20021389 Ver 1_Monitoring Report Year 5_20091223

Da-_ 13000,
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
828-350-1408
FAX [phone]
December 17, 2009
NC Division of Water Quality Jj
Attn: Cyndi Karoly D EC J ,e9
401 /Wetlands Unit J
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Suite 250 DENR. WATEK QUAUIY
Raleigh, NC 27604 WETLANDS AND SMDR:`dv;,?TEq ar., Cli
SUBJECT: Biltmore Farms Stream Mitigation Project, Buncombe County, NC. Year Five
Monitoring Report. NC Division of Water Quality Certification for Project No. 02-1389 (issued
May 19, 2003).
Dear Ms. Karoly:
Please find enclosed the final monitoring report for the project listed above. I have also forwarded a copy
of this report to Mr. Kevin Barnett and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. In 2004, Biltmore Farms
restored approximately 590 linear feet (If) of an unnamed perennial stream and 275 if of an intermittent
stream to mitigate for unavoidable stream impacts within the project area. Other activities undertaken
included the establishment of a riparian buffer along the project reach and the implementation of bank
stabilization measures. Data generated from field surveys in September and October 2009 are included in
the enclosed monitoring report. Also attached are plans for this project for reference when reviewing
cross-section data and the photo log.
Monitoring to date indicates that this project has remained successful over the required time period. At
this time, we request the Regulatory community accept this project as meeting the required mitigation by
Biltmore Farms, LLC.
We appreciated the opportunity to work with Biltmore Farms LLC, the N.C. Division of Water Quality
and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to monitor the post construction progress of mitigation activities
implemented at Biltmore Farms and will be happy to answer any questions associated with the findings
included in the report enclosed. If you wish to discuss these findings, I can be reached at [phone]
ext. 2010 or by email at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
4aMfiF0 +"i? - mclk-rya
Carmen Horne-McIntyre
Environmental Scientist
Enclosures:
Year Five Monitoring Report
Project Plans
Cc: Mr. Chad Lloyd, Biltmore Farms, LLC.
Mr. Kevin Barnett, N.C. Division of Water Quality
Mr. David Brown, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

0 &- 13 e l
Biltmore Farms
Stream Mitigation Project
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Year 5 Monitoring Report
December 15, 2009
Submitted to:
Mr. Chad Lloyd
Biltmore Farms, LLC
One Town Square Boulevard, Suite 330
Asheville, NC 28803-5007
P: 828.209.1671
F: 828.209.2150
December 2009
Prepared by:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road
Suite 201
zz Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Phone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
u E@ ?. ?'&Ld ,
OEC `? A Fin
DT -WATER QUAUTy
WETLANDS AlrD STORM RATER BIWICH
F
L

,7
?J

L

F

0
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
'
In 2003, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) provided Biltmore Farms, LLC, design and
construction oversight for the restoration of approximately 590 feet of an unnamed perennial
tributary (UT) to the French Broad River and stabilization of approximately 275 feet of a second
' unnamed intermittent tributary. The unnamed perennial tributary originates from a seep at the
base of a large fill slope and continues to its confluence with another unnamed tributary to the
' French Broad River, downstream of Schenck Parkway in Biltmore Park. The intermittent reach
extends from a culvert beneath White Ash Road to the confluence with the perennial tributary
originating from the seep. Table 1 provides a summary of background information on the
restoration project.
'
Prior to the implementation of restoration efforts, stream banks within the project area were
highly unstable due to channelization and the lack of woody vegetation in the buffer along the
right bank of an unnamed tributary to the French Broad River. Stream restoration efforts on the
' perennial tributary primarily consisted of channel dimension and profile adjustments using grade
control structures. Channel pattern was also altered to a lesser degree; significant changes were
not warranted due to the original channel being located in the low point of the valley. Restoration
' activities on the intermittent reach involved profile adjustments using grade control structures and
alteration of channel dimension by restoring floodplain access to the channel.
This Annual Report details the monitoring activities during the 2009 growing season
(Monitoring Year 5) on the Biltmore Farms Stream Restoration Site ("Site"). This Annual
Monitoring Report presents data on stream geometry, sediment transport capacity and vegetative
' conditions, and discusses any observed tendencies related to stream stability and vegetation
survival success.
Dimension, pattern, profile and in-stream structures have remained stable throughout the five-
year monitoring period. Although some boulders used on the bank have moved in isolated areas
within the project reach, the banks do not appear unstable and planted vegetation is expected to
help maintain the stability of the banks in the long term. Boulders which are now in the channel
' do not appear to have significantly affected channel profile. Year 5 monitoring revealed no
problem areas within the boundaries of the Site.

