20191132 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_FINAL_201005 MERGED_20201021

ID#* 20191132 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 10/22/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 10/21/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream r- 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 DIMS r Mitigation Bank
Wildlands Little Tennessee - East Buffalo
Mitigation Site
Graham
Document Information
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: 45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo Mitigation
113.93M6
Plan_FINAL_201005 MERGED.pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Andrea Eckardt
Signature:*

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  167-B Haywood Road  Asheville, NC 28806
August 14, 2020

Steve Kichefski
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District, Asheville Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Suite 208
Asheville, NC 28801

Subject: IRT Review Comments: Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site, Graham County
Little Tennessee River Basin HUC 06010204
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2019-01296
NC DWR No. 20191132

Dear Mr. Kichefski:
We are in receipt of the IRT’s August 6, 2020 comment letter for the East Buffalo Mitigation Site Draft
Mitigation Plan. Wildlands’ comment responses are detailed below and have been incorporated into the
Final Mitigation Plan as noted. Upon your approval, we will provide copies of the Final Mitigation Plan
for distribution.
DWR COMMENTS, ERIN DAVIS & MAC HAUPT
1. Page 7, Section 3.3.2 – Was NCSAM performed for the preservation reaches to demonstrate existing
high-quality conditions?
Wildlands Response: No NCSAM forms were completed for preservation reaches.
2. Page 31 – This section notes that favor will be given to reseeding streams with existing streambed
material. DWR appreciates this statement and highly supports efforts to salvage existing instream
habitat and organisms.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted. See WRC Comment #5.
3. Page 36, Section 7.7.4 – This section mentions sloping of stream banks and constructing a left bank
flood bench. Do these activities correspond to the 50-ft area of grading shown on Sheet 2.1.4?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has revised Section 7.7.4 to be more specific about the location
and extent of treatment and has added additional callouts to Sheet 2.1.4 for the same purpose.
The East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 enhancement II reach begins at Station 1013+92. There is
continuous treatment of the stream (bed and banks) down to approximately station 1015+00 at
which point left bank grading and benching continues for approximately 75 additional feet.
4. Page 39, Section 7.8 –
a. The 2016 IRT Guidance specifies planting before March 15th. If planting cannot be completed by
March 15th, an extension request should be submitted to USACE/IRT. Please note that planting
after April 30th may result in a delay of the first monitoring year until the subsequent growing
season.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.

b. Please identify a reference wetland and proposed target wetland community type(s).
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to the second paragraph in Section 7.8:
“The target wetland community will be a headwater forest with species selected consistent
with mountain alluvial forests; a wetland of comparable type and landscape position was
visited in a protected area within the Snowbird Creek drainage (across Lake Santeetlah) and
used to help guide species selection.”
c. In areas where priority 2 restoration is proposed, stream benches are constructed and wetland
caps are excavated, please include a discussion of soil assessment and/or reuse of site
topsoil/planting medium.
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to the restoration overview in Section
7.7.1: “Most of the Site will entail Priority 1 restoration work. In the footprint of Priority 1
channel grading and in areas of Priority 2 grading, Wildlands will strip and stockpile topsoil
before grading. The stripped and stockpiled topsoil will be reapplied during final grading in
areas of fill or cut where the top layer is lacking in nutrients or structure necessary to
successfully establish herbaceous and woody vegetation.” Wildlands recently collected soil
samples within planting areas and will use samples to prescribe soil amendments in both
Priority 1 and in the minor cut and fill areas proposed.
5. Page 40, Section 7.9 - Please indicate if fescue will be treated prior to or during site construction.
DWR recommends early treatment based on observations of fescue impeding planted vegetation
establishment and vigor.
Wildlands Response: The following text was added to Section 7.9: “Site construction is proposed
for winter 2020-2021. These species, as well as fescue on pastures, will be treated both prior to
and/or at the time of construction through both physical removal with equipment and through
chemical methods.”
6. Pages 40-42 – DWR appreciates the level of detail included in the Project Constraints and Risk and
Uncertainties Sections.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
7. Page 43, Table 23 –
a. On the original concept map UT1 was proposed as enhancement II at 4:1. Since no channel
work is proposed and only supplemental planting will be completed (without applying a
vegetative performance criteria), DWR thinks that 4:1 is a more appropriate ratio.
Wildlands Response: The credit ratio has been revised.
b. It appears the new UT6 was added after the IRT site walk (and the old UT6 became UT7). Since
UT6 is isolated from the rest of the project site reaches, is less than 200 linear feet, has not
been seen by the IRT and no assessment data has been provided to demonstrate it as a high
quality/functioning stream, DWR does not support it as credit reach.
Wildlands Response: We have removed UT6 as a credited reach but believe that there is
benefit derived from protecting this subwatershed and from invasive species removal
proposed in this vicinity.
8. Page 49, Section 12 – DWR requests the inclusion of red-line drawings in the baseline monitoring
report comparing record drawings to final mitigation plan design sheets.
Wildlands Response: Section 12 indicates that as-built record drawings will be submitted.
Wildlands has added language to indicate that red-line notation will be part of the submitted as-
built.
9. Page 49, Table 26 – Please remove the phrase “based on the soil type”. The proposed 12%
hydroperiod applies to all wetland restoration areas as stated in Section 11.3.
Wildlands Response: The phrase has been removed.
10. Page 50, Table 26 – Please note the vigor performance standard.
Wildlands Response: The vegetation vigor performance standard was added to table 26.
11. Page 51, Table 27 –
a. Table 1 states that 20.6 acres will be planted, which would mean a minimum of 17 veg plots (100
m2), unless supplemental planting areas are being counted. Currently 10 veg plots are proposed;
DWR requests a minimum of 2 additional veg plots: 1 veg plot located within the wetland
enhancement areas and 1 veg plot located within the wetland reestablishment area.
Wildlands Response: The acreage included supplemental planting. Wildlands will include 1
vegetation plot located within the wetland enhancement areas and 1 vegetation plot located
within the wetland reestablishment area. A total of 12 vegetation plots are provided in
monitoring tables.
b. DWR requires visual monitoring be performed at all road crossings proposed for removal along
preservation reaches to verify that areas remain stable through the monitoring period.
Wildlands Response: A footnote has been added to Tables 27 and 28 (in reference to road
crossing naturalization measures proposed along Reach 1 of UT2, UT3, and UT4); three photo
points were added accordingly to Figure 11 Monitoring Components Map.
12. Figure 11 – DWR appreciates that non-credit existing wetlands are shown, but please confirm that
wetlands A, B and C included.
Wildlands Response: Wetlands A, B, and C will be planted as wetland areas but are not proposed
for credit.
13. Sheet 0.3 –
a. Are there any specific trees proposed to saved (icon not shown on plan views)?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has not identified trees to be saved on the drawings yet. Tree
saves will primarily be identified during construction. Trees greater than 12” will be saved
where possible. Small willows and alders will be transplanted.
b. Is any fencing proposed?
Wildlands Response: Livestock will be permanently removed from the site and therefore no
fencing is proposed.
14. Sheet 2.3.1 – Can a callout please be added to specify where the UT2-2 creditable reach begins.
Wildlands Response: The requested callout has been added to indicate the start of crediting where
the existing overhead utility easement ends.
15. Sheet 2.4.2 – Should the “proposed floodplain roughing” pattern icon be added to the areas with
associated callouts?
Wildlands Response: The hatch pattern has been added for consistency.
16. Sheet 2.4.3 – Please confirm the culvert shown south of station 4008+30 will be removed along with
the road naturalization.
Wildlands Response: The culvert will be removed; a callout has been added to the referenced
sheet.
17. Sheet 2.4.4 – No work/structures are proposed at the UT3 and UT4A confluence near the easement
boundary. Are there any concerns about long-term stability for this area?
Wildlands Response: The UT3/UT4A confluence is located on an adjacent parcel. No significant
concerns were identified in this area that would warrant additional work.
18. Sheet 3.0 – Please removed red maple from the wetland planting list. For future planting plans, it is
helpful for our review to have the wetland indicator status included in the tables.
Wildlands Response: Red maple has been revised to only be allowed as a volunteer species.
19. Sheet 6.7 – The bare root planting detail includes a nice description of the installation procedure.
Could additional information please be added to the live stake detail (e.g. installation depth,
typically planted dormant, etc.).
Wildlands Response: The Live Staking & Juncus Plugs detail has been updated to reflect the
information suggested.
20. Sheet 6 (Details) –
a. Please provide a detail for the proposed vernal pool. Please note that the approximate max.
pool depth and that it will be designed to be seasonally dry.
Wildlands Response: See response to item b. below.
b. Please provide detail(s) for relic channel backfill/partial backfill and/or plugs.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands has created a detail to address vernal pools (now referred to
as floodplain pools for features anticipated to be wet, and floodplain depressions for features
anticipated to be dry or seasonally dry).
For this project, constructed depressions along the hillslope where the mainstem is currently
located are not anticipated to support fish due to their position on the landscape. It is
uncertain whether slope seepage will maintain these as wet or dry or seasonally dry features.
The upslope wetland reestablishment is likely to contribute hydrology to these depressions
and the intent is to add upland wetland habitat of varying depth with a maximum target depth
of 18” to be set based on winter hydrology present at the time of construction. An exception
will be made in areas where minimal disturbance has occurred and the goal is to allow
remaining animals to remain in place without being filled over.
Detail 1/6.10 has been revised to reflect the variation of these features and document details
associated with construction procedures.
21. Sheet 6.1 – The cascading riffle detail icon shown appears to correspond with the Sheet 0.3 legend
icon for proposed pipe outlet protection. Please confirm.
Wildlands Response: The cascading riffle detail is associated with the cascading riffle-pool
sequence detail and is not shown on the plans symbolically. The plans have been revised to remove
the cascading riffle symbol.
22. Sheet 6.3 – Will the vegetated stone toe protection be live staked or solely seeded with Juncus?
Wildlands Response: The live staking and juncus plugs detail will apply to all such areas.
23. Design Sheets – It would help our review to see the existing channel areas proposed to be filled as a
shaded feature on the plan view sheets.
Wildlands Response: These areas are typically shown with grading contours and this holds true for
most of the areas on the proposed plans. Also, old channel will generally be filled unless otherwise
noted (e.g. those noted in accordance with symbols referenced in 20.b. response).
EPA COMMENTS, TODD BOWERS
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback and comments on the draft mitigation plan for the
East Buffalo site as a component of the Wildlands Little Tennessee Stream and Wetland Umbrella
Mitigation Bank (UMB). Wildlands Holdings IV, LLC (the Bank Sponsor) have presented a viable plan to
provide compensatory mitigation for unavoidable jurisdictional stream impacts associated with the US
Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Section 404 permit program. The site, as presented in the
draft mitigation plan, is expected to provide approximately 4,511.5 cold stream mitigation units (SMU)
and 1.75 wetland mitigation units (WMU) through a combination of stream and wetland restoration,
reestablishment, enhancement and preservation in the Little Tennessee River Basin (HUC 06010204).
The chosen mitigation site will provide an excellent opportunity for the restoration, enhancement and
preservation of forested riparian buffers of the streams within the project conservation easements as
well as providing full watershed protection for several of the tributaries that contribute flow to East
Buffalo Creek. A significant amount of work will also be focused towards decommissioning unpaved
access roads and crossings within the established conservation easement. No credit has been
specifically proposed for additional buffer widths or water quality monitoring.
Note: It is understood that site visits may have been made by IRT members and other project
managers during the development of site feasibility to provide mitigation credit. In that regard I feel it
necessary to mention that I have not been on-site during this process and that my comments may
reflect a lack of on-site observation and evaluation.
The EPA Region 4 Ocean, Wetlands and Stream Protection Branch offers the following site- specific
comments as they pertain to the East Buffalo Draft Mitigation Plan dated March 25, 2020:
1. Section 1/Page 1:
a. Very first sentence is confusing. Since when do UMBs include towns? This is alluding to
service area, so a rewording is recommended. Perhaps “serve the towns of”?
Wildlands Response: The wording has been revised.
b. Excellent consideration and inclusion of several complete watersheds flowing into East Buffalo
Creek (UT 2, 3, 4 and 7) as preservation components of a comprehensive restoration plan.
Wildlands Response: Thank you.
2. Section 3.3.2/Pages 12-13:
Recommend adding “proposed for preservation” to the UT 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 descriptions
similar to UT5, UT4a and UT4b1.
Wildlands Response: We have added this reference to reaches UT2 Reach 1, UT3 Reach 1, UT4
Reach 1, UT6 and UT7. UT6 has been removed as a credited reach at the request of DWR.
3. Section 4.1/Page 13:
Field visit date is erroneous, and an error carried forward from the Wilmington District
correspondence sent last year. See page 203 of the pdf document to confirm. [Proposed
Wildlands Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank (UMB) Comment Response (SAW-2019-
01296)]
Wildlands Response: The field date has been corrected, however the erroneous date on the
referenced memorandum was merely coincidence.
4. Section 7.7.1/Page 33-35:
a. Commendation to the sponsor for considering and obtaining a conservation easement that
includes the watersheds of many of the UT components of the project. The very wide buffers
from the boundaries, protection of seeps and upland habitat, decommissioning of access
roads and capturing entire watersheds is an excellent approach to preservation.
Wildlands Response: Thanks you.
b. I understand and concur with the Enhancement approach for UT2 Reach 2 even as it appears to
be closer to restoration work. This conclusion is based on field notes and discussions with other
IRT members.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
5. Section 7.7.2/Page 35:
“Enhancement II is proposed for East Buffalo Creek Reach 2” should be “East Buffalo Creek
Reach 1”
Wildlands Response: The correction has been made.
6. Section 7.7.12/Page 37:
a. Excellent proposal to remove/decommission the soils roads and crossings within the areas
proposed for preservation. I would add caution that language such as “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” may be misconstrued to allude that
the project will improve water quality without any data to prove it. Without data or other
demonstrable evidence, the best the sponsor can provide is “This work may improve water
quality…” and I recommend that the edit is made.
Wildlands Response: The correction has been made.
b. Per the included diagram, Sheet 5.0, the access points to the soil roads will be blocked off
from East Buffalo Creek Road. I recommend this same approach applied to the road entering
and leaving the Exclusion Area 2 to prevent internal access if the property is developed.
Wildlands Response: Wildlands anticipates that renaturalization will render these roads
impassable to vehicular access. We have added the annotation to the sheet as a callout.
c. Additionally, I recommend that the sponsor include some sort of monitoring (visual/photos)
to ensure that the stream crossings are stabilized, the site access has been effectively blocked
to motor vehicles, and that the vegetation (10 trees per 300 feet) is surviving to some extent.
Preservation credits should be withheld until this minor success criterion is demonstrated for
at least two monitoring periods (years).
Wildlands Response: We agree to provide documentation of the stream crossings as
stated in response to DWR comment #11b, to visually verify survival rates of planted trees
and replant trees as necessary if planted trees or volunteers do not maintain 10 trees per
300 feet, and that any instability at crossings be addressed.
Pertaining to crediting, we offer the following suggestion:
7:1 Preservation (that has been proposed at 7:1 due to the characteristics of the
preservation- wide buffers and watershed scale protection) should not be entirely withheld
as suggested. We can agree that some withholding of crediting is reasonable in order to
ensure that performance and maintenance of these activities is executed to achieve the
desired sediment load reduction benefits and in a manner that achieves long-term stability
of streams.
The three crossing removals are one ford crossing and two old collapsed and buried culvert
crossings (subsurface drainage). The work is approximately 150 LF total to restore these
areas, as well as the work of decommissioning the adjacent road approaches.
Preservation reaches proposed for 7:1 credit account for 7,500 LF of stream credit, or
approximately 1,070 credits (or 25% of the bank total). We propose that 920 preservation
credits be released and that the remaining 150 credits (representing the work at the 150 LF
of crossing removal) be released along with the remaining restoration and enhancement
credits.
This approach withholds credits that exceed the value of the work being performed to
remove crossings and decommission adjacent soil roads and for potential adaptive
management, while releasing credits that recognize the immediate benefit of watershed
scale preservation and the considerable financial investment (land purchase) involved in
securing these assets.
7. Sections 7.8/Page 39:
Recommend removing Red maple (Acer rubrum) from the planting plan for the wetland planting
zone and it is a vigorous volunteer species. Excellent consideration of a mix of trees/shrubs for the
overstory and sub canopy portions of the Riparian and Wetland Planting zones.
Wildlands Response: We have removed red maple from the proposed list but maintained it as an
alternate in order that it may count in monitoring plots as a volunteer species. Please note the
additional changes we have made to the original planting plan based on comments and based on
availability of plant materials sourced through preferred planting contractor. River birch has been
removed from the planting plan based on IRT guidance. Also, we have lowered the percentage of
sycamore as requested by WRC and replaced with bioregionally appropriate species.
8. Section 9.0/Page 43:
I concur with the sponsors approach to mitigation ratios based on this section and with discussions
with IRT members.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.
9. Table 23/Page 44:
UT4b1 is not included in the project component list (50 lf of no credit/preservation).
Wildlands Response: UT4b1 has been added to the table as a non-credited reach.
10. Section 10/Table 24/Page 45:
Recommend that preservation credits based on the 7:1 ratio be withheld until the forest road
decommissioning/stabilization is demonstrated to be successful for a minimum of two monitoring
periods to ensure the site is indeed stable. Release of 10:1 Preservation credits should be released
upon site establishment.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to our response to comment 6 below item 6.c.
11. Section 10.1/Page 46:
Recommend that only UT 5, 6 and 7 credits be released under the initial allocation of released
credits.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to our response to comment 6 below item
6.c.
12. Section 11.2/Page 47:
Please provide clearer language pertaining to fixed/permanent and random/mobile vegetation plots.
As I read it, the permanent plots are also randomly located so using the word “random” may not be
the best choice here. See note 5 of Table 29, which demonstrates clearer distinction.
Wildlands Response: The language in the mitigation plan was updated to make the distinction
between permanent and mobile plots clearer.
13. Table 26/Page 49:
Under the “Improve instream habitat” goal there should at least be some sort of visual confirmation
of performance of installed/constructed habitat features to minimize the occurrence of piping or
other instabilities. Here is where a measurement/metric pertaining to large woody debris may be
useful to demonstrate uplift of habitat function.
Wildlands Response: Visual assessment is proposed as a metric by which the stability of
installations can be assured. Documentation includes photo points along reaches. Section 13
requires that in-stream structures be maintained and repaired as necessary to prevent piping and
other instability.
14. Figure 4/Watershed Map:
a. The East Buffalo Drainage (600 acres) seems to include East Buffalo Creek (600 acres) along
with UT 5 (47 acres), UT 1 (52 acres) and UT 2 (51 acres) which totals 750 acres.
Wildlands Response: The East Buffalo subwatershed drainage area was changed from 600 to
450 acres so the combined total acreage at the watershed outlet (East Buffalo Drainage) is
correct.
b. The UT 3 Drainage (156 acres) seems to include UT 3 (156 acres), UT 4 (78 acres) and UT 4a
(6 acres). The estimate for UT3 appears erroneous and should be about (72 acres).
Wildlands Response: The UT3 subwatershed drainage area was changed from 156 to 72 acres
so the combined total acreage at the watershed outlet (UT3 Drainage) is correct.

