK AREA IS ISOLATED FROM THE FLOWING STREAM.
5.START PUMP AND BEGIN PUMPING AROUND IMMEDIATELY AFTER IMPERVIOUS DIKE INSTALLATION. MONITOR PUMP AND WATER LEVELS AT THE
UPSTREAM IMPERVIOUS DIKE THROUGHOUT THE DAY. ADJUST DIKE OR PUMP SIZE AS NEEDED TO ENSURE THAT ALL STREAM FLOW BYPASSES THE
ACTIVE WORK AREA.
6.DE-WATER THE ACTIVE WORK AREA BY POSITIONING A SEPARATE PUMP NEAR THE DOWNSTREAM END OF THE ACTIVE WORK AREA. WATER PUMPED
FORM THE ACTIVE WORK AREA SHOULD PASS THOROUGH A DE-WATERING BAG BEFORE DISCHARGING TO THE STREAM. SEE DETAIL AND
SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER DE-WATERING BAG TYPE AND INSTALLATION. THE ACTIVE WORK AREA SHOULD BE DE-WATERED WHENEVER A
SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF WATER ACCUMULATES IN THE ACTIVE WORK ZONE TO IMPEDE CONSTRUCTION PROGRESS.
7.WITH FLOW DIVERTED, HARVEST COBBLE AND GRAVEL MATERIALS FROM THE BED OF THE DE-WATERED CHANNEL FOR RE-USE IN CONSTRUCTED
RIFFLES AND OTHER IN-STREAM STRUCTURES.
8.COMPLETE ALL STREAM GRADING AND IN-STREAM STRUCTURES WITHIN THE ACTIVE WORK AREA.
9.WHEN STREAM WORK WITHIN THE ACTIVE WORK AREA IS COMPLETE, FULLY STABILIZE THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL BEFORE SHUTTING DOWN
THE PUMP-AROUND SYSTEM. STABILIZATION CONSISTS OF SEEDING, MULCHING, AND INSTALLING EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG GRADED
BANKS AS INDICATED IN THE DETAILS.
10.ONCE THE ACTIVE WORK AREA IS STABILIZED, TURN OFF PUMPS AND REMOVE IMPERVIOUS DIKES. MOBILIZE THE SYSTEM TO THE NEXT ACTIVE WORK
AREA.SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831PRELIMINARYDO NOTUSE FORCO
NSTR
U
CTI
O
N