' Two monitoring plots, 4,068 square feet and 2,190 square feet (fe) in size, were used to predict
survival of the woody vegetation planted. Initially, two plots 25 x 100 ft2 in size were to be
installed downstream of station 3+00. While it appears that one plot was initially established,
heavy rainfall during construction activity on-site resulted in significant damage to the plot.
' Biltmore Farms, LLC, planned to restore the vegetation plot and re-plant the riparian buffer
following the completion of the Schenck Parkway. Although the area was re-planted, a
monitoring plot was not re-established as planned. However, two plots were established in 2009
by Baker and as data in the vegetation monitoring section indicates, the riparian buffer throughout
' the project area is flourishing, including the area downstream of the Parkway. Photographs of
site vegetation are provided in photograph logs contained in Appendix D.
' This stream mitigation project was done to fulfill the mitigation requirements set forth in the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 Individual Permit Action ID. 200231303 issued July 31,
2003 and the N.C. Division of Water Quality Certification for Project No. 02-1389 issued May
' 19, 2003. Based on monitoring data collected in previous years and during the Year 5 monitoring
event, the Site meets the hydrologic, vegetative, and stream success criteria specified in the Site's

Restoration Project Plan. At this time, we feel no further monitoring is required since monitoring
to date indicates that this project has remained successful over the required time period. ,
Table 1. Biltmore Farms Stream Mitigation Project Background Information
Project Name Biltmore Farms Stream Mitigation Project
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Designer's Name Asheville, NC 28806
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Snow Creek Landscaping, Inc
226 Clayton Road
Contractor's Name Arden, NC 28704
[phone]
Fax: [phone]
Project County Buncombe
UT1: Perennial UT to French Broad: 36 acres
Drainage Area
UT2: Intermittent UT: 5 acres
Project Length 590 linear feet of perennial UT to French Broad
275 linear feet LF of intermittent UT
Mitigation Credit 590 LF at 1:1 ratio = 590 SMUs
(SMUs) 275 LF at 2.5:1 ratio = 110 SMUs
Total SMUs = 700
Date of Completion Construction: April 2004
As-Built Survey Fall 2004
Post Construction
Monitoring Year 1 Monitoring, August 2005
Completed Year 3 Monitoring, August 2007
Year 5 Monitoring, September 2009

1

1

I
0

11?
7
L

1
1
1
1
1
1
1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. II
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
2.0 MONITORING RESULTS ................................................................................................. 2
2.1 STREAM ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 2
2.1.1 Morphometric Success Criteria ................................................................................... 2
2.1.2 Morphometric Results ................................................................................................. 3
2.1.3 Stream Problem Areas ................................................................................................. 4
2.2 VEGETATION SURVIVAL ................................................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria ........................................................................................ 4
2.2.2 Vegetation Monitoring Results .................................................................................... 4
2.3 PHOTOGRAPHIC LOG ........................................................................................................... 7
3.0 MAINTENANCE PLANS .................................................................................................. 8
3.1 CURRENT AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE CONCERNS ....................................................... 8
4.0 SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 8
TABLES
Table 1. Project Background Information
Table 2. Vegetation Planted
Table 3. Vegetation Monitoring Plot Data
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A. PERMANENT CROSS SECTIONS SURVEYED
APPENDIX B. LONGITUDINAL PROFILE CHART
APPENDIX C. SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION GRAPH
APPENDIX D. PHOTOGRAPH LOG
iv
0
I
0