NCWRC COMMENTS, ANDREA LESLIE
1. Capturing the headwaters of many of these streams has great value for both aquatic and terrestrial
habitat connectivity and adds value to the heavier restoration work downstream. We are supportive
of the road decommissioning and stream crossing rehabilitation in the preservation areas. Once
complete, will there be any roads and/or culverts left in the preservation section of the project?
Wildlands Response: No roads or culverts will remain.
2. In addition, capturing the entire bottomland area in easement is valuable for protection of the
restoration and in providing a broader habitat corridor. As such, the planting plan is especially
important.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted. Please note that we have addressed planting suggestions
but also that upon review of the planting and further discussion of the utility easement with Duke
Power that we have decided to reduce the number of species in the planting plan and go with
more hardy species that could tolerate adjacent maintenance.
3. Please provide a wetland reference and target community for the wetland re-establishment,
rehabilitation, and enhancement areas. The vegetation plan should be based on references/target
communities. For the current list, we recommend diversifying the planting list as appropriate and (1)
eliminating red maple, as that is a pioneer species and should come in on its own, (2) reducing the
percentage of sycamore from 20% to 10-15% at most, and (3) eliminating river birch, as this typically
is only associated with large river floodplains in the Blue Ridge. We also ask for a wetland
herbaceous plant list.
Wildlands Response: Per the response to DWR comment #4b, text discussing wetland reference
and target community have been added to Section 7.8. The planting plan has been updated based
on the comments provided here and elsewhere. (Maple was removed but kept as an alternate not
to be planted but to count as volunteer species in vegetation plots. Sycamore was reduced and
river birch eliminated. An herbaceous plant list was developed based on observed species on site
and in a nearby wetland occupying a similar landscape and hydrologic position in a protected
portion of the Snowbird Creek drainage. The IRT is requiring a set hydrology standard for wetlands
and therefore no wetland has been proposed for reference hydrology.
4. Likewise, for the riparian area planting list, reduce sycamore from 20% to 10-15% at most and
eliminate river birch. Supplement the list with additional species, including understory species.
Wildlands Response: The riparian planting plan has been updated.
5. 817 ft of East Buffalo Creek Reach 2 and 976 ft of UT3 Reach 2 will be newly constructed channel.
The plan notes that substrate will be harvested from existing channels in the wet. Please explain how
this work will be staged, addressing both turbidity issues while harvesting material in the wet and
harvesting of stream biota. Please note that it is necessary for the designer to rescue/move aquatic
animals that are abandoned in the old channels. This can also aid in jumpstarting the biological
community within the new channel segments.
Wildlands Response: Applicable sheets now reference the proposed substrate and biota
harvesting sequencing provided on Sheet 0.3.1 which explains sequencing and sediment
management and that specifies designer involvement in relocation of aquatic animals. See DWR
Comment #2.
6. Wild trout reproduction should not be impacted by project activities and a trout moratorium is not
needed.
Wildlands Response: Comment noted.

USACE COMMENTS, STEVE KICHEFSKI
1. Page 2, Section 2, Figure 2/3 & UMBI – Please clarify if the intent is to utilize all 3 HUC's combined as
one service area as the report seems to suggest or whether each site within the UMB will be tracked
and have a service area of its particular HUC as the UMBI seems to suggest?
Wildlands Response: Since it understood that additional HUCs of the Little Tennessee River Basin
may be expanded/combined into one Official Service Area in the future, the following language has
been added to that end in the Executive Summary, Section 2, and the UMBI: “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 that
currently includes 06010204 8-digit HUC (Figure 2). If the Official Service Areas of the Little
Tennessee River Basin are expanded/combined in the future, the service area of this Site will
automatically be expanded to include the expanded/combined service area”.

2. Page 5, Section 3.2 – Describe existing community types of preservation areas.
Wildlands Response: The existing forest types found in the preservation areas are a mix of
Montane Oak – Hickory/Chestnut Oak Forest on dryer slopes to Acid cove/Rich Cove Forest near
streams and coves.

3. Page 6, Table 4 – Seems like the geomorphic location of the wetlands classified as seeps are within a
floodplain or crenulation and more likely to be relic bottomland hardwood forest or headwater forest
fragments, or so modified that it would be non-tidal freshwater marsh?
Wildlands Response: Wildlands agrees that these wetlands have been misclassified as seeps and
should be classified as headwater forest. Table 4 was updated to reflect this change.

4. Page 18, Section 5.4 – Please provide the archeological survey report that was submitted to the
SHPO in February 2020.
Wildlands Response: The final archeological survey report that was submitted to SHPO in February
2020 is included in Appendix 5 (and will also be provided in the PCN submittal).

5. Page 32, Section 7.6.3; Page 48, Section 11.3; Figure 11, Table 27 & Plan page 0.2.2 –
a. Please add two additional wetland ground water gages, the first in Wetland E and the
second in Wetland D north? of the proposed powerline relocation.
Wildlands Response: One additional wetland groundwater gage was added in wetland E as
was agreed upon per a follow-up discussion after these comments were received by
Wildlands. The above-referenced mitigation plan sections, table, figure, and plan sheet
have been updated to report a total of 5 groundwater gages.

b. Also, based on the LSS study and supplemental attachment/revised plan page, the
boundaries of the groundwater wells in the proposed establishment wetland have changed
slightly and the groundwater wells may need to be relocated to ensure they stay with the
proposed wetland boundary.
Wildlands Response: The post construction location of the groundwater gage in the
wetland re-establishment area has been moved to ensure it is within the proposed
wetland boundary. The new proposed groundwater gage location can be seen on Figure
11.

6. Page 37, Section 7.7.12 & Section 10.11.12 –
a. I like the plan for forest road decommissioning to help ensure long term function of the
preservation reaches, however there needs to be additional monitoring/performance
objectives for the crossing removal/road decommissioning areas to ensure their success.
b. Also, a portion of preservation credits should be withheld until those areas have
demonstrated a trend towards stability. For example, perhaps 15% of preservation credit is
held and released incrementally with the remaining stream credit as monitoring milestones
are achieved or after the bankfull criteria has been achieved. Is there a plan for accessing
decommissioned areas if repairs are needed?
Wildlands Response: EPA comment 6 and DWR comment 11b pertain to this. We have
added language to Tables 27 and 28 and associated photo points to Figure 1 that provide for
the visual monitoring and tracking that is being requested. In Section 10, the release of 150
credits (approximately 15% of the 7:1 preservation credits) is proposed over the 7 year
period.

7. Page 39, Section 7.8 – Describe target communities for planting areas (both wetland and upland), so
appropriate species can be corelated. Remove red maple from the planting list since it is so prone to
becoming a volunteer.
Wildlands Response: Refer to the DWR comment #4b and WRC comment #3 pertaining to wetland
community and our response to address wetlands; and DWR comment #18 for our response related
to red maple.
For upland planting: Wildlands has included a discussion in Section 7.8 pertaining to the target
community types. The only upland areas being planted on the site are higher areas between
tributaries in the lower valley, and sloping areas east of UT5. A note has been added to the riparian
planting plan to designate species that are preferred for upland planting.

8. Page 40, Section 7.9 – Will treatment of such dense invasive areas need a modification of veg
approach such as a delay in planting or an elem·need for supplemental planting while the invasive
are eradicated? Were any of the preservation areas assessed for invasive species beyond treatments
shown in the Invasives Treatment Plan sheet 3.4?
Wildlands Response: A large portion of the preservation areas have been assessed for invasive
species. The areas identified on the plans represent the areas with infestations that are sufficiently
large and dense so as to have potential long-term impacts to forest structure. These are the primary
areas that we have identified for treatment. Other areas will be treated as specified in the
mitigation plan.

9. Page 41, Section 7.1 – This section (and plans) seems to imply the utility line (including relocated
sections) can be accessed without any need for crossing the CE area streams or additional
encroachment of the CE outside of the ROW, but please confirm.
Wildlands Response: That is correct—the utility line (including relocated sections) can be accessed
without crossing CE area streams or additional encroachment of the CE outside the ROW. The new
proposed equipment access to maintain the utility ROW on the Site is located off East Buffalo Road
between the upstream limits of Reach 2 of UT2 and UT3. While no streams will be encroached upon
from the new equipment access location, two small areas of existing wetland will be encroached
upon within the lower valley of the ROW; however, the realigned utility line ROW intersects a much
smaller area of existing wetland than the existing utility line ROW alignment.

10. Please update the UMBI to the most recent 2020 version and include Erin Davis as the NCDWR
contact.
Wildlands Response: The UMBI has been updated to the most recent 2020 version and includes Erin
Davis as the NCDWR contact.

11. Page 44, Section 10 – Add 404 approval to the requirements prior to credit release. That line seems
to duplicate information in Section 10.1 and 10.2?
Wildlands Response: The following text from Section 10.1 was added to Section 10.0 for consistency
in summarizing the necessary requirements to be satisfied prior to credit release: “404 permit
verification for construction of the site, if required.”

12. Page 55, Section14.2, Table 31 – Verify that all boundaries will be marked and by what method,
including remote boundaries away from typical access points.
Wildlands Response: The boundaries of the conservation easement will be marked in the field to
ensure distinction between the conservation easement area and adjacent land. Boundaries may be
marked by signs, gates, posts, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or the
conservation easement document. Given the large scale of the Site and associated easement area,
markers will be focused on areas where the easement aligns with external/property boundaries.

13. Page 58, Section 15, Table 33 – A construction/supplemental planting and invasive contingency of at
least 8-10% is requested in the financial assurances.
Wildlands Response: Financial assurances have been modified to ensure that
construction/supplemental planting, and invasive control contingencies are at least 8% insurance
principal.

14. Plans – Much of the design plan for UT3 Reach 2B (or the riffle details) does not show any type of
step or vane grade control structure anchoring in the downstream end of riffles despite steep slopes.
Please describe why there is not a concern for instability with this approach or a design characteristic
I may have missed that ensures the riffles remain stable.
Wildlands Response: In refining the plans, we have addressed this in several ways. We utilize
cascading riffle portions similar to those in the Cascading Riffle-Pool sequence, which have structure
sized riffle material at the end of every riffle. At this stage, we have also designated the additional
riffle formations to be used throughout the project and added the corresponding details. The
Morphology Characteristics of Southern Appalachian Wilderness Streams (Zink, Jennings, Price,
2012) was referenced throughout design and influenced profile decisions. The overall goal of the
design was to provide stream stability while incorporating a natural approach through the existing
wetland area. However, additional grade control structures have been visibly added to the design to
further stabilize above-referenced areas of concern.

15. Add additional vegetation monitoring plots in wetland enhancement and rehabilitation areas for
better performance assessment.
Wildlands Response: Please refer to Wildlands’ response to DWR comment #11. Wildlands
increased the vegetation plot total from 10 to 12 by adding an additional vegetation plot to the
wetland enhancement area and the wetland re-establishment area.

Two (2) hard copies and one pdf file (on CD) of the Final Mitigation Plan are included. Please contact me
at [phone] extension 100 if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Shawn Wilkerson
President

MITIGATION PLAN
Final

October 5, 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 #2019-1132 version 1

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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 hydrologic unit within which
it is located as shown in Figure 2 (Little Tennessee River Basin Hydrologic Unit 06010204). If the Official
Service Areas of the Little Tennessee River Basin are expanded/combined in the future, the service area
of this Site will automatically be expanded to include the expanded/combined service area. This work is
proposed to generate 4,432.5 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 ......................................................................................... 18
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 ...................................................................................... 19
7.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ........................................................................... 20
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 ..................................................................................................... 40
7.9 Invasive Vegetation Species Control Plan ................................................................................... 41
7.10 Site Constraints ........................................................................................................................... 41
7.11 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 43
8.0 Site Protection Instrument ..................................................................................................... 43
9.0 Determination of Credits ....................................................................................................... 44
10.0 Credit Release Schedule ......................................................................................................... 45
10.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits .......................................................................................... 47
10.2 Subsequent Credit Releases ....................................................................................................... 47
11.0 Performance Standards ......................................................................................................... 48
11.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 48
11.2 Vegetation .................................................................................................................................. 49
11.3 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 49
12.0 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................... 51
12.1 Monitoring Components ............................................................................................................ 52
13.0 Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan ....................................................................... 56
14.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................ 57
14.1 Ownership and Long-Term Manager .......................................................................................... 57
14.2 Long-Term Management Activities ............................................................................................ 57
14.3 Funding Mechanism ................................................................................................................... 58
15.0 Financial Assurances .............................................................................................................. 59
16.0 References ............................................................................................................................ 61

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page iii
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 ...................................................................... 42
Table 22: Site Parcel .................................................................................................................................... 44
Table 23: Project Asset Table ...................................................................................................................... 45
Table 24: Credit Release Schedule - Stream Credits ................................................................................... 46
Table 25: Credit Release Schedule – Wetland Credits ................................................................................ 46
Table 26: Monitoring Plan ........................................................................................................................... 51
Table 27: Monitoring Components – East Buffalo Creek, UT1, UT2 ........................................................... 53
Table 28: Monitoring Components – UT3, UT4, UT4a, and UT4b .............................................................. 54
Table 29: Monitoring Components – UT5, UT6, and UT7 ........................................................................... 55
Table 30: Adaptive Management and Maintenance Plan .......................................................................... 56
Table 31: Long-term Management Plan ..................................................................................................... 58
Table 32: Management Funding ................................................................................................................. 58
Table 33: Financial Assurances Table .......................................................................................................... 60
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
Figure 9 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 10 Concept Design Map
Figure 11 Monitoring Components Map

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page iv

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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The proposed Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank’s (Bank) service area currently includes the
towns of Robbinsville, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 that
currently includes 06010204 8-digit HUC (Figure 2). If the Official Service Areas of the Little Tennessee
River Basin are expanded/combined in the future, the service area of this Site will automatically be
expanded to include the expanded/combined service area. 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, UT4b, 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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 3
Project Drainage Area (acres) 600 (East Buffalo Creek), 156 (UT3), 21 (UT6), 23 (UT7)
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 gneiss 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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) Headwater Forest Headwater
Forest Headwater Forest Headwater
Forest
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) Headwater Forest Headwater
Forest Headwater Forest Headwater
Forest
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) Headwater Forest 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 8
Table 5: Project Site Streams – Preservation
Parameter UT2 Reach
1
UT3 Reach
1
UT4 Reach
1 UT4a UT4b UT5 Reach
1 UT61 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
1 As part of the Final Mitigation Plan, UT6 is no longer proposed for credit
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 and is proposed for stream preservation. 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
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 11
subsurface flow and evidence of 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, head-cutting 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 and is proposed for stream preservation. 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 multi-threaded channel observed on this reach. UT3 Reach 3