J

1
1
1
1
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
In 2004, Biltmore Farms, LLC, completed the restoration of 590 LF of an unnamed perennial
tributary (UT) to the French Broad River and stabilized approximately 275 LF of an intermittent
UT. The project site is accessible from Long Shoals Road, south of Asheville in Buncombe
County, North Carolina. From the Long Shoals Road exit on I-26, turn left and continue to the
second stop light. Turn left to enter Biltmore Park and continue straight through the Park to
Schenck Parkway. The site begins at a culvert upstream of the tennis courts from which the
intermittent stream flows and ends downstream near the confluence of the perennial UT with
another tributary west of the Parkway.
The goals for the restoration project were as follows:
• Restore channel dimension, pattern, and profile on 590 LF of an unnamed perennial
tributary to the French Broad River;
• Restore bank stabilization to 275 LF of unnamed intermittent tributary flowing into the
unnamed perennial tributary;
• Reduce sediment and nutrient loading through restoration of riparian areas and stream
banks; and
• Improve and restore hydrologic connections between the UTs and floodplain; and
• Improve site aesthetics and aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
To accomplish these goals, the following objectives were incorporated into the restoration
approach:
• Restore the existing incised, eroding, and channelized streams by creating stable channels
that have access to the floodplain;
• Improve floodplain functionality by matching floodplain elevation with bankfull stage
therefore increasing watershed attenuation and reducing peak flows;
• Establish native floodplain vegetation which will allow treatment of diffuse storm flow
and nutrient uptake while establishing part of a wildlife corridor in the watershed;
• Improve in-stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools,
creating deeper pools, developing areas that increase oxygenation, providing woody
debris for habitat, and reducing bank erosion; and
• Through restoration activities, obtain mitigation credit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers and NC Division of Water Quality for unavoidable impacts to wetlands and
streams associated with development activities taking place at Biltmore Farms.
After stream restoration was complete, Baker began a five-year post construction monitoring
program to evaluate the function and stability of the perennial stream in the project reach. This
report summarizes the surveys conducted and observations made in September and October of
this year.

2.0 MONITORING RESULTS
Post-restoration monitoring has been conducted each year during the past five years, following
the completion of restoration construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration
practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension (cross-sections), pattern
(longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation. Vegetation
conditions have also been assessed by photographic documentation and vegetation monitoring.
The methods used and related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
2.1 Stream Assessment
2.1.1 Morphometric Success Criteria
Cross-sections
Six permanent cross-sections were established as part of the as-built survey. Each cross-section
transect was marked on both banks with steel pins set in concrete to establish the exact transect
used. A common benchmark was used for each cross-section to facilitate easy comparison of
year-to-year data. Cross-section surveys included points measured at all breaks in slope,
including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features were
present. Riffle cross-sections were classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System.
There should be little change in as-built cross-sections. If changes do take place, they will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g.,
down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative
changes, deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio).
Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile was surveyed to record as-built conditions and stream conditions in
monitoring years 1, 3 and 5. Measurements included thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of
low bank. Each of these measurements was taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool,
and glide). In addition, maximum pool depth was recorded.
The approved project restoration plan requires the following criteria be met to achieve stream
restoration success. The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are
remaining stable; i.e., they are not aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with
flat water surface slopes, and the riffles should remain steeper and shallower than the pools.
Bedforms observed should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream
type.
Bed Materials Analysis
Annual pebble counts will be performed based on the distribution of pools and riffles present
within the reach. These samples will reveal any changes in sediment gradation that occur over
time as the stream adjusts to upstream sediment loads. Significant changes in sediment gradation
will be evaluated with respect to stream stability and watershed changes.
Assuming the project reach is not influenced by further land disturbance in the watershed, the
measured D50 and D85 of riffles should increase in coarseness.

1

L
1
1

0

Bank Erosion Estimates
t Erosion estimates will be made using the bank erodibility hazard index (BEHI) scoring
methodology. An estimate of near-bank shear stress will be made by measuring the water surface
slope along the observed bank length, as well as for the entire feature length, following the
' thalweg.
The success criteria for bank erosion measurements should be low by the second year of
restoration. Bank erosion measurements should be less than 0.1 ft/year.

2.1.2 Morphometric Results
' Cross-sections
For the Year 5 monitoring survey, cross sectional surveys were taken at X-1, X-2, X-3, and X-4
and are illustrated in Appendix A. Cross sections X-5 and X-6 were disturbed during roadway
and culvert construction in the downstream end of the project and were not re-established. Cross-
' sectional surveys for the as-built and Year 1 surveys were continued beyond the permanent bank
pins to provide supplemental topographic features of the floodplain area. However, additional

' topographic survey data beyond the bank pins in subsequent years was deemed unnecessary.
Although it was not clearly documented, it appears that construction of the Schenck Parkway
interfered with Year 2 monitoring efforts; therefore, no cross-section data exists for Year 2.
Cross-section data sets are shown graphically in Appendix A.
' None of the cross-sections appear to have significantly changed in the last three monitoring
events, which should be expected given the bank stabilization approach employed. The stream
channel at cross sections X-1 and X-2 appear very stable. The pool at X-2 appears to have
' become slightly deeper since the as-built survey was completed in 2004. The channel dimension
at X-1 appears very similar to the dimensional characteristics of as-built conditions. The lateral
bar that has been previously noted in other reports is still present, is partially vegetated and
t appears stable. The pool at X-2 continues to extend under a boulder along the right bank, but has
not resulted in bank failure. Asheville experienced a wetter September than has been recorded in
several years; the project site experienced several inches of rainfall in the weeks preceding the
latest monitoring event. The rock structures that form each step-pool sequence in this section of
' the project reach have remained stable and are controlling the flow of water as planned.
While relatively stable, the banks at X-3 and the right bank of X-4 have remained slightly wider
and slightly steeper than bank conditions present during the as-built survey. This widening may
be attributed to the lack of mature riparian vegetation along the stream banks and some
movement of boulders in this area. A small tree fell over the UT above X-3 within the last year
' and may have impacted channel flow during bankfull conditions. Although minor changes in the
channel dimensions are more prevalent in this subreach, the step-pool channel design is still
present and the banks are not experiencing any notable erosion problems. Woody vegetation
present and boulders placed on the banks should prevent any considerable bank erosion from
occurring in the future.
Longitudinal Profile
' A longitudinal profile showed similar spacing and pool length as compared to the profile
conducted during the as-built survey. Although some boulders appear to have shifted slightly, the
difference can be partially attributed to differences in where points were taken during various
longitudinal profiles surveyed. Overall, pools have either remained the same or become slightly
' deeper and the overall project slope has remained stable. Downstream of X-4, the channel grade

1
is flatter as the stream reaches the location of the roadway. Sediments have collected within the
culvert beneath the roadway although a definable channel is present and functioning. The '
sediment accumulation does not appear to have impaired channel pattern and profile downstream
of the culvert as several well-defined, step-pool sequences with deep pools were present. The
longitudinal profile surveyed is shown in Appendix B.
Bed Materials Analysis
Reach-wide pebble counts conducted for the project site reveal that bed material has become
coarser over time, particularly in riffles. The reach-wide median grain size, d50, for the as-built ,
and Year 5 pebble counts was 19.02 and 24.65, respectively. The gradation of pools remained
slightly finer than the mean. This trend indicates stability in the reach. Appendix C includes a
sediment distribution graph that shows the grain sizes collected by percentage.
Bank Erosion Estimates '
Bank erosion measurements for Monitoring Year 5 indicate a 0.04 ft/year erosion rate, well below
the acceptable rate of erosion defined in the success criteria (0.1 ft/year). This minimal erosion ,
rate is attributable to the general stability of channel pattern, profile and dimension present as
well as the bank stabilization measures implemented.
2.1.3 Stream Problem Areas '
Although some adjustments in channel geometry have occurred, no adjustments are significant
enough to warrant repair work at this time. '
2.2 Vegetation Survival '
2.2.1 Vegetation Success Criteria
Survival of live stakes and bare root woody vegetation was evaluated using two plots along the
perennial reach. Evaluations of vegetation survival were to occur for 5 years. If the vegetation '
planted did not survive, a determination was to be made as to the need for replacement. In
general, it was determined that if greater than 25% of the vegetation dies, the vegetation would be
replaced. '
A landscape plan was developed to address park aesthetics for the project area upstream of station
3+00. No quantitative vegetation monitoring was proposed for this reach as the streambanks and

floodplain have been managed as a linear park. '
Between station 3+00 and station 5+90, the final vegetative success criteria is the survival of 260
5-year old planted trees per acre at the end of the Year 5 monitoring period. In addition, for the '
five year monitoring period, the presence of volunteer facultative species such as red maple,
sweet gum, and loblolly or white pine were limited to less than 10% each of the total number of
trees utilized to determine success. These trees were allowed to contribute to more than 10% of
the total trees on-site, but they were not used to constitute more than 10% each of the 260 trees
per acre.
lt
R
i
M
i ,
s
esu
tor
ng
on
2.2.2 Vegetation
Riparian vegetation planted downstream of the culvert below White Ash Road to station 3+00
consists of flowers, grasses, shrubs and trees, all of which has come in and appears to have a high '
survival rate. As indicated in the restoration plan for this project, this segment of the project