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 and is proposed for stream preservation. 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. While this reach will be preserved and protected by the
proposed conservation easement, it is not proposed for credit. 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. 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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. While UT6 will be preserved and
protected by the proposed conservation easement, it is not proposed for credit. 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).
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. UT7 is
proposed for stream preservation. 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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 14
wetland systems. This area is hydrologically drained with a historic clay drain tile that was located during
a December 2019 field visit, on the right floodplain of East Buffalo Creek immediately below the down-
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 15
tributaries across the road while protecting the entire lower valley bottom with substantial buffers
against future forestry practices.
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 16
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.
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 17
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan
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
Jurisdictional
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 Stream
grading 0.028 Minor floodplain
grading 0.041
Wetland B Seep 0.03 Stream
grading 0.001
Minor
stream/floodplain
grading
0.033
Wetland C Seep 0.01 Stream
grading 0.002
Minor
stream/floodplain
grading
0.012
Wetland D Seep 1.28 Stream
grading 0.105
Minor floodplain
grading/road
naturalization,
overhead utility
installation
0.835
Wetland F
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
0.04 - - Minor floodplain
grading 0.045
Wetland G Seep 0.01 Stream
grading 0.002 Minor floodplain
grading 0.008
Wetland H Seep 0.01 - Stream bank
grading 0.008
Wetland I Seep 0.02 - -
Building
removal/minor
grading
0.016
Wetland J
Bottomland
Hardwood
Forest
0.05 - -
Building
removal/minor
grading
0.051
Total P Impact 0.138 Total T Impact 1.041

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 18
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
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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 19

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
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,
Physicochemical
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
Hydraulic,
Geomorphology,
Physicochemical,
Biology

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 20
Goals Objectives Expected Outcomes Functions
Improved
species; add to existing
protected lands in the
vicinity.
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
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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 21
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.
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)

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 22
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
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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 23
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.
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)

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 24
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.
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 in situ 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 five 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 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 (4:1)1
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
1 UT1 is proposed at 4:1 whereas other Enhancement II reaches are proposed at 2.5:1

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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 34
provide a cross-sectional area sized for maintaining flood relief onto a flood prone bankfull bench, a
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.
Most of the Site will entail Priority 1 restoration, 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. In the footprint of Priority 1 channel grading and in areas of Priority 2
grading, Wildlands will strip and stockpile topsoil before grading. The stripped and stockpiled topsoil will
be reapplied during final grading in areas of fill or cut where the top layer is lacking in nutrients or
structure necessary to successfully establish herbaceous and woody vegetation. 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. UT1 will
have minimal or no channel work but requires extensive invasive species removal (it is proposed at a
lower ratio than other Enhancement II reaches).

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 35
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
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
herbaceous, 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 1 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 honeysuckle
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 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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 36
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
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
restoration-like treatment for the first 100 linear feet. Thereafter, the left bank will be regraded to
address toe erosion and a bench installed, involving removal of an existing berm along portions of the
top of left bank. This treatment will extend for approximately an additional 100 linear feet. For the
remainder of the reach, and along the right bank, spot treatments will be applied to narrow the base
flow channel and improve in-stream habitat. Where physical removal of large privet is deemed the best
method of treatment, the bank will be rebuilt with sloping, and benching where possible. As part of
some of the installation of structures, cover logs will be installed in pools for habitat enhancement.
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. If old crossings or significant erosion are identified, areas will be treated through
physical and/or vegetative methods.
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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 37
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
multi-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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 38
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 may improve water quality by reducing sedimentation to the
streams across the site from road erosion and will restore stream habitat and aquatic species passage.
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.
Primary soil road crossing along UT2 Reach 1
looking across (perpendicular to) the
channel.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 39
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.
Wildlands will install a minimum of three outlets to the creek to force water off the sunken roadbed 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
Secondary soil road crossing along UT4b
looking across (perpendicular to) the
channel.
Primary soil road paralleling UT3 Reach 1
(looking up valley).

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 40
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 2016 IRT guidance specifies planting before
March 15th and a submittal of an extension request to USACE/IRT for planting completed after March
15th. It also states that planting after April 30 th may result in a delay of the first monitoring year until the
subsequent growing season.
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. The target wetland community will be a
headwater forest with species selected consistent with mountain alluvial forests; a wetland of
comparable type and landscape position was visited in a protected area within the Snowbird Creek
drainage (across Lake Santeetlah) and used to help guide species selection. Species chosen for the Site
for riparian, wetland and temporary seeding, streambank, riparian and wetland planting, and for
supplemental shaded riparian and utility right-of-way are listed on Sheet 3.0 of the preliminary plans in
Appendix 9. Generally, bare root planting or livestakes will be used for woody planting, although tubling
or container planting may be substituted.
Riparian species to be planted in open non-wetland areas of the Site may include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), black cherry (Prunus serotina), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), American Linden
(Tilia Americana), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), boxelder (Acer
negundo), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sweet birch (Betula lenta), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), paw paw
(Asimina triloba), American hazelnut (Corylus americana), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). A
minimum of 10 species will be planted from these or from acceptable substitutes provided on Sheet 3.0
of the plans.
Wetland species to be planted in open wetland re-establishment, rehabilitation and enhancement areas
may include sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), tag alder (Alnus
serrulata), eastern cottonwood (Populus deltoides), southern crabapple (Malus angustifolia), white
basswood (Tilia americana), boxelder (Acer negundo), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboretum), strawberry bush (euonymus americanus), northern red oak (Quercus rubra),
sweet birch (Betula lenta), american hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana), witch hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweet-pepperbush (Clethra acuminata), and Ilex spp. In
addition, wetland planting species may include live stake, tubling or bare root planting of black willow
(Salix nigra), silky willow (Salix sericea), and buttonbush (cephalanthus occidentalis).
While wetland seeding is proposed in the plans, wetland plugs may be incorporated at the designer’s
discretion and may include yellowroot (Xanthorhiza simplicissima), cinnamon fern (Osmunda
cinnamomea), interrupted fern (Osmunda claytoniana), jack-in-the-pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum spp.
Triphyllum), sedges (carex spp.), woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and broadleaf arrowhead (Sagittaria
latifolia).

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 41
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 designated on the plans.
Stream banks on Site will be planted with live stakes including black willow (salix nigra), silky dogwood
(cornus amomum), 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), fringed sedge (Carex crinita), shallow sedge (Carex Lurida), and straw-
colored flatsedge (Cyperus strigosus), or substitutes approved by the designer. Permanent native
riparian 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. Site construction is proposed for winter 2020-2021. Within
accessible areas, species will be treated through physical removal during construction. Fescue will be
chemically treated in the pasture either immediately prior to or following construction. Chemical
treatment will be also be used for less accessible areas, for follow-up treatments, and in areas where
minimal ground disturbance is preferred, such as along stable stream banks. Chemical treatment 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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 42
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 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
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 and NCDOT ROW bisect the parcel and cross UT2, UT3, UT4, and UT4a;
the Site’s conservation easement extends to abut the existing 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 verified an existing ROW of 40 feet, 20 feet on either side of the
transmission line and power poles. 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.
It should be noted that wild trout reproduction should not be impacted by project activities and that a
trout moratorium is unnecessary for project construction per correspondence with North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC).
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 43
Easement
Crossing Location Type
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
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
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 44
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.

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. Most 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. UT1 is proposed at 4:1
due to no or minimal channel work, and mainly invasive vegetation removal as the primary
enhancement activity. 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. UT7 has less connectivity to the immediate project area
downstream and are therefore proposed at a lower 10:1 ratio. However, preserving UT7 and the
uncredited UT6 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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 45
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 4.0 99.0
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
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
UT4b1 - No Credit 0 - 0
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 - No Credit 0 - 0
UT7 - Preservation 799 10.0 79.9
Total 13,662
4,432.5
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 46
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
execution of the banking instrument, recordation of the conservation easement, deliverance of a title
opinion covering the mitigation site that is acceptable to the DE, establishment of appropriate financial
assurances, and 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
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%

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 47
Wetland Credit Release Schedule
Credit Release
Milestone Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
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.
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, typically 100% of the preservation credits are
released once the six activities listed above are complete. For the East Buffalo Site preservation
reaches, once those six listed activities are complete, we propose that 920 preservation credits be
released. The remaining 150 credits (representing the work at the 150 LF of crossing removal) will be
released along with the remaining restoration and enhancement credits. This approach withholds
credits that exceed the value of the work being performed to remove crossings and decommission
adjacent soil roads and for potential adaptive management, while releasing credits that recognize the
immediate benefit of watershed scale preservation and the considerable financial investment (land
purchase) involved in securing these assets.
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 48
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
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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 49
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 fixed permanent and mobile vegetation plots will be used to demonstrate planted
vegetation coverage in the open and wetland areas. Both fixed and mobile plots location 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.
A total of 10 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 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. In addition, 2
mobile vegetation plots will be established in different locations throughout the planted conservation
easement. Locations (GPS coordinates and orientation) of the mobile 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 using a circular or square/rectangular 100 square meter plot.
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 5 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
Commented [j1]: SCOTT
Is this supposed to be italicized or ?
Commented [SG2R1]: Yep

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 50
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 51
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, to
include red-line notation, 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 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 52
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.
Average height of 6
feet in each plot at
MY5 and 8 feet in each
plot at MY7. 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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 53
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-
Annual1 4
Wetland
Hydrology
Groundwater
Gages 5 Quarterly
Vegetation CVS Level
2/Mobile Plots 6 – Open Area, 1 – Wetland Reestablishment Area (6 Permanent, 1 Mobile) Year 1, 2,
3, 5, and 7 5
Visual
Assessment Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi-
Annual 8
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation

Semi-
Annual 6
Project
Boundary
Semi-
Annual 7
Reference
Photos1 Photographs 12 1 Annual
1 Reference photos shall include photo points at proposed road crossing naturalization locations along preservation reaches to verify that areas are stable (Reach 1 of UT2
and UT3).

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 54
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, 1 – Wetland Enhancement Area (4 Permanent, 1 Mobile) Year 1, 2, 3, 5,
and 7 5
Visual
Assessment2 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Semi-Annual 8
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
Semi-Annual 6
Project
Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference
Photos1 Photographs 15 Annual
1 Reference photos shall include photo points at proposed road crossing naturalization locations along preservation reaches to verify that areas are stable (UT4 Reach 1).

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 55
Table 29: Monitoring Components – UT5, UT6, and UT7
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/Length by Reach
Frequency Notes UT5 Reach 1 UT5 Reach 2 UT7
Dimension Riffle Cross-sections N/A N/A N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 1 Pool Cross-sections N/A N/A N/A
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A N/A N/A 2 Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A N/A N/A N/A
Substrate Reach wide (RW) Pebble
Count 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 Semi-Annual 4
Vegetation CVS Level 2/Mobile Plots N/A Year 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7 5
Visual
Assessment Y Y Y Semi-Annual 8
Exotic and
nuisance
vegetation
Semi-Annual 6
Project
Boundary Semi-Annual 7
Reference
Photos Photographs 4 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.
8. Visual assessment shall include verification of stability.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 56
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 57
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. The boundaries of the conservation
easement will be marked in the field to ensure distinction between the conservation easement area and
adjacent land. Boundaries may be marked by signs, gates, posts, tree-blazing, or other means as allowed
by site conditions and/or the conservation easement document. Given the large scale of the Site and
associated easement area, markers will be focused on areas where the easement aligns with
external/property boundaries.

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.

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 58
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.
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

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 59
Management Activity Level of Effort Cost per Unit Anticipated
Frequency Activity Cost Annual
Cost
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
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 Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 60
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 $8,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Re-Planting
Contingency $750 $1,500 $2,500 $1,500 $2,500 $1,500 $2,500
Beaver Control $0 $0 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500
Invasive Control $2,250 $2,750 $3,750 $3,500 $3,500 $3,250 $3,000
Easement Access
Control $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750 $750
Corps Admin Costs $6,300 $375 $410 $650 $475 $505 $490 $615
Sub-Total $321,300 $19,125 $20,910 $33,150 $24,225 $25,755 $24,990 $31,365
Insurance Principal $321,300 $179,520 $160,395 $139,485 $106,335 $82,110 $56,355 $31,365
Monitoring Phase Insurance
Insurance Cost
Premium $4,016 $2,244 $2,005 $1,744 $1,329 $1,026 $704 $92
Broker Fee $803 $ 449 $ 401 $349 $ 266 $205 $141 $ 78
NC Tax $201 $112 $ 100 $ 87 $ 66 $51 $35 $20
Tax Filing Fee $300
Surplus Fee $110
Total $5,430 $2,805 $2,506 $2,179 $1,661 $1,283 $881 $490

Little Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation Bank Final Mitigation Plan
East Buffalo Mitigation Site October 5, 2020
Page 61
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.Andrew
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 BuffaloMitigation Site
- TN -
- NC -
- NC -
Robbinsville
Fontana Dam
Lake Santeetlah06010204020040
06010204020010
06010204020050
06010204020070
06010204010010
06010204020030
06010204010020
06010204010030
06010204030010
06010204020060
06010204020020
Figure 2 Service Area MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC
0 2 4 Miles ¹
Service Area - HUC 06010204
14 Digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC)
State Boundaries
^_East Buffalo Mitigation Site
^_
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(450 acres)
UT4(78 acres)
UT3(72 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
CE EXCLUSION#1CE EXCLUSION #2
UT3
U T 4
UT2
UT5UT4aUT7East Buffalo CreekUT1UT4bUT6UT2
UT4
UT3UT4a
East Buffalo CreekUT4b1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2 (UT4)
Reach 3 (UT3)
Reach 2
U T 4
Reach 2UT3Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Spring Houseto be Removed
Lower Road
Lower Road
Figure 10 Concept Design MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹2019 Aerial Imagery
0 400 800 Feet
Project Parcels
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Wetland Enhancement
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment
Existing Wetlands (no credit)
Proposed Project Streams
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Preservation - No Credit
Non-project Streams
Primary Soil Road Decommissioning
Secondary Soil Road Decommissioning
Proposed Realigned Power Line Easement (40')
Existing Power Line Easement (40')
!P ReachBreaks
CE EXCLUSION#1CE EXCLUSION #2
UT3
U T 4
UT2
UT5UT4aUT7East Buffalo CreekUT1UT4bUT6UT2
UT4
UT3UT4a
East Buffalo CreekUT4b1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2 (UT4)
Reach 3 (UT3)
Reach 2
U T 4
Reach 2UT3Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reach 1
Spring Houseto be Removed
Figure 11 Monitoring Components MapEast Buffalo Mitigation SiteLittle Tennessee Umbrella Mitigation BankLittle Tennessee 06010204
Graham County, NC¹2019 Aerial Imagery
0 400 800 Feet
Project Parcels
Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Wetland Enhancement
Proposed Wetland Rehabilitation
Proposed Wetland Re-establishment
Existing Wetlands (no credit)
Proposed Project Streams
Restoration
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Preservation
Preservation - No Credit
Non-project Streams
Proposed Realigned Power Line Easement (40')
Existing Power Line Easement (40')
Cross-sections
@A Groundwater Gages
GF Photo Points
!A Stream Gages
")Vegetation Plots
!P ReachBreaks

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

Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
February 2020
Archaeological Survey of the
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina

i East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Archaeological Survey of the
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina

ER 19-2305

Prepared for

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlotte, North Carolina

by

Abigail McCoy
Archaeologist

under the supervision of

_________________________
Dawn Reid
Principal Investigator

ii East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Management Summary
In January 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted a Phase I
archaeological survey of the proposed East Buffalo Creek restoration area in Graham County, North
Carolina. This investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc., in compliance with
state and federal regulations addressing the identification and management of significant cultural resources.
These regulations include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as
amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations for Compliance (36 CFR Part
800). A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 19 August 2019 (ER 19 -2305)
requested that an archaeological survey of the project’s impact areas be conducted. The primary goals of
this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located within the project’s Area of Potential
Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and
advance management recommendations, as appropriate.

The project APE is an approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha) area within a larger parcel in Graham County,
North Carolina. The tract is located in central Graham County, off East Buffalo Road 2.5 miles north of the
town of Robbinsville. The APE consists largely of the floodplain of East Buffalo Creek and an unnamed
tributary. Restoration activities will include non-invasive vegetation clearing, enhancement of the
waterways’ channels, and closure of an access road. All areas with slopes of less than 15 percent were
surveyed with 20-meter interval shovel tests excavated along parallel transects spaced 20 meters apart. The
entire APE was walked, exposed ground surfaces were examined, and judgmentally placed shovel tests
were excavated in areas deemed appropriate.