0
reach is located adjacent to a greenway and would be routinely maintained as a park.
' Photographs taken in October of this year at reference photo stations depict favorable riparian
conditions throughout the project site.
' Because the upstream extent of the project area was designated as a linear park, quantitative
vegetation monitoring was limited to the project area downstream of Schenck Parkway. Two
monitoring plots, 4,068 square feet and 2,190 square feet (ft2) in size, were used to evaluate
survival of the woody vegetation planted on-site. Initially, two plots 25 x 100 ft2 in size were
scheduled to be installed downstream of station 3+00. However, site conditions did not permit
the two plots to be installed as originally proposed. A 30-foot sewer utility corridor crosses the
UT downstream of Schenck Parkway not far from the terminus of the project reach. This utility
corridor limited the amount of area in which to install the plots between the crossing and the
Parkway. While it appears that one plot was initially established, heavy rainfall during
construction activity on-site resulted in significant damage to the plot. Biltmore Farms, LLC, was
notified by Baker that the riparian buffer would have to be re-planted and the vegetation plot re-
established following completion of the Schenck Parkway in the fall of 2005. Although the area
was re-planted by Biltmore Farms, LLC, a new monitoring plot was not re-established as
planned.
' However, two plots which total 6,258 fe, were established in 2009 by Baker and as data
indicates, the riparian buffer downstream of the Parkway contains an abundance of woody
' vegetation. Many trees located in the riparian area were present prior to restoration efforts.
However, based on the tree type, height and diameter of a large number of trees contained within
the monitoring plots, it is likely that a number of trees planted during the project have survived,
whether they were originally planted prior to heavy rainfall sustained during construction
activities nearby or whether they were planted during Biltmore Farms, LLC's re-vegetation
efforts after the heavy rain event. Table 2 provides a list of the vegetation planted. Because the
vegetation plots were not immediately re-established upon re-vegetation of the project site
downstream of the Parkway, there was some difficulty in accurately differentiating young
volunteer trees from those planted. However, only tree species that are listed in Table 2 were
counted in measuring vegetation survival. In addition, trees used to evaluate vegetation survival
were also not used if they were obviously more than 5 years old (based on qualitative assessment
' of tree height and diameter). Table 3 provides a summary of woody vegetation present within the
two vegetation monitoring plots established. As evidenced in the photograph logs in Appendix
D, the lower portion of the project area contains a dense buffer of woody vegetation and
herbaceous ground cover with the exception of the utility corridor crossing of the project site.
' The remainder of the easement area and land adjacent to the easement has been left undisturbed
and contains a thick stand of grasses with volunteer trees interspersed among the grasses.
' According to the success criteria, the site should have a survival rate of at least 260 stems per acre
at the end of this monitoring period. Volunteer species were not allowed to constitute more than
10% (each) of the 260 trees per acre. The success criteria for vegetation survival has been scaled
' below to reflect the easement area available for establishing two plots as well as the size of the
monitoring plots created.
' Plot 1= 2,190 ft2 or 5.0% of an acre. 260 x 5.0= 13 stems
Plot 2= 4,068 ft2 or 9.3% of an acre. 260 x 9.3= 24.18 or 24 stems
As indicated in Table 3, Plot 1 contains 22 stems that were planted as part of this project while
' Plot 2 contains at least 31 planted stems. These numbers do not reflect volunteer trees or trees

listed in Table 2 that appeared to be more than 5 years old. Based on the density of planted
vegetation present, the vegetative survival criteria rate prescribed for this project has been met. '
Table 2. Vegetation Planted
Live Stakes
Common Name Scientific Name
Silk Dogwood Cornus amomum
Silk Willow Salix sericea
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis

Bare Root Wood Vegetation Percentage
Common Name Scientific Name
River Birch Betula ni ra 10
S icebush Lindera benzoin 10
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 20
Green Ash Fraxinus enns lvanica 15
Mountain Clethra Clethra alni olia 10
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 10
Black um N ssa s lvatica 15
Flowering Dogwood Cornus Florida 5
Witch Hazel Hamamelis vir iniana 5

1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
TahlP 't_ VPartatinn Mnnitnrina Plot nata

Common Name
Scientific Name Number
Per
Plot 1 Number
Per
Plot 2
Comments
Mountain Clethra Clethra alni olia 4 0
Silk Dogwood Cornus amomum 0 0
Silk Willow Salix sericea 5 0
Elderberry Sambucus canadensis 1 6
River Birch Betula ni ra 5 7
S icebush Lindera benzoin 0 0
Sycamore Platanus occidentalis 1 2 V Mature
Green Ash Fraxinus enns Ivanica 2 11
Tag Alder Alnus serrulata 1 5
Black um N ssa s lvatica 2 1
Flowering
Dogwood
Cornus orida
0
0
Witch Hazel Hamamelis vir iniana 2 1
White Oak uercus alba 0 2 V
Red Maple Acer rubrum 2 3 V
Tulip Poplar Liriodendron tuli i era 21 9 V
Black Willow Salix ni ra 2 0 V
Ironwood Ca inus caroliniana 2 17 V
Mockernut Hickory Ca rya alba tomentosa 0 3 V
Yellow Birch Betula alle haniensis lutea 1 1 V
Mountain Laurel Kalmia lati olia 0 1 V
Misc. Oak uercus ? 1 12 V
Maple Acer ? 1 3 V
Azalea Rhododendron ? 0 1 V
Holly Ilex o aca 0 7 V
Loblolly Pine Pinus taeda V
White Pine Pinus strobus 12 >20 V
Black Locust inia seudocacia 3 1 V
Unknown ? 4 2 -
Total Species Observed 71 >97
Total Non-volunteer Tree Species Observed >22 >31
Notes: V=Volunteer species or species not otherwise suspected of being planted.
This includes tree species contained within planting list, but judging by appearance, are
likely more than 5 years old.
2.3 Photographic Log
Reference photo transects were taken to document the channel conditions at each permanent cross
section and to assist Baker staff in evaluating changes in the project area since 2005 when the
7

first year of post construction monitoring was completed. The project reach was also
photographed longitudinally beginning at the downstream end of the mitigation site and moving

upstream. These photographs were taken at predetermined points and were identified on the as- '
built plans in order for photos to be taken at the same location in successive monitoring years.
The photos are included in Appendix D.
'
The photos qualitatively indicate what the survey data reveal, i.e. that the stream is generally
stable and functioning as intended. Although the buffer area upstream of the Parkway is
maintained along the right bank as a linear park, vegetation present is becoming more dense;

shrubs and trees present will aid in bank stabilization efforts implemented by Baker. The '
wooded, left bank upstream of the Parkway has been left in a more natural state and is providing
excellent vegetative cover. The undisturbed vegetative buffer downstream of the Parkway is also
doing well and contains a good mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation that is benefitting bank
'
stabilization and habitat improvement efforts.
3.0 MAINTENANCE PLANS '
3.1 CURRENT AND FUTURE MAINTENANCE CONCERNS '
Stream channel evaluations did not reveal any significant deviation from the as-built conditions.
Although some boulders have shifted or become dislodged from the banks in isolated areas, the
channel and banks by and large did not exhibit any stability problems. Baker recommends that ,
Biltmore Fanns, LLC, staff monitor the streambanks periodically to insure that if bank instability
issues arise they can be addressed. Additionally, it is recommended that grass clippings from
mowing not be directly deposited into the stream. '
To ensure continued stream stability, Baker recommends that the project upstream of station
3+00 continue to be managed as a linear park, with as minimal landscaping maintenance as

possible to allow current plant and woody vegetation to continue to multiply and mature. One '
benefit of the routine landscaping maintenance is the prevention of non desirable species such as
Japanese honeysuckle or multiflora rose from becoming established in this section of the project
reach. The buffer area that has been set aside under this project downstream of the Parkway is '
expected to continue progressing into a densely forested riparian area. With the exception of
treating exotic, invasive species, this area will be maintained in its natural state. Although a large
number of trees present in the riparian buffer were not planted as part of the project, the data

shows that both plots meet the success criteria required for vegetation survival on-site. Pre- '
existing vegetation and vegetation planted as part of the project are providing an effective buffer
zone for the stream in this reach. The more mature vegetation present has enabled the site to
i
on
realize water quality improvements more quickly than areas upstream where no woody vegetat '
was present prior to the restoration of the site.
4.0 SUMMARY '
In summary, monitoring criteria indicate the site is stable, has a stable channel geometry and a
riparian buffer that is healthy throughout the project reach. At this time, we feel no further '
monitoring is required since monitoring to date indicates that this project has remained successful
over the required time period. At this time the Regulatory community should accept this project
as successfully meeting the required mitigation by Biltmore Farms, LLC.