Background research was conducted at the Office of State Archaeology (OSA) located in Raleigh
and included a review of archaeological site forms, cultural resource reports, and historic maps of the APE
and a 1.0-mile (1.6 km) radius of the APE. No previously recorded archaeological sites are located within
the APE. However, the 1935 historic topographic map showed two buildings located in the southwestern
portion of the APE. One of these buildings is still standing; no evidence of the second building was
observed. One historic resource, the A.M. Odom House, has been recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the
APE. This house is no longer extant.

No archaeological sites were identified during this survey. One outbuilding shown on the 1935
topographic map was still intact; the other structure was not identified during this survey. Several rubble
piles were identified in the northwestern portion of the APE. These piles consist of modern debris and are
the remains of two small outbuildings that stood in the project tract between 1993 and 2009. Both have
been razed. Based on the results of this investigation, no significant cultural resources will be impacted by
the proposed restoration activities.
iii East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table of Contents
Page

Management Summary ................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents ......................................................................................................................................... iii
List of Figures .............................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................................ v
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation ........................................................................... 1
Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Methods of Investigation ................................................................................................................. 1
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview ................................................................................. 8
Environmental Overview ................................................................................................................. 8
Cultural Overview .......................................................................................................................... 12
Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation ................................................................................................. 27
Background Research Results ........................................................................................................ 27
Archaeological Survey Results ...................................................................................................... 28
Summary and Recommendations .................................................................................................. 35
References Cited ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator

iv East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
List of Figures
Page

Figure 1.1. Location of project area within Graham County. ............................................................... 1
Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the location of the APE. .......................................................... 2
Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project APE. .......................................................................................... 3
Figure 1.4. Pasture in the southwest portion of the APE, facing west. ................................................. 3
Figure 1.5. Bulldozer tracks in the wooded portion of APE, facing north. ........................................... 4
Figure 1.6. Wooded area in the southeastern portion of APE, looking east. ......................................... 4
Figure 1.7. East Buffalo Creek, facing south. ....................................................................................... 5
Figure 1.8. Unnamed tributary of East Buffalo Creek, facing west. ..................................................... 6
Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area. ............... 8
Figure 2.2. Map of the Upper Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area. ........ 10
Figure 2.3. Soils located within the project area. ................................................................................ 11
Figure 3.1. Map showing previously recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity. ............... 27
Figure 3.2. Aerial view showing survey coverage, bulldozer disturbance, rubble piles, and standing
water in the project tract. .................................................................................................. 29
Figure 3.3. View of rubble piles, facing west. .................................................................................... 30
Figure 3.4. View of rubbles piles, facing north. .................................................................................. 31
Figure 3.5. Shovel test profile typical of the wetland area, facing north. ........................................... 32
Figure 3.6. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in loamy clay. .................. 33
Figure 3.7. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in rock. ............................ 34
Figure 3.8. Outbuilding shown on topographic maps. ........................................................................ 35

v East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
List of Tables
Page

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Area. ................................................................. 11
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Southern Piedmont in
North Carolina. ................................................................................................................. 13
Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within 1.0 Mile of the Survey Area. ............ 28
1 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 1. Introduction and Methods of Investigation
Introduction

On January 27th through the 29th 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., conducted
a Phase I archaeological survey of East Buffalo Creek restoration area in Graham County, North Carolina
(Figure 1.1). This archaeological investigation was undertaken on behalf of Wildlands Engineering, Inc.,
in compliance with state and federal permit regulations addressing the identification and management of
significant cultural resources. These regulations include Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act of 1966 (16 USC 470), as amended, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations
for Compliance (36 CFR Part 800). A letter from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) dated 19
August 2019 (ER 19-2305) requested that an archaeological survey of the project’s impact areas be
conducted. The primary goals of this investigation were to identify all archaeological resources located
within the project’s Area of Potential Effect (APE), assess those resources for eligibility to the National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP), and advance management recommendations, as appropriate. Ms. Dawn
Reid served as Principal Investigator. Ms. Abigail McCoy served as the field crew.

Project Area

The project area is an
approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha)
portion of a larger parcel in central
Graham County (Figure 1.2). The
tract is located off East Buffalo Road
2.5 miles north of the town of
Robbinsville. The APE consists
largely of the floodplain of East
Buffalo Creek and an unnamed
tributary. Restoration activities will
include non-invasive vegetation
clearing, enhancement of the
waterways’ channels, and closure of
an access road. Much of the project
area is in pasture (Figure 1.3), with a
small area of woods in the
southeastern portion of the project
area (Figure 1.4). Recent bulldozer
tracks traverse the wooded area (Figure 1.5– Figure 1.6). East Buffalo Creek traverses the APE along the
northern boundary; the southern boundary follows East Buffalo Road and the unnamed tributary (Figure
1.7 - Figure 1.8). The entrance to an existing dirt road, which is slated to be closed and renaturalized, was
also examined as grading was planned for that location.

Methods of Investigation

This investigation was comprised of three separate tasks: Background Research, Field Survey, and
Report Production. Each of these tasks is described below.

Figure 1.1. Location of project area within Graham County.
2 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.2. Topographic map showing the location of the APE (2000 Robbinsville, NC USGS 7.5
minute topographic quadrangle).

3 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.3. Aerial view of the project APE.

Figure 1.4. Pasture in the southwest portion of the APE, facing west.
4 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.5. Bulldozer tracks in the wooded portion of APE, facing north.

Figure 1.6. Wooded area in the southeastern portion of APE, looking east.
5 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.7. East Buffalo Creek, facing south.

6 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 1.8. Unnamed tributary of East Buffalo Creek, facing west.

Background Research

Background Research began with a review of archaeological site forms, maps, and reports on file
at the North Carolina Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. This review served to identify
previously recorded archaeological resources in the APE and within a 1.0-mile (1.6 km) radius of the APE
and provided data on the prehistoric and historic context of the project tract. Records on historic resources
recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the project area were examined on the Survey and Planning
Departments online HPOWeb portal. The Graham County soil survey (on-line version) was consulted to
determine soil types and general environmental information of the project area. Historic maps of the c ounty
were examined to determine historic land use in the project vicinity. These maps included topographic
maps dating to 1935, 1940, 1973, and 2000, and the 1938 county highway map. Aerial images of the project
area dating from 1984 to 2016 were also examined.

Field Survey

The field survey requested by the SHPO was to focus on portions of the tract with 15 percent slope
or less where ground disturbing activities were slated to occur. The survey area included the floodplain of
the two waterways in the APE and the entrance of an existing dirt road (see Figure 1.2) and totaled
approximately 20 acres (8.1 ha). Survey coverage consisted of the excavation of shovel tests at 20-meter
intervals along parallel transects spaced 20 meters apart. The entire tract was walked over and areas with
exposed surface were examined for artifacts. Supplemental shovel tests were excavated in areas deemed
appropriate.

Shovel tests measured approximately 30 centimeters in diameter and were excavated into culturally
sterile subsoil, bedrock, or to the water table. All soil fill was screened through 0.25-inch (6.4-mm)
7 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
hardware cloth. Shovel tests were backfilled upon completion. Shovel tests were not excavated in standing
water, Records of each shovel test location were kept in field notebooks, including information on content
(e.g., presence or absence of artifacts, artifact descriptions) and context (i.e., soil color and texture
descriptions, depth of definable levels, observed features).

An archaeological site is defined as an area yielding one or multiple artifacts or where surface or
subsurface cultural features are present. Artifacts and/or features less than 50 years in age would not be
considered a site without a specific research or management reason. One of the goals of this project was to
provide sufficient data to the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to determine whether any
archaeological resources identified were significant. However, no archaeological sites were identified in
the project tract during this survey.

Report Production

Report production involved the compilation of all data gathered during the previous tasks. The
following chapter will provide environmental and cultural overviews for the project area. This information
allows us to place identified archaeological resources into a context and relate them to the prehistory or
history of the area. Next, the results of the field investigation are discussed. Finally, a summary of the
overall project is presented along with management recommendations, as appropriate.
8 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 2. Environmental and Cultural Overview
The natural environment, technological development, and ideological values are all intertwined in
shaping the way humans live. In this chapter, details about the local environment and cultural development
in the region are presented.

Environmental Overview

Graham County lies within the Blue Ridge physiographic province of the Appalachian Mountains,
specifically in the Great Smoky Mountains subrange (Figure 2.1). The Blue Ridge is approximately 885 km
(550 miles) long, extending from south-central Pennsylvania to northeastern Georgia, and contains the
highest peaks in the Appalachian system. In North Carolina, there are 43 peaks that exceed 6,000 feet in
elevation and 82 peaks that are between 5,000 and 6,000 feet (NCDEQ 1985). The Piedmont province forms
its eastern boundary, while the Ridge and Valley province of Tennessee forms the western boundary. The
topography of Graham County includes steep mountains, rolling intermountain hills, and deep, narrow
valleys. Elevations within the county range between 1,086 and 5,560 feet above mean sea level (Wood
2011).

Figure 2.1. Physiographic map of North Carolina showing the location of the project area.

Climate

The climate of southwestern North Carolina is influenced by a variety of factors, such as elevation,
latitude, local topography, and wind and storm patterns. In general, as the elevation of an area increases so
does the amount of rainfall while the temperature generally decreases (Wood 2011). Temperatures can
dramatically fluctuate over the course of a day and it is possible to have cooler or warmer periods throughout
9 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
the year. In the highest areas of the mountains it is possible for frost to be present even during the summer
months. Precipitation remains generally consistent throughout the year, with rains during the summer often
taking the form of thunderstorms, occasionally causing severe flooding in valleys (Wood 2011). During the
winter, precipitation is often a mix of rain and snow. It is common for heavy fog to settle in the lower
valleys throughout the year (see Figure 1.4).

In this area of the Blue Ridge physiographic province, temperatures range from an average of 41˚
Fahrenheit (F) in winter to 74˚ F in summer (Wood 2011). Due to the general weather pattern moving west
to east and the higher elevations in the northwestern portion of Graham County, average precipitation varies
throughout the county. The estimated annual rainfall averages 60 inches in the northwestern part of the
county while it averages 82 inches in the southwestern portion of the county; the rest of the county’s
averages range from 60 inches to 72 inches (Wood 2011). The average seasonal snowfall is 4.4 inches and
it is rare that at least one inch of snowfall covers the ground at any time.

Flora and Fauna

Plant communities in the Blue Ridge region are highly diverse in their species composition,
productivity, and availability as resources for human use. Significant variability in topography, elevation,
microclimates, soils, and lithology is responsible for this diversity (Purrington 1983).

Within historic times, the vegetation of the Blue Ridge was originally classified as an oak-chestnut
forest, and trees of these species dominated the native stands. During the first decade of the twentieth
century, a fungus called the Oriental Chestnut Blight reached the United States and ravaged the chestnut trees
in the eastern part of the country. As the chestnut disappeared, oaks (especially the chestnut oak) and the tulip
poplar competed to replace it as the dominant canopy species (Kovacik and Winberry 1987).

Various species of oak and pine tend to dominate ridge tops and uplands (Barry 1980). Most ridge
tops are dominated by scarlet oak, white oak, and hickory, although beech, hemlock, and tulip poplar may
be present. Understory species include dogwood, sourwood, persimmon, and serviceberry. Ground cover
shrubs are not dense, but blueberry, mountain laurel, and fringetree are common. The canopy is relatively
open. When combined with the moderate shrub layer, this provides opportunity for an abundance of
herbaceous plants. Ferns may be present, but they are not abundant. The pine/oak/hickory ridge tops would
have provided numerous types of nuts, berries, and wild fruits commonly utilized by the Cherokees (Simpkins
1986).

Some ridge tops and uplands are dominated by pines (Barry 1980). They are most often found on
the crest of knobs, the slope leading between two adjacent coves, and the main ridge separating two parallel
gorges. Pine stands commonly consist of pitch pine, although scarlet oak may also be present. A southern
exposure is preferred in regard to pine-dominated ridge tops and uplands. Understory species and shrubs
include sassafras, horse-sugar, and sparkleberry. Ground cover includes deerberry, huckleberry, spotted
wintergreen, and greenbrier. Although the pine ridges do not produce as much mast or fruit as ridges with
hardwoods, the pine ridges support economic items such as berries and greenbrier.

Prior to European settlement, the project area would have had faunal resources from both deep forest
and river and creek flood plains to rely upon. These animal resources would have included both large and
small mammals, a variety of birds, and various freshwater fish species. Many of these animals are still active
in the project vicinity, although the degree of development has limited their respective ranges.

10 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Drainage

The project area lies within the Little Tennessee River Valley (Figure 2.2). There are three large
lakes within Graham County: Cheoah, Fontana, and Santeetlah Lakes. The major streams and rivers of
Graham County include the Cheoah River, and Yellow, Tallulah, Tuskeegee, Sweetwater, Stecoah, and
East Buffalo Creeks. East Buffalo Creek feeds into Santeetlah Lake. As the county is west of the Eastern
Continental Divide, all streams drain toward the Little Tennessee River and Fontana, Cheoah, and
Santeetlah Lakes (Wood 2011). The East Buffalo Creek watershed originates near the Cheoah Mountains.
Graham County drains to the west into the Little Tennessee River watershed, which continues to flow west
and southwest into the Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers, which eventually drain into the Gulf of
Mexico (Wood 2011). East Buffalo Creek runs through the northern portion of the survey area and an
unnamed tributary of the creek follows East Buffalo Road near the southern boundary of the survey area.

Geology/Physiography

Graham County falls within the western portion of the Blue Ridge physiographic province of North
Carolina (see Figure 2.1). This area is generally composed of rock known as Laurentia that have always
been associated with North America (NCDEQ 1985). It is made up of gneisses overlain with sedimentary
rocks, creating a complex mixture of igneous, sedimentary, and metamorphic rock that has constantly been
shifted, fractured, and folded over time. The igneous bodies within this area are known for their deposits of

Figure 2.2. Map of the Upper Tennessee River basin showing the location of the project area.
11 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
feldspar, mica, and quartz (NCDEQ 1985). Less-common deposits include iron, marble, talc, copper,
olivine, and barite.

Soil

There are three soil types present in the survey area (Figure 2.3; Table 2.1). The most prevalent
soil type is Spivey-Whiteoak complex, which has a slope range of 8-15 and is bouldery. It forms on
footslopes and toeslopes, is well-drained, and its parent material is colluvium derived from low-grade
metasedimentary rock. Thurmont-Dillard complex is the next most common soil type. It forms in the valleys
of intermountain hill and low mountains from colluvium and old alluvium derived from low-grade
metasedimentary rock. It is well-drained and has a slope range of 2-8 percent. Lastly, Dillard loam is found
on one to five percent slopes and is rarely flooded. It is found in mountain valleys, is well-drained, and is
made from old alluvium derived from low-grade metasedimentary rock (USDA 2020).

Figure 2.3. Soils located within the project area.

Table 2.1. Summary of Soils Present in the Project Area (USDA 2020).
Soil Type Description Percent
Area
Spivey-Whiteoak complex (SvC) 8-15% slope, well-drained 50.9
Thurmont-Dillard complex (ThB) 2-8% slopes, well-drained 31.3
Dillard loam (DrB) 1-5% slopes, well-drained 17.7
12 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Paleoenvironment

Paleoclimatological research has documented major environmental changes over the last 20,000
years (the time of potential human occupation of the Southeast) including a general warming trend, melting
of the large ice sheets of the Wisconsin glaciation, and an associated rise in sea level. About 12,000 years
ago the ocean was located 50 to 100 miles east of its present position. During the last 5,000 years there has
apparently been a 400 to 500-year cycle of sea level fluctuations of about two meters (Brooks et al. 1989;
Colquhoun et al. 1981).

The general warming trend that led to the melting of glacial ice and the rise in sea level greatly
affected vegetation communities in the Southeast. During the late Wisconsin glacial period, until about
12,000 years ago, boreal forest dominated by pine and spruce covered most of the Southeast. Approximately
10,000 years ago, a modern, somewhat xeric, forest developed and covered much of the Southeastern
United States (Kuchler 1964; Wharton 1989). As the climate continued to warm, increased moisture
augmented the northward advance of the oak-hickory forest (Delcourt 1979). In a study by Sheehan et al.
(1985), palynological evidence suggests that spruce, pine, fir, and hemlock rapidly decreased in importance
between 9,000 and 4,000 years before present (BP). By the mid-Holocene, the oak-hickory forest was
gradually being replaced by a pine dominated woodland (Wharton 1989).

From 4,000 years BP to the present, the upland vegetation of the Southeast was characterized by a
thinning of the deciduous forests (Delcourt and Delcourt 1981). Hickory and gums were generally less
important, with alder and ragweed increasing in representation in the palynological record (Delcourt 1979;
Sheehan et al. 1985). This forest thinning suggests an increase in human related landscape modifications
(i.e., timbering, farming). Similarly, the importance and overall increase in pine species in the forest during
this time would have depended on several factors, including fire, land clearing, and soil erosion (Plummer
1975; Sheldon 1983). Since that time, the general climatic trend in the Southeast has been toward slightly
cooler and moister conditions, leading to the development of the present Southern Mixed Hardwood Forest
as defined by Quarterman and Keever (1962).