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPENDIX A. PERMANENT CROSS SECTIONS SURVEYED
C

j

'J
I

1

i

i
1
0

T LO
m
m

rn
0
0
N
O
O
T
V-
E i
m
N

O
O
N
O
( LO
Cl)
L
? Y m
C ?
c c? R
O (D O

4) r C)

O { N

cC
N
++
O
N
O

U T
T
m
m

>n
O
O
N
O
M
T

a
V
CD

N

N
W f - C O L O I; r C O N ? - O O M
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0
T 0 0
(4 ) U ol4 en O1 3

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
WAD
BFI Ratio
ER
BKF Elev TOB
Elev
Riffle B4a 0.4 1.79 0.24 0.37 7.55 2 1.5 104.09 104.46

107
5 Cross-Section X1
Station 1+63
.
107 _-
106.5
106
0 105.5
105
104.5 --------------
W 104 --------
103
5
.
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118 120
Station (ft) 0--- Bankfull ---©--- Floodprone

L

C

I

Photo 1: XS-1 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS-1 facing left bank
Photo 4: XS-1 facing downstream
Photo 3: XS-1 facing upstream
i
i

i
i

Cl

LO
m
m

rn
O
0
N
O
CO

N
N
}

O
N, I O
N
CD
LO
Cl)
N ca
C t0
O ti
+
v r- O
m = O
N O
O
N

o +
O ,
:°
Cl)
U
L

O
O
N
O
co
r
D
.Q

Q
i
C)
O

N

O N O 0 0 (D d
O O O O O O O
O O O O a m rn rn
( 11) uol ;enOIB

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Pool A 3.9 8.28 0.47 0.72 17.42 2 1.5 90.12 90.84
Cross-Section X2
107 Station 1+75
106
w 105
104 ----------------------------------------------------
0
r
> 103
--------------------------------------- -
0
w 102
101
100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
Station (ft) --- Bankfull ---©--- Floodprone
Photo 2: XS-2 facing left bank
Photo 1: XS-2 facing right bank
Photo 4: XS-2 facing downstream
Photo 3: XS-2 facing upstream

5

I

O

m
m

rn
0
0
N
O
O
r
[Y
L

E
1

O
O
N
O
r
1
C ?

?
? 1
W
C
O 3
C r?
G o

fA 0
N

Cl)

I
L
M

1
i C)

O
N
O
M
r

Cl)
C)
O
O
N
O

I-- (D LO ZT Cl)
om 0) 0) 0) m
(4) U014CA013

k
ti.- Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
2 B4a 3.9 8.28 0.47 0.72 17.42 2 1.5 90.12 90.84

91 -- Cross-Section X3
Station 4+11

90.5 ---------------- ----
y
v

e 90
R
m
89.5
w
89

100 102 104 106 108 110 112 114
Station (ft) _-_ 13ankfull ---©--- Floodprone

1

C
u

1

Photo 1: XS-3 facing right bank
Photo 2: XS-3 facing left bank
Photo 4: XS-3 facing downstream
Photo 3: XS-3 facing upstream
O
LO
m

LO o')
O
O
N
O
O
r
d'

}
LO ,
O
O
O
N
O
LO
r
M

C C7
0 C-4
N
LO r-
}
+ O
V ?t o
0? O N
fA N

N ?
w

U
c„ 0 m
t ` LO
M
i LO
O
O
N
O
Cl)
r
LO -0
N Q
r
C)
O
O
N
O

O
00 LO
W IT
00 M
co N
00 ?-
c O
o O
O O O O O O O O
(11) UOII BA01 3

Feature Stream
Type
BKF Area BKF
Width BKF
Depth Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool 134a 42 5.86 0.72 1.45 8.15 2 1.6 88.35 89.79
90.5 -
90
89.5
89
0 88.5
> 88
a?
w 87.5
87
86.5
100
102 104 106 108 110 112 114 116 118
Station (ft) f -- --- Bankfull Floodprone
Cross-Section X4
Station 4+29
Photo 2: XS-4 facing left bank
Photo 1: XS-4 facing right bank
Photo 4: XS-4 facing downstream
Photo 3: XS-4 facing upstream