Faunal communities have also changed dramatically over time. A number of large mammal species
(e.g., mammoth, mastodon, horse, camel, giant sloth) became extinct towards the end of the glacial period
12,000 to 10,000 years ago. Human groups, which for subsistence had focused on hunting these large
mammals, readapted their strategy to exploitation of smaller mammals, primarily deer in the Southeast.

Cultural Overview

In evaluating cultural resources, determining their ability to provide data about the lifeways of past
inhabitants of the region is key. The cultural history of North America can be divided into three general eras:
Pre-Contact, Contact, and Post-Contact. The Pre-Contact era includes primarily the Native American groups
and cultures that were present for at least 12,000 years prior to the arrival of Europeans. The Contact era is
the time of exploration and initial European settlement on the continent. The Post-Contact era is the time
after the establishment of European settlements, when Native American populations were generally in rapid
decline. Within these eras, finer temporal and cultural subdivisions have been defined to permit discussions
of particular events and the lifeways of the peoples who inhabited North America at that time. The following
discussion summarizes the various periods of Native American occupation in the western half of North
Carolina, emphasizing cultural change, settlement, and site function throughout prehistory. Table 2.2
provides a summary of the chronological sequence of Native American occupation of the region.

13 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table 2.2. Native American Archaeological Chronology for the Southern Piedmont in North Carolina.
Temporal
Period
Phase Diagnostic Artifacts Settlement Subsistence
Paleoindian
(10,000-8,000 BC)
Clovis

Hardaway
large, triangular, fluted or side-
notched projectile points
small, seasonal camps intensive foraging,
focus on large fauna
Archaic
(8,000-1,000 BC)
Palmer
St. Albans
LeCroy

Kirk

Stanly
Morrow Mtn.
Guilford
Halifax

Savannah River
smaller side-notched
projectile points with U-
shaped notches

larger corner-notched
projectile points

stemmed points

stemmed with shallow side notches
large Savannah River points with square
stems
soapstone bowls

larger, seasonal camps;
base camps

mostly seasonal camps
with some evidence for
larger, more permanent
occupations
intensive foraging

intensive
foraging and
focus on riverine
resources
Woodland
(1,000 BC- 1710 AD)
Swannanoa

Pigeon

Connestee

Late
Connestee

Pisgah

Middle and
Late Qualla

crushed quartz- or coarse sand-
tempered, thick vessel walls;
cordmarked, fabric-impressed, some
check and simple stamped
small, stemmed points (Swannanoa
Stemmed, Plott Stemmed, Gypsy)

crushed quartz-tempered ceramics;
check stamped and some plain, simple
stamped, brushed, and complicated
stamped; large tetrapodal supports on
vessel base; iridescent sheen on
interior
small triangular and side-notched
points

thin-walled vessels, mostly fine sand
temper and some crushed quartz; some
small tetrapodal supports; plain,
brushed, or simple stamped, some
cordmarked and fabric impressed.
Hopewell artifacts

Sand and some crushed quartz temper;
plain, smoothed or burnished surfaces
with some fabric impressed, simple
stamped, or check stamped; rims often
notched and some incising present

sand-tempered; collared rims
decorated with punctates, incising, and
castellations; rectilinear complicated
stamped vessel

flaring rims with notched strip added
beneath; rectilinear and curvilinear
stamped with some burnishing, check
stamping, and cordmarking
small, dispersed villages;
ridge tops within upland
valleys and floodplains

Floodplains; upland
valleys, coves, and
ridgetops, likely small
hunting camps

some low platform
mounds, rock-filled hearth
pits; generally larger and
more intensive
occupations, floodplains of
major streams; some
smaller, temporary camps

small farmsteads to large
nucleated villages
sometimes with
substructure low platform
mounds; some palisades;
floodplains near major
streams
intensive foraging;
introduction of bow
and arrow

increased reliance on
horticulture
supplemented by
foraging

intensive agriculture
supplemented by foraging
and horticulture

14 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Pre-Contact Overview

It is accepted by archaeologists that humans migrated to the Western Hemisphere many thousands
of years ago, but there is much debate about when humans actually arrived, and the route(s) by which they
traveled. Until relatively recently, it was commonly accepted that humans arrived in North America about
12,000 years ago. However, investigations at a number of Native American sites in North and South
Americas have produced radiocarbon dates predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America
has been dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft
Rockshelter in Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper
Site in South Carolina indicates occupations dating between 15,000 to 19,000 (or more) years ago
(Goodyear 2005). Two sites, 44SM37 and Cactus Hill, in Virginia have yielded similar dates. Debate
continues about the implications of sites with occupations predating 10,000 BC.

Paleoindian Period (12,000 - 8,000 BC). In the past two decades, investigations at Paleoindian sites
have produced radiocarbon dates predating 12,000 years. The Monte Verde site in South America has been
dated to 10,500 BC (Dillehay 1997; Meltzer et al. 1997). In North America, the Meadowcroft Rockshelter in
Pennsylvania had deposits dating to 9,500 BC. Current research conducted at the Topper Site indicates
occupations dating between 15,000 and 19,000 (or more) years ago (Goodyear 2005). Two sites, 44SM37
and Cactus Hill, in Virginia, have yielded similar dates. One contentious point about these early sites is that
the occupations predate what has been recognized as the earliest New World culture, Clovis. Artifacts
identified at pre-Clovis sites include flake tools and blades, prismatic blades, bifaces, and lanceolate -like
points (Adovasio et al. 1998; Goodyear 2005; Johnson 1997; McAvoy and McAvoy 1997; and McDonald
2000).

The major artifact marker for the Clovis period is the Clovis lanceolate-fluted point (Gardner 1974,
1989; Griffin 1967). First identified in New Mexico, Clovis fluted points have been recovered throughout
the United States. However, most of the identified Clovis points have been found in the eastern United States
(Ward and Davis 1999). Most Clovis points have been recovered from surface contexts, although some
sites (e.g., Cactus Hill and Topper sites) have contained well-defined subsurface Clovis contexts.

The identification of pre-Clovis sites, higher frequencies of Clovis points on the east coast of the
United States (the opposing side of the continent where the land bridge was exposed during the last
glaciation), and the lack of predecessors to the Clovis point type has led some researchers to hypothesize other
avenues of New World migration (see Bonnichsen et al. 2006). These alternative migration theories contend
that the influx of people to the Americas occurred prior to the ice-free corridor 12,000 years ago and that
multiple migration episodes took place. These theories include overland migrations similar to the one
presumed to have occurred over the Bering land bridge and water migrations over both the Atlantic Ocean and
the Pacific rim (see Stanford 2006). Coastal migration theories envision seafaring people using boats to make
the journey, evidence for which has not been identified (Adovasio and Page 2002).

In the southeastern United States, Clovis was followed by smaller fluted and nonfluted lanceolate
spear points, such as Dalton and Hardaway point types, that are characteristic of the later Paleoindian Period
(Goodyear 1982). The Hardaway point, first described by Coe (1964), is seen as a regional variant of Dalton
(Oliver 1985; Ward 1983). Most Paleoindian materials occur as isolated surface finds in the eastern United
States (Ward and Davis 1999); this indicates that population density was extremely low during this period
and that groups were small and highly mobile (Meltzer 1988). It has been noted that group movements were
probably well scheduled and that some semblance of territories was maintained to ensure adequate
arrangements for procuring mates and maintaining population levels (Anderson and Hanson 1988).

O’Steen (1996) analyzed Paleoindian settlement patterns in the Oconee River valley in northeastern
Georgia and noted a pattern of decreasing mobility throughout the Paleoindian period. Sites of the earliest
15 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
portion of the period seem to be restricted to the floodplains, while later sites were distributed widely in the
uplands, showing an exploitation of a wider range of environmental resources. If this pattern holds true for
the Southeast in general, it may be a result of changing environments trending toward increased deciduous
forest and decreasing availability of Pleistocene megafauna and the consequent increased reliance on
smaller mammals for subsistence; population growth may have also been a factor.

Archaic Period (8000 - 1000 BC). The Archaic period has been the focus of considerable research
in the Southeast. Sites dating to this period are ubiquitous in the North Carolina Piedmont (Coe and
McCormick 1970). Two major areas of research have dominated: (1) the development of chronological
subdivisions for the period based on diagnostic artifacts, and (2) the understanding of settlement/subsistence
trends for successive cultures. Coe’s excavations at several sites in the North Carolina Piedmont established
a chronological sequence for the period based on diagnostic projectile points. The Archaic period has been
divided into three subperiods: Early (8000 - 6000 BC), Middle (6000 - 3500 BC), and Late (3500 - 1000
BC) (Coe 1964). Coe defined the Early Archaic subperiod based on the presence in site assemblages of
Palmer and Kirk Corner Notched projectile points. More recent studies have defined other Early Archaic
corner notched points, such as Taylor, Big Sandy, and Bolen types. Generally similar projectile points (e.g.,
LeCroy points), but with commonly serrated edges and characteristic bifurcated bases, have also been
identified as representative of the Early Archaic subperiod (Broyles 1971; Chapman 1985). The Early
Archaic points of the North Carolina Piedmont are typically produced with metavolcanic material, although
occasional chert, quartz, or quartzite examples have been recovered.

Claggett et al. (1982) use a settlement/subsistence typology developed by Binford (1980), to classify
late Paleoindian and Early Archaic populations as “logistical.” Logistical task groups, in this definition, target
a particular resource or set of subsistence or technological resources for collection and use at a residential base
camp. Their analysis identifies an increase in residential mobility beginning in the Early Archaic and extending
into the Middle Archaic (Claggett et a1. 1982). Early Archaic peoples transitioned from logistical orientation
to foraging. Foraging refers to a generalized resource procurement strategy enacted in closer proximity to
a base camp. Subsistence remains recovered from Early Archaic sites in southern Virginia include fish,
turtle, turkey, small mammals, and deer, as well as a wide variety of nuts (McAvoy and McAvoy 1997).

Sassaman (1993) hypothesizes that actual group residential mobility increased during the Middle
Archaic although it occurred within a more restricted range. Range restriction is generally a result of increased
population in the Southeast and crowding with group territories; this increase in population led to increasing
social fluidity during the Middle Archaic and a lower need for scheduled aggregation for mate exchange. In
Sassaman’s view, technology during the Middle Archaic is highly expedient; this is reflected in an almost
exclusive use of local resources, especially lithic material. The appearance/introduction of Stanly points, a
broad-bladed stemmed form defines the transition to the Middle Archaic subperiod. These were followed
by Morrow Mountain points, which are characteristically manufactured from quartz, and have been recovered
from numerous small sites throughout Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia. Guilford points, also often
made of quartz, follow Morrow Mountain in the Middle Archaic sequence.

The Late Archaic subperiod can be divided into two phases (Savannah River and Terminal Archaic
[Otarre phase]) and are represented by a gradual change in diagnostic projectile points and a slight shift in
settlement focus. The Savannah River phase (3,000 to 2,000 BC) is recognized by large, broad-bladed,
straight-stemmed points made of quartzite commonly known as the Savannah River or Appalachian Stemmed
points (Coe 1964; Purrington 1983). Steatite bowls, groundstone axes and gorgets, and other flaked stone
tools can also be attributed to this phase. Purrington (1983:125) states that “the remains of this phase are
among the most abundant in the Appalachian Summit which may suggest increased population density as well
as increased visibility of archaeological remains.” In the Great Smoky Mountains, Bass (1977) found
evidence of three Savannah River site categories: base camps in the major valleys; seasonally dispersed
smaller camps in coves and benches; and short term extractive sites on ridges and saddles, which were visited
16 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
from a valley base camp. In contrast, Purrington (1983:127-129) found that the Savannah River phase sites
of the upper Watauga Valley are less common in the flood plains than sites of the preceding phase.

The diagnostic artifact of the Otarre phase (2,000-1,000 BC) is the small to medium stemmed
projectile point, the Otarre Stemmed type. Keel (1976) identifies this type as exhibiting a wider range of
variability than Savannah River points, suggesting perhaps a greater localization of populations. Most of the
Late Archaic sites in the Great Smokey Mountains are located in the floodplains of large rivers near quartzite
outcrops. Quartzite was the predominant raw material for the production of Late Woodland projectile points
(Ward and Davis 1999). Savannah River phase settlement and subsistence patterns continue in the Otarre
phase (Purrington 1983:130-131). Evidence suggests that the Otarre phase is a legitimate temporal division
based on minor stylistic changes in projectile points which occurred in the absence of major cultural shifts.

Subsistence during the Late Archaic focused on hunting, fishing, and gathering of vast amounts of
acorn and hickory nuts. Fish, turtle, and other riverine sources were important parts of the Late Archaic diet.
By the end of the Late Archaic period, squash, gourds, sunflower, maygrass, and chenopodium were being
domesticated (Ward and Davis 1999).

Woodland Period (1000 BC - 1600 AD). A transition between the predominantly preceramic Archaic
cultures and the Woodland cultures has been identified by Oliver (1985). Stemmed point types, like the Gypsy
triangular point, continue in the Early Woodland subperiod (1000 BC - 300 AD). Unlike Oliver, Miller
(1962) notes little change in the cultural makeup of groups at the Archaic/Woodland transition other than
the addition of pottery. Coe (1964), although noting a stratigraphic break between Archaic and Woodland
occupations, also describes little technological or subsistence change other than ceramics.

The Woodland period of this area was a time of increasing cultural diversity stimulated by ideas from
outside the region (Ward and Davis 1999). The Early Woodland period is characterized by the Swannanoa
phase (1,000-300 BC). The pottery series from this phase, as defined by Keel (1976), has crushed quartz or
coarse sand temper, and relatively thick walls. Small, stemmed projectile points called Swannanoa Stemmed,
Plott Stemmed, and Gypsy points are found in the mountains at this time. These points are stratigraphically
associated with a larger triangular point type called “Transylvania Triangular” that appears to be in
connection with the introduction of the bow and arrow during the Swannanoa phase. Available settlement
data also suggests a continuation of Archaic lifestyles (Ward and Davis 1999).

Two distinct phases of occupation are recognized for the Middle Woodland in the mountains of North
Carolina: the Pigeon phase (300 BC – 200 AD) and the Connestee phase (200 AD – 800 AD). Pigeon phase
pottery is identified by the use of fairly large amounts of crushed quartz temper, surface treatments of check
stamping (in addition to plain, simple stamped, brushed, and complicated stamped treatments), the use of
tetrapodal supports on the vessel base, and an “iridescent sheen” on the interior surface (Ward and Davis
1999). Vessel forms include simple bowls and necked jars. Small side-notched and triangular projectile
points, expanded-center bar gorgets, grooved axes, celts, flake scrapers, ceramic popes, and a variety of
hammerstones are also probably associated with the Pigeon phase (Ward and Davis 1999). There may have
been an increasing reliance on horticulture resulting in a shift toward greater use of fertile bottomlands
(Purrington 1983). Connestee series pottery consists of thin-walled vessels that are fine sand tempered with
an occasional crushed quartz fragment. Vessel forms include flat-bottomed jars that sometimes have small
tetrapodal supports, and bowls and jars without supports. The surface of these pots is usually plain, brushed
or simple stamped, but also include cord marking, fabric marking, check stamping, and complicated stamping
(Ward and Davis 1999). Other artifacts from the Connestee phase include clay figurines, stone blades, and
copper sheets and beads.

Horticulture was still in its infancy during this period so subsistence strategies remained focused
on hunting animals and gathering wild plants. In the study area, the Late Woodland subperiod (1000 – 1600
17 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
AD) is represented by the Uwharrie and Donnaha Phases. The Uwharrie Phase projectile points have small
triangular forms. Uwharrie ceramics are heavily tempered with crushed quartz and predominantly net
impressed with scraped interiors (Eastman 1991). Woodall (1988) notes an increased emphasis on cooking
and the use of ceramic decoration to differentiate social standing at Yadkin village sites he investigated on
the Yadkin River, east of the project area. The Donnaha Phase appears to be related to the Dan River Phase
of the North-Central Piedmont, as seen through the artifact assemblage, especially in regard to the shell and
bone tools recovered (Ward and Davis 1999).

Agriculture was initially a supplement to Native American subsistence strategies during this period
but became increasingly important over time. Corn, beans, squash, sunflowers, and fruit were cultivated
with the aid of stone hoes and wooden implements, and settlement patterns indicate conditions favorable to
agriculture were significant to decision-making i.e. broad floodplains (Hantman and Klein 1992; Ward 1983;
Ward and Davis1993).

The Mississippian Period (1100 – 1838 AD). Overall, the Mississippian Period is characterized by
complicated stamped ceramics, small triangular projectile points, a reliance on farming, and elaborate
ceremonialism. Sites from this time frame include large village sites, often with at least one earthen mound,
and small, scattered farmsteads. Site locations tend to be located on flood plains and rises overlooking river
and stream valleys (Hargrove 1991; Keel 1976; May 1989; Oliver 1992; and Ward 1965).

The Pisgah phase shows all the characteristics of the South Appalachian Mississippian complex:
maize agriculture, platform mounds, earth lodges, and palisaded villages (Ferguson 1971; Moore 1986:74).
Early in the phase, settlement was apparently dispersed and minimally hierarchical. As the Pisgah phase
progressed, major ceremonial centers, large flood plain villages, and perimeter hamlets appeared in a more
hierarchical settlement system (Purrington 1983:147).

The Pisgah phase in the study region is recognized by its distinctive ceramic assemblage. Rectilinear
complicated stamping dominates the grit tempered series, and linear punctations on collared rims are
additional decorative modes. Pisgah vessels commonly exhibit lugs and loop handles, and elaborate rim
treatments (i.e., collared rims with punctations, incisions, and castellations) (Dickens 1976; Ward and Davis
1999). The diagnostic projectile point of the phase is the Pisgah triangular arrow point. A wide variety of
ideo-technic items are encountered on Pisgah sites, including stone and shell items of the Southeastern
Ceremonial Complex (Purrington 1983).

The Qualla phase encompasses the protohistoric and historic Cherokee manifestations of the Carolina
mountains. The Early Qualla Phase (1450 - 1650 AD) preceded the time of continuous European contact.
The Late Qualla Phase (1650 - 1838 AD) begins with continuous European contact and ends in 1838 with
the removal of many of the Cherokees from their homeland to Oklahoma on what would later be named the
Trail of Tears (Ward and Davis 1999).

Generally, it is agreed that the Qualla phase represents a direct, in situ evolution of the preceding
Pisgah phase (Dickens 1976, 1979, 1986; Moore 1986). Aboriginal material culture of this phase includes
Madison equilateral triangular arrow points and a ceramic assemblage resembling the classic Lamar. The
Qualla ceramics are characterized by a gritty paste, and surface decorations including complicated stamping,
bold incising, check stamping, and brushing (Egloff 1967). Subsistence was dependent on corn, beans, and
squash agriculture supplemented by hunting and gathering of indigenous plants. Sites are generally clustered
in major river flood plains, with limited use of slope or ridge areas. A hierarchical settlement pattern was
apparently in place, with mound centers, major villages, and dispersed hamlets present (Ward and Davis
1999).

18 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Historic Indian / Protohistoric Period

The first European exploration along the coast of North Carolina was in 1524 by Giovanni da
Verrazano, who sailed under the flag of France. He commented on the Native Americans he encountered
but made no attempt at settlement in the area. In 1526, Luis Vasquez de Ayllon led a Spanish expedition
attempting to establish a settlement near the River Jordan, which is believed to be in the vicinity of the Cape
Fear River. His party included approximately 500 men, women, and children, a few slaves, and 90 horses.
Bad weather, hunger, and malaria took a toll on the settlers. Upon Ayllon’s death, the 150 surviving settlers
returned to Santo Domingo.

Spain initiated the exploration of the southeastern United States in the hopes of preserving their claims
to American lands west of the Treaty of Tordesillas line of demarcation. Hernando de Soto (1539-1543)
and Juan Pardo (1566-1568) led military expeditions into the western Piedmont and mountains of North
Carolina during the mid-sixteenth century (Hudson 1990, 1994). These parties visited Indian villages near
the present- day towns of Charlotte, Lincolnton, Hickory, and Maiden (Moore 2006).

Spanish exploration of western North Carolina began in the middle sixteenth century. In 1540,
Hernando de Soto entered the area during his march through the Southeast. Swanton (1979:110) believed
that Guasili, an Indian town visited by de Soto, was located on the Hiwassee River at the mouth of Peachtree
Creek, near Murphy (Cherokee County), North Carolina. More recently, Hudson et al. (1984:74) have
determined that Guasili was located near present-day Marshall, in Madison County. It is generally believed
that the inhabitants of this town may have been Cherokee. The Native Americans furnished de Soto and his
party with various food items, including 300 dogs for the men to eat, and corn for the horses. In 1567, Juan
Pardo and his party passed through the project region, following much the same path as de Soto’s expedition
(Hudson 1990). Recent work at the Burke Site in Burke County has identified a sixteenth century Native
American site with a Spanish component that is believed to be associated with Pardo’s explorations.

Spanish presence in the Carolinas could not be sustained despite their best attempts to establish a
permanent presence with interior outposts and coastal settlements. Mounting pressure from hostile Native
Americans and English privateers also contributed to their withdrawal to St. Augustine in 1587 (South 1980).
Diseases introduced by these explorers wrought disastrous effects on contemporary Native American
peoples, causing populations to collapsed and entire communities to disappear.

Sir Walter Raleigh heavily promoted England’s interest in the New World. In 1585, Raleigh used
his position in the court of Queen Elizabeth I to secure backing to outfit an English attempt at colonizing
the Atlantic coast (Powell 1989). Although this effort failed, Raleigh’s single-minded ambition led to the
establishment of a colony on the James River in 1607 (Noël Hume 1994).

The first years of settlement at Jamestown were hampered by disastrous mismanagement resulting
in starvation, loss of life, and hostilities with neighboring Powhatan. In 1624 the Crown revoked the
Virginia Company’s charter and established a royal government (Noël Hume 1994). Preoccupied with the
civil war between Royalist and Parliamentarian forces in the 1640s, these authorities showed little interest in
the area that was to become North Carolina until the 1650s. During this period traders, hunters, trappers,
rogues, and tax evaders began living in the area around the Albemarle Sound in northeastern North Carolina
(Powell 1989). Even then, North Carolina was becoming notorious as a refuge for the independent and self-
reliant.

The project area falls within Cherokee territory. From earliest European contact, the Cherokee
were divided into three related subgroups: Upper (or Overhill), Middle, and Lower Cherokee. These
subgroups are often referred to as “Towns” and are differentiated primarily by geographical area and minor
dialectal differences (Mooney 1982; Swanton 1979; Williams 1930). Cherokee towns appeared in both
19 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
dispersed and nucleated forms (Goodwin 1977). Dispersed settlements sometimes consisted of dwellings
stretched for miles along rivers and streams. These settlements were generally attached to a “mother” town
or ceremonial center. Nucleated types comprised houses and communal fields confined to a smaller area,
situated close to a shared public space. Goodwin (1977) proposed that the earlier preference for nucleated
settlement was eroded over time due to changes in the Cherokee political structure which resulted from
frequent trading with Europeans. However, to date, archaeological surveys have not provided definitive
support for Goodwin’s hypothesis that the Cherokees exhibited a preference for nucleated settlement
patterns prior to European contact. The locations and spatial patterning of towns seem to have varied over
time, especially during the historic period, due to such factors as abandonment and resettlement, merging,
and separation of adjoining towns (Goodwin 1977).

The Cherokee, members of the Iroquoian linguistic group, had a highly developed social and
political organization, and lived in villages and on farmsteads occupying the most fertile land along the river
valleys. These settlements were connected by numerous paths following creek and river valleys and ridge
tops. The Cherokee occupied this land intermittently until the early to middle eighteenth century. The
Cherokee village of Cheoah was located at present day Robbinsville south of the project area.

Continued and increasing contact between the Cherokee and Europeans had varying effects on
Cherokee lifeways. Prior to contact, Cherokee settlement and economy reflected Mississippian patterns.
During the early eighteenth century, horses, cattle, and hogs were introduced to Cherokee life, either through
trade or by theft from French outposts or English settlers (Corkran 1967). Hunting continued to be strongly
emphasized, primarily due to increasing demand for deerskin.

Historic Period

Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660 and distributed rewards to loyal Royalist supporters.
Seven supporters were awarded the charter to establish a proprietary colony south of Virginia. The boundaries
of this deed were set to include the Albemarle Sound settlement of Charles Town south to the frontier of
Spanish-held La Florida. Proprietors maintained control over a single Carolina until 1712, when the colonies
were separated. After the Yamasee War, the colonists pleaded with the crown to take over the settlement of
the colony. The proprietors subsequently forfeited control to the Crown. That divestment forced the
Proprietors’ sale of their North Carolina charter to King George II in 1729 (Powell 1989).

John Lederer, a German doctor, was the first recorded European explorer to visit the project area.
In 1669, Lederer was commissioned by the governor of Virginia to find a westward route to the Pacific
Ocean (Cumming 1958). Lederer traveled through Virginia south to present day Camden, South Carolina.
During this trip, he visited with several Native American tribes, including the Saura, Catawba and Waxhaw.
The Catawba Indians are historically linked to the Catawba River Valley in North and South Carolina.
Inspired by Lederer, John Lawson traveled from Charleston, South Carolina through the North Carolina
Piedmont to Pamlico Sound. Lawson’s 1700-1701 excursion followed a well-established Native American
trading path that passed near present day Charlotte, Concord, and Salisbury (Lawson 1967). Lawson’s
journey took him through Esaw, Sugaree, Catawba, and Waxhaw territory, four tribes who would soon come
into close contact with European colonists.

The principle economic focus of the Carolinas during the early colonial era was the Indian trade. This
trade revolved around the exchange of European manufactured goods and alcohol for skins and slaves. It drew
Native American groups into an Atlantic economy and had the added effect of increasing intertribal hostilities.
Itinerant traders based in Charleston (South Carolina), and Virginia vied for clients among the North Carolina
Piedmont settlements (Oberg and Moore 2017; Powell 1989).

20 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
The British developed trade relations with the Cherokee during the late seventeenth century. English
traders operating out of Virginia and Charleston developed an ongoing trade with the Cherokees by the
second decade of the eighteenth century. Private traders and British companies had established themselves
among the Cherokee, trading guns, ammunition, rum, and trinkets for animal hides. The majority of these
traders lived among the Cherokee, engineered trade agreements, interpreted messages from both sides, and
took Cherokee wives.

Severe fighting between North Carolinian settlers and Tuscarora Indians broke out in 1711 after
the death of the colony’s Surveyor General (John Lawson) at the hands of the Tuscarora. Despite developing
conflicts between Native American groups and European powers, ties between the Cherokee and the British
remained strong throughout the early eighteenth century. Cherokee from the Lower Towns (along the
Savannah and Keowee Rivers, now in Georgia and South Carolina) were involved to a limited extent in the
Yamassee War (1715), aligning with the Catawba in attacks on western Carolina settlements. The war
ended in 1712, leaving the Carolina colonies in dire financial straits. By 1716, the Cherokee had been
persuaded to renew their alliance with the British and to defend border areas against French incursions
(Milling 1969:270). The strain on the colony’s financial conditions persisted until the Lords Proprietors were
forced to sell their holdings in the Carolinas to the Crown in 1729 (Powell 1989).

As the number of settlers began to multiply in the Northeast, many began to look to the wilderness
of the South and the West to build new lives. German and Scotch-Irish settlers first walked the Indian
footpaths connecting present-day Pennsylvania and Georgia (Rouse 2001). Pilot Mountain in Surry County
was named Jomeokee by the Saura, meaning “great guide” or “pilot.” Northern immigrants who traveled the
Great Wagon Road witnessed the mountain as they traveled into the North Carolina colony.

In 1744, a series of treaties allowed the colonies to formally take over the trail, then known as the
Warrior Path, from the Five Nations of the Iroquois (NCOAH 2004; Rouse 2001). Dubbed the Great Wagon
Road, settlers from northern colonies used the route to populate the farmlands and new towns of the Carolinas
and Georgia well into the 1800's. The varied European interests competing for territory and the expansion
of Europeans into Native American territory escalated into the French and Indian War which lasted from
1754-1763. North Carolina supplied men to fight in Virginia and New York but later the troops were needed
to defend North Carolina settlers from the Cherokee. The Cherokee were initially allied with the colony of
North Carolina and helped fight the French and the Shawnee in exchange for supplies and fortifications but
grew dissatisfied and angry with their treatment during the campaign and turned on the English. Eventually
the conflict ended with the French surrendering to the British and many of the refugees who had fled to
North Carolina stayed and settled (Cashion 1979).

In 1751 “sixteen principal traders made the regular journey into Cherokee lands, and by 1756 over
150 traders and pack-horsemen sought the lucrative Cherokee trade” (Goodwin 1977:99). Maintenance of
a strong trade relationship with the Cherokee served a number of British ends. In addition to personal gain
for trading companies, continuing commerce with Cherokee groups facilitated westward colonial expansion,
and thwarted similar plans by the Spanish and French (Clayton 1988:4). Individual efforts in trade led to
establishment of licensing procedures, and in 1717 the Cherokee signed their first treaty with the British
Colonial governor of South Carolina (Royce 1975:144). Minimal cessions agreed upon by the Cherokee in
this treaty foreshadowed their removal from the Southeast a century later.

A mistaken attack on a Cherokee group en route to support the British against the French and
Shawnee led to armed conflict between the British and Cherokee in the late 1750s and early 1760s. In 1756,
an under-provisioned Cherokee force was forced to steal horses and food from backcountry Virginians, who
retaliated by attacking the group, killing several warriors and receiving a bounty for the scalps (Woodward
1963:71-74). This act led to retaliatory raids by the Cherokee on settlements in Virginia, North Carolina, and
South Carolina in 1759. The British responded by sending an armed force under Colonel Montgomery to
21 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
relieve the frontier forts and attack Cherokee towns. Frizzell (1987:39) reports on these British attacks on
the Cherokee:

In the summer of 1760 a combined British and provincial army burned the Lower
Towns...the British government dispatched Colonel James Grant in 1761 with 2,600
British regulars, colonial militia, and Indian auxiliaries to reduce the Middle
Settlements...The Cherokee War was a catastrophe for the tribe. The Lower and
Middle Towns were in ashes, and the people fled into the forests or to the Overhill
Towns for safety...Forced into submission, a weakened Cherokee people found
themselves unable to offer concerted resistance against white expansion until 1775.

The 1760 expedition against the Cherokees, led by Colonel Archibald Montgomery, was repulsed
by an estimated force of 600 Cherokees on a plain near the Little Tennessee River, south of present-day
Franklin (McRae 1993:37). Grant’s 1761 expedition diary provides some information about towns near the
study area, and their estimated populations prior to their destruction by his army. Grant’s troops passed
through a deserted town two miles north of Echoy called “Tasse,” then moved north and camped at Nequasee
(present-day Franklin). Grant’s intelligence report advised that it was a town of about “120 Gun Men,” but
it was also deserted. Grant observed there what he described as a “Town House which is a large Dome,
surrounded with resting places made of Kane & pretty enough” (Evans and King 1977:284). A large raiding
party was sent out to Hyoree, where they found twelve inhabitants. They then marched three miles from
camp to Wattoga, where they “pull’d up all the Corn, cut down the fruit Trees, & burn’d the Houses, in
number about Fifty” (Evans and King 1977: 285). Grant had been informed that Wattoga was inhabited by
about 100 gun men. A party sent out from there burned two “new settled Villages called Neowee and
Canuga” (Evans and King 1977:285). Two days later they marched on Cowee, three miles from Wattoga,
said to have been “the largest of these towns, & may [have contained] about 140 Gun Men” (Evans and King
1977:297).

The Regulator movement began in the late 1760s due to backcountry farmers’ frustrations with
county government’s administration. The majority of the county’s population were engaged in agriculture and
resented the rapid ascension of lawyers and “Scotch” merchants to positions of influence over the county’s
court. General dissatisfaction with newcomers’ meddling coalesced into a backcountry crusade against a
corrupt appointee of Governor Dobbs and frequent office holder, Edward Fanning (Whittenburg 1977).
Backcountry “Regulators” obstructed sheriffs from tax collection and prevented courts from operating.
Tensions between the Regulators and the colonial administration began to boil, bordering on conflict. The
increased prominence of the Baptist movement, which had popular appeal with the Regulators because of
its democratic religious policies, provided a divisive threat to the traditional Anglican beliefs held by many
British Tories, paralleling the mounting political discontent (Powell 1989). This ultimately culminated
in the start of the War of Regulation, in which the Regulators mounted a rebellion against the North
Carolina colonial government in an effort to rid the colony of British oppression.

Hillsborough riots in October 1770 resulted in an escalation of the dispute. Led by Governor William
Tryon, an armed expedition of an eastern county militia routed the Regulators on May 16, 1771 at Alamance.
The skirmish took place along Alamance Creek, just a few short miles south of the city of Burlington in
Randolph County. The North Carolina provincial militia put down the rebellion, leading to the end of the War
of Regulation. However, these hostilities between the Regulators and British rule are considered an early step
down the road to the American Revolution (Powell 1989).