I

I
i

APPENDIX B. LONGITUDINAL PROFILE CHART

0
0
rn
i
00
00 '
rn
0
0
O?
O
O
N
O
O
N
i
C m
L
IL
O
0
m "
c °
N`
U
C)
U LO
.?
d ? aa
O `°
C)
a..+ O
v 0
? o
0
C rv
C
E
CD
{
L Cl)
Cl) (7
L
°o a
L N v
O
O °
O
O O O O O O O .--
O O 0) co P- (D LD
(;;) uol;eAGIB

i
??
??

J

APPENDIX C. SEDIMENT DISTRIBUTION CHART

V
AD c
' O O
a
c
O,
'
G1 N
E?U
.b.1 N

' N
N ?
m
U O
U
' O 'fl
E a
ED

00
os
s?
o?
o!
s
?9
O
99,
c'
O19
99
06'
?9
sA
fA
U
9? N
09!
a?

O?
JS
o?
s?
o?
o2
oso
s?o
s
0
6,1o
0 0 0 o a o a o 0 0 0
O CD 0 C) O ? 000 O L co N O O
IU03JOd SSBIO
t

'II

J

0

APPENDIX D. PHOTO LOG

Biltmore Farms
Stream Mitigation Project
Photo Log
Note: Photo points begin at lower end of project reach and continue upstream to culvert outfall above
cross-section 1 (X-1). Photos taken October 2009.
Photo 7: Photo point 3 facing left bank.
7 4
Photo 9: Photo point 3
Photo 8: Photo point 3 facing right bank.
Photo 10: Photo point 4 facing left bank.
k?
A
"W

Photo 11: Photo point 4
bank.

Photo 12: Photo point 4
=mow ... ,.
Photo 14: Photo point 5 facing left bank.

Photo 15: Photo point 5 facing right bank. Photo 16: Photo point 5
P1t ? t 'A
Photo 18: Photo point 0 titcinL rieht
7
ii ?+tl (>?.3.4
Ml'
Photo ? I : Photo point 7 ?1:_ u, ?-

a
4}
P
y 1 v
. b
I-
J
Photo 23: Photo point 8 facing left bank. I Photo 24: Photo point 8
bank.
att
Photo 27: Photo point 9
Photo 28: Photo point 10 facing left bank.

t VW `
s
41

Photo--29: Photo point 10 facinu ri,-,ht bank Photo ;U: Photo point 10 lacinl-l uhstr?211111.
k , r 7
... 1 4
ff i r f
4
1Q' y eK y ' (
14
$ .r s. gt
Z, M,L
Photo 31: Photo point 1 1 facing lclt bank. Photo 32: Photo point I I facing right bank.
4
s
r.
. t ,

Ll

7

H

11

J

1
1

Biltmore Farms
Stream Mitigation Project
Photo Log: Vegetation Plots
Note: Photo points depict riparian area where vegetation plots are established.
Photos taken September 2009.

u

J

' Monitoring Year 5 Plan Set
� � � � r � � � � � � � � r � � �■ wr �r r

6014.09£'928 Xe-A
SOb6'09£'8Z8:auo4d
ON `B-1-1ABHSV
d
4n
90882 euilaeO 4lJoN `a
lOgf'Odd NOUVOWW VV BUTS
o w
w ..>
3 & 6oz 02
1 S
a
peon pooMAeH L6L
r f
z r?
'
SV48`dd 9HOVV1118
w a •oul `BUJJDGui6u3 Jejee Jae431W > r r r
oo0Z-WZ-9Z9:au04d
66992 ON `GMA049V
99M x013 od
'out '9uuB::j oJowule
:.jol pa mdo.y
g z
z
M ? L N
a o a w N
Y = u
m" < o o `w
0
L
L
O n I-
Z tL
w
CD J
C Q
U
O 01-
Q
N
t