Less than four years after the battle of Alamance, the Atlantic colonies allied themselves against King
George’s government. North Carolinians were divided between the Tory and Whig causes. Tories supported
royal prerogatives and many former Regulators suspicious of local authority were assumed to be sympathetic
to the Tory cause.
22 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
In 1776, English botanist William Bartram traveled through the southeast and visited the re-inhabited
Cherokee Middle Towns. James Adair, an Irish trader, traveled among the Cherokee during the same period
as Bartram. Bartram and Adair’s accounts provide information on Cherokee agricultural practices and
products of the period. Bartram indicates that almost the entire western expanse of the Little Tennessee River
flood plain in the Middle Towns was under cultivation. He described the areas along the road between the
first trader’s house and Echoe as consisting of “mostly . . . fields and plantations, the soil incredibly fertile”
(Van Doren 1928:285). In Wattoga, Bartram observed the following:

All before me and on every side, appeared little plantations of young Corn, Beans,
&c. divided from each other by narrow strips or borders of grass, which marked
the bounds of each one’s property, their habitation standing in the midst (Van
Doren 1928:285).

He was greeted there by a Cherokee man, whom he described as the chief of Wattoga, who served
him a meal of sodden venison, hot corn cakes, and a liquor made of boiled hominy. After the meal Bartram
and the chief smoked tobacco in a shared pipe (Van Doren 1928). He recounted that, for the last five miles
to Cowee, the roadside consisted of “old plantations, now under grass, but which appeared to have been
planted last season: the soil exceedingly fertile, loose, black, deep, and fat” (Van Doren 1928:286). According
to Adair, the Cherokees cultivated hemp and wine grapes, and that good hops grew wild near Nequasee
(Williams 1986). Adair also mentioned that the Cherokees had, at one time, raised hogs and poultry, as well
as many horses (Williams 1986).

Bartram reported that traders were located near Nequasee and at Cowee. Even though the Cherokees
in these Middle Towns had accepted the white traders encountered by Bartram in 1775, some of their
neighbors, it seems, had rejected other traders. In Cowee, Bartram encountered a white trader, an Irishman
named Mr. Galahan, “who had been many years a trader in this country” (Van Doren 1928:286). He
indicated that Galahan was well-liked and protected by the Cherokees, even though other traders “have been
ruined, their property seized, and themselves driven out of the country or slain by the injured, provoked
natives” (Van Doren 1928:286).

At the outset of the American Revolution the Cherokees were allies of the British, which led to four
expeditions against their towns in the year 1776 alone (Swanton 1979:112). In what is now Murphy,
Rutherford established his headquarters and organized soldiers from South Carolina and Virginia to crush
the Cherokee. In the summer of 1776, General Griffith Rutherford led an American force along the Little
Tennessee River. They entered Wattoga from the north in September 1776, and proceeded to destroy crops
and houses there, and in Nequasee, Etchoe, Cowee, and Cullasaja. All of these towns were deserted when
the troops arrived (McRae 1993). Ten days later, a South Carolina militia force commanded by Colonel
Andrew Williamson, which had been destroying the lower towns, arrived at Nequasee and marched to meet
Rutherford near present day Murphy (McRae 1993). As a result of these attacks, Cherokees from the Lower
and Middle Towns scattered to the woods and to the Overhill Towns, which were destroyed by American
militia in 1777. Hostilities between the Cherokees and Americans officially ceased with the signing of the
Tellico Treaty of 1794.

After the American Revolution, Federal government acculturation programs designed to reduce the
Cherokees’ desire for large tracts of land failed to reach the Middle Towns (Riggs 1988). According to Riggs
(1988:12) “the Cherokees closest to the study area (the Middle Towns) during the first quarter of the
nineteenth century may be characterized as a full-blood, traditionalist enclave.” Their economic condition
was relatively poorer than the mixed-bloods, and other Cherokees whose homes bordered on, or were among
whites, and they followed more closely the old Cherokee lifeways.

23 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
As the threat of Indian raids lessened, more settlers began arriving in western North Carolina.
Because of poor transportation between the foothills and the coast, and because so many families had ties to
Virginia and Pennsylvania, early trade probably moved back and forth to the north over worn wagon trails.
In the years immediately following the Revolutionary War, the foothills consisted of a sparse pattern of small,
subsistence farms. Class distinctions among the population were few, although some owned more land and
more fertile soil, particularly in the river bottoms. Small, independent farmers predominated, which suited
some governmental leaders who wished to see North Carolina avoid the bitter class rivalries taking place in
neighboring South Carolina.

Of the settlers who did build homesteads in the project vicinity, many were soon lured westward by
the promise of the frontier. By the war’s end, the frontier was no longer in the foothills of the Blue Ridge
Mountains, but further west in Kentucky and Tennessee. Soon, however, that area would also be settled, and
a new frontier would arise as pioneers pushed the border relentlessly westward in their hunger for cheaper
and better land. One prevalent cause for settlers to uproot themselves was the erosion created by their own
farming practices. Land devoid of topsoil and scarred by ditches and gullies quickly became common in the
foothills. When farmers cleared trees, which they often did to sell on the open market, they diminished the
timber stands protecting the rich soils from erosion. Farming loosened soils in the river-bottoms where nature
sped the erosion process.

The Cherokees ceded lands to the United States in a treaty in 1798. This resulted in the survey of
the Meigs-Freeman Line in 1802, establishing a legal boundary between the Cherokee Nation and the state
of North Carolina. The line lay to the east of the Toxaway River and east of Wolf Mountain. It ran
northwesterly across Tannasee Creek, Wolf Creek, and the easternmost drainages of the Tuckaseegee River.
The Meigs-Freeman Line lay to the east of the forks of the Tuckaseegee (Blethen and Wood 1987; Petersen
1981; Royce 1975; Smathers 1938).

In 1819, a United States/Cherokee treaty acquired land for white settlers within the Cherokee territory
by offering individual Cherokees opportunities to register for 640-acre reservations within the boundary. All
remaining land was transferred to the government for allotment to settlers.

In 1820, Captain Robert Love served as chief of a survey party that mapped the new territory gained
from the Cherokees. This survey did not take into account reservations held by the Cherokee citizens under
the terms of the treaty. As a consequence, many Cherokee lost their land and were forced to relocate (Teresita
Press [TP] 2007). The Federal authorities were surprised by the number of applications for tracts received
from Cherokees in the Middle Towns. Those who did not apply for land were forced to move to what was
left of the Cherokee land in the Qualla area. Riggs (1988:14) found that:

Many nonreservees refused to leave the ceded area, but most were later forced to
remove due to harassment from white settlers. Those who removed were entitled to
reimbursement for property improvements such as buildings, cleared land and fruit
trees which they were forced to abandon. Two hundred heads of Cherokee
households in the study area entered claims for such abandoned improvements.

In 1835, the treaty of New Echota was signed by a minority faction of the Cherokee. For a payment
of $15 million, these individuals agreed to leave the Southeast and resettle in the Oklahoma Territory. As
North Carolina was one of the most densely populated regions of the Cherokee Nation, it was believed to be
an area of potential violent resistance following the ratification of the treaty (Duncan and Riggs 2003). In
present day Murphy, Fort Butler (originally called Camp Huntington) was established in 1836 by the military
to keep order in the area. Fort Butler later became the headquarters of the Eastern Division of the U.S. Army
of the Cherokee Nation, the military force charged with forcing Cherokee emigration (Duncan and Riggs
2003). The “Trail of Tears” followed a pathway through the town of Murphy (Town of Murphy 2009).
24 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Small groups of the Cherokee, including the Qualla Town Indians of western North Carolina, resisted
removal and were later designated the Eastern Band of Cherokee (Finger 1984). With the assistance of
William Thomas and others, the Eastern Band acquired 73,000 acres, which came to be known as the Qualla
Boundary (Finger 1984). The Eastern Band continues to reside in this vicinity, particularly in the town of
Cherokee.

Because of the mountainous terrain, established trade routes made markets in Augusta and Savannah,
Georgia more accessible to western North Carolina farmers than were the eastern markets of their own state
(Medford 1961:87). Mid-nineteenth century farms in the region typically consisted of at least 100 acres;
however, only a fraction of each farm was cultivated. Subsistence -oriented mountain farmers generally
cultivated 15 to 30 acres at a time. A small mountain farm had only a few cattle and hogs. Livestock grazed
en masse in mountain forests.

Slave owners were few in western North Carolina, and most owners only had one or two. The
economy of the area was not based on large farms or plantations requiring a large labor force. As a result,
the relative social status of the residents was not dependent on the number of slaves owned. The financial
difficulties of local planters were quickly overshadowed by distant battles in Virginia. Although no major
battles were ever fought in Graham County during the Civil War, the area was affected by raiders and
became a haven for deserters. The county courthouse was burned by Union raiders late in the war (Lewis
2009).

After the Civil War, the trend toward small subsistence farms continued. “By 1880, Appalachia
contained a greater concentration of noncommercial family farms than any other area of the nation” (Southern
Appalachian Center 1979:35). Agricultural schedules from the 1880 Federal census recorded farm owners,
tenants, and sharecroppers, acres of land cultivated, meadows, and woodland-forest. These data can be useful
in reconstructing past land use patterns in the region. Large uncultivated woodland tracts on steep slopes and
ridges provided grazing areas for livestock. Sheep were raised on rocky hillside meadow lands, and hogs
were allowed to graze in oak, chestnut, and hickory woodlands. The Southern Appalachians were a major
hog producing area before the coming of the timber industry and the purchase of woodlands by private
corporations (SAC 1979).

Following the removal of the Cherokee, settlers began increasingly moving into the extreme western
portion of North Carolina. Graham County was established in 1872 from the northeastern portion of
Cherokee County largely to accommodate these new settlers. It was named for William A. Graham, former
Governor of North Carolina. In 1883, Robbinsville was established as the county seat (Corbitt 2000).

Construction of railroads after 1880 and the advent of extractive industries (mining and logging)
brought on the industrial period and a transformation of the traditional economy (Wood 2011). In 1884, the
Authorized Visitors Guide for the North Carolina State Exposition listed 35 mica mines in the state. It was
speculated that mica “yielded more money than any other metal in Western North Carolina in the 1880's”
(Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973:352). One mica mine in Mitchell County, the “Clarissey,” yielded fine
grade mica to a depth of over 300 feet (Van Noppen and Van Noppen 1973). Corundum was found in
western North Carolina in 1870 and rubies in 1893. Along with rubies, the state geologist found sapphire,
aquamarine, beryl, amethyst, and garnet. None of these were found in large quantities, and the search for
them was not worth the expense. Gemstone mining was abandoned until the advent of the tourist industry
in the twentieth century.

The increases in industry were closely tied to the improvement of transportation throughout the state.
The Western North Carolina Railroad completed its rail line to Old Fort, just east of Asheville, in 1869 (Zuber
1969). Financial hardships related to the complexities of crossing the mountains to Asheville forced the
company into bankruptcy in 1875 (Zuber 1969). Following the bankruptcy of the Western North Carolina
25 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Railroad, the state bought out the company’s interests, and, using convict labor, completed the rail line
through Asheville in 1880 (Zuber 1969). It wasn’t until 1888 that when the Murphy Depot of the Western
North Carolina Railroad was opened (Lewis 2009). The railroad not only connected the east and west, it
meant that products such as lumber and iron ore could be easily transported.

Early logging in the mountains was characterized by selective cutting of the most valuable trees
(walnut, yellow poplar, and ash) located along easily accessible streams. Most of the timber cut in the 1880s
and 1890s was felled by farm families; logging supplemented family income. Eller (1982:88-91) reports that
“mountain men had always engaged in seasonal work in the woods– hunting, clearing fields, cutting fence
posts, and the like.” The forest was an important factor, influencing settlement patterns in the mountains.
Horace Kephart (1976:34) stated:

Every man in the big woods is a jack-of-all trades. His skill in extemporizing
utensils, and even crude machines, out of the trees that grow around him, is of no
mean order.

Kephart (1976:34) also states that about two-thirds of the residents of the mountains owned their own homes
while the remainder were renters or squatters. This latter group was “permitted to occupy ground for the
sake of reporting trespass and putting out fires” on lands which belonged to Northern timber companies.

The great timber boom in the mountains lasted from 1890 until 1920, during which time Northern
lumber companies acquired large tracts of standing timber. These timber companies had a great impact on
the mountain people. By 1900, steam sawmills were in operation in the Southern Highlan ds. Eller
(1982:103-104) states that “the manufacture of lumber and timber products had become the second leading
industry in North Carolina, with 1,770 establishments employing some 11,751 workers.” For many Eastern
Cherokees, the timber industry was a huge source of income. However, according to a federal survey in the
early twentieth century, large scale logging operations resulted in erosion of hillside farms (Van Noppen and
Van Noppen 1973).

One observer noted in 1910 that in removing timber, loggers paid no attention to young growth,
leaving piles of brush, bark, sawdust, and the tops of trees strewn throughout the forest (Van Noppen and Van
Noppen 1973). The dry brush caught fire, burning thousands of acres of woodland. Timbering and
associated tannery operations were devastating the forests (Eller 1982). Pressure from conservation groups
led to the passage of the National Forest Reserve Act in 1891 and the Weeks Act in 1911. The U.S. Forest
Service secured approval to purchase units of the Appalachian Forest Reserve, which included the Nantahala
and Pisgah areas of western North Carolina (Eller 1982). It was the practice of the lumber companies to set
up workmen’s camps which accommodated 50 to 75 men (Bell 1987:162). Crosscut saws were used to fell
trees which were pulled by horses to narrow gauge railroad tracks

In the 1920s, loggers’ and mill workers’ wages were generally $15 to $16 a week; skilled workers
earned more. Bell (1987:162) reports that, despite the flush times of the 1920s, lumber companies generally
experienced financial difficulties, and, beginning in 1929, the Depression caused additional severe problems.

During the Depression, Federal stimulus programs greatly helped the area’s economy. The
Tennessee Valley Authority constructed numerous dams and reservoirs, including the Santeetlah Dam on
the nearby Cheoah River and the Fontana Reservoir. The Civilian Conservation Corps provided employment
for area resident’s constructing recreational facilities and replanting trees as well as building infrastructure
for the newly created Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Wood 2011).

World War II affected Graham and the surrounding counties as it did much of the nation. The
population of the area declined and has only had slight growth since then. Large numbers of able-bodied
26 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
men joined the military and women began taking over jobs outside of the home. In the mid-nineteenth
century, Northern investors such as G. W. Vanderbilt, J. F. Hayes, and J. Silverstein started the great timber
boom in western North Carolina. Silverstein established a tannery and the Gloucester Lumber Company (Van
Noppen and Van Noppen 1973). They were followed in the early twentieth century by industries, such as
the Alcoa Aluminum Industry, which harnessed the steeply falling rivers for hydroelectric power (Brewer
and Brewer 1975:246).

As of 2000, the population of Graham County was 620, making Graham the third least populous
county in the state. While the county still relies on wood products for income, m uch of the county
is geared towards tourism, providing goods and services to support that industry. The Appalachian Trail runs
through the county and the Cherohala Skyway, once a Native American Trading route, is now a destination
for scenic mountain driving (Wood 2011). The three large lakes of Graham County (Cheoah, Fontana, and
Santeetlah Lakes), the numerous rivers and streams, and the Nantahala National Forest are strong draws for
campers, hikers, and sportsmen. Motorcycle enthusiasts are also frequent visitors to the county, riding the
many mountainous roads, including the famous “Tail of the Dragon.”

27 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Chapter 3. Results of the Investigation
Background Research Results

Archaeological background research was conducted at the North Carolina site files located at the
Office of State Archaeology (OSA) in Raleigh. No previously recorded archaeological sites are present in
the survey area. Eleven archaeological sites have been recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6 km) of the project area
(Figure 3.1; Table 3.1). Sites 31GH36 through 31GH39 were all recorded in 1964 by representatives of the
University of North Carolina. None of these sites were formally delineated or assessed for possible National
Register of Historic Places (NRHP) eligibility. The remaining sites were all recorded by United States
Forest Service personnel. None of these sites will be affected by the proposed stream restoration activities.

Figure 3.1. Map showing previously recorded archaeological sites in the project vicinity (2000
Robbinsville, NC USGS 7.5 minute topographic quadrangle).

28 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Table 3.1. Previously Recorded Archaeological Sites Within 1.0 Mile (1.6-km) of the Survey Area.
Site Number Description NRHP Status
31GH36 Early Archaic lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH37 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH38 Middle Archaic lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH39 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH198 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter Unassessed
31GH514 Unknown Prehistoric artifact scatter Not Eligible
31GH515 Middle Archaic-Middle Woodland artifact scatter,
20th century house site
Unassessed
31GH516 Early 20th century still site Not Eligible
31GH517 Unknown Prehistoric lithic scatter, 19th-20th century
house site
Unassessed

A review of records on file with the Survey and Planning Department identified one historic
resource recorded within 1.0-mile (1.6-km) of the survey area (see Figure 3.1). This resource, GH0049, is
the A.M. Odom House and is no longer standing.

Archaeological Survey Results

The project Area of Potential Effect (APE) was surveyed with 20-meter interval shovel testing and
required 3.75 person days to complete. Areas that had surface visibility were also visually inspected. The
entire APE was walked over, and supplemental shovel tests were excavated when deemed necessary. In the
southern portion of the APE are several small areas with standing water. In the wooded southeastern portion
of the APE, steep slopes were present and recently bulldozed tracks traversed the area (Figure 3.2). Several
rubble piles were located along the northern boundary of the APE that appeared to be the remains of smaller,
modern outbuildings (Figure 3.3 and Figure 3.4).

A total of 64 shovel test locations were excavated in the project area (see Figure 3.2). Shovel tests
were not excavated in areas with standing water. The remainder of the survey area received 20-meter
interval coverage. In addition to the transect shovel tests that were excavated near the rubble piles, five
additional shovel tests were excavated; no artifacts were recovered. Shovel tests near the wetlands in the
southern portion of the APE generally exposed soil profiles comprised of 10 to 15 centimeters of dark
brown (10YR4/3) silty loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR5/6) loamy clay. These shovel tests often began
filling with water before subsoil was reached (Figure 3.5). Across the survey area, two different soil profiles
were exposed. One profile consisted of approximately 10 to 20 centimeters of dark brown (10YR4/3) sandy
loam overlying strong brown (7.5YR5/6) loamy clay (Figure 3.6). The other profile was comprised of
approximately 10 to 20 centimeters of dark brown (10YR4/3) sandy loam overlying rock (Figure 3.7).
These two soil profiles encountered consistently throughout the entire APE.

No new archaeological sites were located during this investigation. However, one of the
outbuildings shown on the 1935 topographic map along the southern boundary of the APE is still standing.
This building is rectangular in shape and constructed of concrete block with a sheet metal roof (Figure 3.8).
No artifacts were recovered in association with this building, so it was not documented as an archaeological
resource. This building will not be impacted by the proposed restoration activities.

29 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.2. Aerial view showing survey coverage, bulldozer disturbance, rubble piles, and standing
water in the project tract.

30 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.3. View of rubble piles, facing west.

31 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.4. View of rubbles piles, facing north.

32 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.5. Shovel test profile typical of the wetland area, facing north.

33 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.6. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in loamy clay.

34 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.7. Representative shovel test profile from the APE, terminating in
rock.

35 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Figure 3.8. Outbuilding shown on topographic maps.

Summary and Recommendations

In January of 2020, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. conducted an archaeological
survey of the approximately 20-acre (8.1 ha) APE for the restoration of East Buffalo Creek in Graham
County, North Carolina. No previously recorded archaeological sites are present in the project tract and no
new archaeological sites were identified. One of the outbuildings shown on topographic maps dating from
1935 to 2000 is still standing. Several rubble piles were identified that are the remains of modern
outbuildings; no artifacts were recovered from shovel tests near the rubble piles or standing building. As
the proposed restoration activities will not impact any significant archaeological resources, clearance to
proceed is recommended
36 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
References Cited
Adovasio, J. M., and Jake Page
2002 The First Americans: In Pursuit of Archaeology’s Greatest Mystery. Random House, New
York.

Adovasio, J. M., Pedler J. Donahue, and R. Struckenrath
1998 Two Decades of Debate on Meadowcroft Rockshelter. North American Archaeologist 19:
317–41.

Anderson, David G. and J.W. Joseph
1988 Prehistory and History along the Upper Savannah River: Technical Synthesis of Cultural
Resource Investigations, Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area. Atlanta Interagency
Archaeological Services Division, National Park Service, Russell Papers.

Barry, John M.
1980 Natural Vegetation of South Carolina. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Bass, Quintin R.
1977 Prehistoric Settlement and Subsistence Patterns in the Great Smokey Mountains.
Unpublished Master's thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Bell, John L.
1987 Economic Activities. In The History of Jackson County, edited by M. R. Williams. Jackson
County Historical Society, Sylva, NC.

Binford, Lewis R.
1980 Willow Smoke and Dog’s Tails: Hunter-Gatherer Settlement Systems and Archaeological
Site Formation. American Antiquity 45(1):4–20.

Blethen, H. Tyler and Curtis W. Wood, Jr.
1987 The Pioneer Experience to 1851. In The History of Jackson County, edited by M. R.
Williams, pp. 67-100. Jackson County Historical Society, Sylva, NC.

Bonnichsen, Robson, Michael Waters, Dennis Stanford, and Bradley T. Lepper, eds.
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Beyond Clovis. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Brewer, Alberta and Carson Brewer
1975 Valley So Wild: A Folk History. East Tennessee Historical Society, Knoxville.

Brooks, M.J., P.A. Stone, D.J. Colquhoun and J.G. Brown
1989 Sea Level Change, Estuarine Development and Temporal Variability in Woodland Period
Subsistence-Settlement Patterning on the Lower Coastal Plain of South Carolina. In Studies in
South Carolina Archaeology, edited by Albert C. Goodyear III and Glen T. Hanson, pp. 91-
100.University of South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology Anthropological
Studies 9. Columbia.

37 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Broyles, Bettye J.
1971 Second Preliminary Report: The St. Albans Site, Kanawha County, West Virginia. West
Virginia Geological Survey, Morgantown, WV.

Cashion, Jerry C.
1979 "North Carolina and the Cherokee: The Quest for Land on the Eve of the American
Revolution, 1754-1776." PhD Dissertation, UNC-Chapel Hill.

Chapman, Jefferson
1985 Archaeology and the Archaic Period in the Southern Ridge-and-Valley Province. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, Roy S. Dickens and H. Trawick Ward,
eds., pp. 137–153. University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Clagett, Stephen R., John S. Cable, and Curtis E. Larsen
1982 The Haw River Sites: Archaeological Investigations at Two Stratified Sites in the North
Carolina Piedmont. Commonwealth Associates, Jackson, MI.

Clayton, Frederick V.
1988 Settlement in Pendleton District, 1777-1800. Southern Historical Press, Easley, SC.

Coe, Joffre L.
1964 Formative Cultures of the Carolina Piedmont. Transactions of the American Philosophical
Society 54(5).

Coe, Joffre Lanning, and Olin F. McCormick
1970 Archaeological Resources of the New Hope Reservoir Area, North Carolina. University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Research Laboratories of Anthropology, Chapel Hill, NC.

Colquhoun, Donald R., Mark J. Brooks, James L. Michie, William B. Abbott, Frank W. Stapor, Walter H.
Newman, and Richard R. Pardi
1981 Location of archeological sites with respect to sea level in the Southeastern United States
In Striae, Florilegiem Florinis Dedicatum 14, edited by L. K. Kenigsson and K. Paabo, pp. 144-
150.

Corbitt, David Leroy
2000 The Formation of the North Carolina Counties 1663-1943. North Carolina Department of
Cultural Resources, Raleigh.

Corkran, David H.
1967 The Cherokee Frontier: Conflict and Survival, 1740-1762. University of Oklahoma,
Norman.

Cumming, William
1958 The Discoveries of John Lederer. University of Virginia Press, Charlottesville.

Delcourt, Hazel R.
1979 Late Quaternary Vegetation History of the Eastern Highland Rim and Adjacent
Cumberland Plateau of Tennessee. Ecological Monographs 49:255-280.

38 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Delcourt, Paul A., and Hazel R. Delcourt
1981 Vegetation Maps for Eastern North America: 400,000 B.P. to Present. In Geobotancy II,
edited by R.C. Romans. Plenum Publishing Corporation.

Dickens, Roy S., Jr.
1976 Cherokee Prehistory: The Pisgah Phase in the Appalachian Summit Region. The
University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

1979 The Origins and Development of Cherokee Culture. In The Cherokee Indian Nation: A
Troubled History, edited by Duane King, pp. 3-32. The University of Tennessee Press,
Knoxville.

1986 An Evolutionary-Ecological Interpretation of Cherokee Cultural Behavior. In The
Conference on Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 81-94. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.

Dillehay, T. D.
1997 Monte Verde: A Late Pleistocene Settlement in Chile. Vol 2: The Archaeological Context
and Interpretation. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Duncan, Barbara R. and Brett H. Riggs
2003 Cherokee Heritage Trails Guidebook. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

Eastman, Jane M. (Compiler)
1991 Prehistoric Ceramics of North Carolina: A Quick Tour of the Published Literature. Ms on
file, Coastal Carolina Research, Inc., Tarboro, NC.

Egloff, Keith T.
1967 An Analysis of Ceramics From Historic Cherokee Towns. Unpublished Master's
thesis, Department of Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Eller, Ronald
1982 Miners, Millhands, and Mountaineers: Industrialization of the Appalachian South: 1880-
1930. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Evans, E. Raymond and Duane H. King
1977 Historic Documentation of the Grant Expedition Against the Cherokees, 1761. Journal of
Cherokee Studies 1:272-301.

Ferguson, Leland G.
1971 South Appalachian Mississippian. Unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Finger, John R.
1984 The Eastern Band of Cherokees 1819-1900. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Frizzell, George
1987 The Cherokee Indians of Macon County. In The Heritage of Macon County North
Carolina 1987, edited by Jessie Sutton, pp. 1-4, The Macon County Historical Society,
Inc., Hunter Publishing Company, Winston-Salem, NC.

39 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Gardner, William H.
1974 The Flint Run Paleo Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971 through 1973 Seasons.
Catholic University of America, Archaeology Laboratory, Occasional Paper No. 1. Washington,
D.C.

1989 An Examination of Cultural Change in the Late Pleistocene and Early Holocene (ca. 9200
to 6800 B.C.). In Paleoindian Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, edited by J. Mark Wittkofski
and Theodore R. Reinhart, pp. 5-52. Archaeological Society of Virginia. Goldston, E.F.,
Dwight L. Kaster, and J.A. King.

Goodwin, Gary C.
1977 Cherokees in Transition: A Study of Changing Culture and Environment Prior to 1775.
The University of Chicago Department of Geography Research Paper No. 181

Goodyear, Albert C.
1982 The Chronological Position of the Dalton Horizon in the Southeastern United States.
American Antiquity 47:382-395.

2005 The Allendale-Brier Creek Clovis Complex: A Clovis Center in the Middle Savannah River
Valley. Paper presented at the 62nd Annual Southeastern Archaeological Conference,
Columbia, SC.

Griffin, James B.
1967 Culture Periods in Eastern United States Archaeology. In Archaeology of Eastern United
States, edited by J. B. Griffin. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL.

Hantman, J. L., and M. J. Klein
1992 Middle and Late Woodland Archaeology in Piedmont Virginia. In Middle and Late
Woodland Research in Virginia: A Synthesis, pp. 137–164. Archaeological Society of Virginia
Special Publication, 29. Archaeological Society of Virginia, Cortland.

Hargrove, Thomas
1991 An Archaeological Survey of Proposed Improvements on the Gastonia Sewer System, Gaston
County, North Carolina. Robert J. Goldstein and Associates, Inc., Raleigh, NC.

Hudson, Charles M.
1990 The Juan Pardo Expeditions: Explorations of the Carolinas and Tennessee, 1556-1568.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa, AL.

1994 The Hernando De Soto Expedition, 1539-1543. In The Forgotten Centuries: Indians and
Europeans in the American South, 1521-1704, Charles M Hudson and Carmen Chaves Tesser,
eds., pp. 74–103. University of Georgia Press, Athens, GA.

Hudson, Charles, Marvin T. Smith, and Chester B. DePratter
1984 The Hernando DeSoto Expedition: From Apalachee to Chiaha. Southeastern Archaeology
3(1):65-77.

40 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Johnson, M. F.
1997 Additional Research at Cactus Hill: Preliminary Description of Northern Virginia Chapter–
ASV’s 1993 and 1995 Excavation. In Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus
Hill, Sussex County, Virginia. J. M. McAvoy and L. D. McAvoy, eds. DHR Research Report,
8. Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Richmond.

Keel, Bennie
1976 Cherokee Archaeology. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kephart, Horace
1976 Our Southern Highlanders. University of Tennessee Press, Knoxville.

Kovacik, Charles F. and John J. Winberry
1987 South Carolina: A Geography. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.

Kuchler, A. W.
1964 Potential Natural Vegetation of the Coterminous United States. American Geographical
Society Special Publication, Vol. 36.

Lawson, John
1967 A New Voyage to Carolina. Hugh Talmage Lefler, ed. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC.

Lewis, Dave
2009 Cherokee County, Electronic document. http://www.northcarolinahistory.org.

May, J. Alan
1989 Archaeological Excavation at the Crowders Creek Site (31GS55): A Late Woodland
Farmstead in the Catawba River Valle, Gaston County, North Carolina. Southern Indian Studies
38.

McAvoy, J. M., and L. D. McAvoy, eds.
1997 Archaeological Investigations of Site 44SX202, Cactus Hill, Sussex County, Virginia.
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, Research Report Series No 8.

McDonald, J. N.
2000 An Outline of the Pre-Clovis Archaeology of SV-2, Saltville, Virginia with Special
Attention to a Bone Tool. Jeffersonia 9:1–59.

McRae, Barbara Sears
1993 Franklin's Ancient Mound: Myth and History of Old Nikwasi, Franklin, North Carolina.
Teresita Press, Franklin, NC.

Medford, W.C.
1961 The Early History of Haywood County. W. Clark Medford, Waynesville, NC.

Meltzer, David J.
1988 Late Pleistocene Human Adaptations in Eastern North America. Journal of World
Prehistory 2:1-53.

41 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Meltzer, D.J., D.K. Grayson, G. Ardila, A.W. Barker, D.F. Dincauze, C.V. Haynes, F. Mena, L. Nuñez,
and D.J. Standford
1997 On the Pleistocene Antiquity of Monte Verde, Southern Chile. American Antiquity 62
(4):659-663.

Miller, Carl F.
1962 Archaeology of the John H. Kerr Reservoir Basin, Roanoke River, Virginia-North
Carolina. Smithsonian Institution Bureau of American Ethnology Bulletin 82.

Milling, Chapman J.
1969 Red Carolinians. University of South Carolina Press, Columbia.

Mooney, James
1982 Myths of the Cherokee. Originally published 1900, Bureau of American Ethnology, 19th
Annual Report. Charles Elder, Nashville, TN.

Moore, David G.
2006 Catawba Indians; De Soto Expedition; Estatoe Path; Pardo Expeditions. In The
Encyclopedia of North Carolina, edited by William S. Powell, University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill.

1986 The Pisgah Phase: Cultural Continuity in the Appalachian Summit? In The Conference on
Cherokee Prehistory, pp. 73-80. Warren Wilson College, Swannanoa, NC.

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
1985 The Geology of North Carolina. Electronic Document,
https://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=0a7ccd9394734ff6aa2434d
2528ddf12.

North Carolina Office of Archives and History (NCOAH)
2004 Natives and Newcomers: North Carolina before 1770. Electronic document,
http://www.waywelivednc.com/before-1770/wagon-road.htm.

Noël Hume, Ivor
1994 The Virginia Adventure: Roanoke to Jamestown, An Archaeological Odyssey. Alfred A.
Knopf, New York.

Oberg, Michael Leroy and David Moore
2017 Voyages to Carolinas: Europeans in the Indian’s Old World. In New Voyages to Carolina:
Reinterpreting North Carolina History, Larry E. Tise and Jeffrey J. Crow, eds., University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.

O’Steen, Lisa D.
1996 Paleoindian and Early Archaic Settlement along the Oconee Drainage. In The Paleoindian
and Early Archaic Southeast. David G Anderson and Kenneth E. Sassaman, eds., pp. 92–106.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Oliver, Billy
1985 Tradition and Typology: Basic Elements of the Carolina Projectile Point Sequence. In
Structure and Process in Southeastern Archaeology, edited by Roy S. Dickens, Jr. and H.
Trawick Ward, pp. 195-211. University of Alabama Press, University.
42 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Billy Oliver continued
1992 Settlements of the Pee Dee Culture. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of
Anthropology, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.

Peterson, Ron
1981 Two Early Boundary Lines with the Cherokee Nation. Journal of Cherokee Studies 6:14-34.

Plummer, Gayther L.
1975 Eighteenth Century Forests in Georgia. Bulletin of the Georgia Academy of Science 33:1-
19.

Powell, William S.
1989 North Carolina Through Four Centuries. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
NC.

Purrington, Burton L.
1983 Ancient Mountaineers: An Overview of the Prehistoric Archaeology of North Carolina's
Western Mountain Region. In The Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeological
Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 83-160. North Carolina Division
of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Riggs, Brett H.
1988 An Historical and Archaeological Reconnaissance of Citizen Cherokee Reservations in
Macon, Swain, and Jackson Counties, North Carolina. Department of Anthropology, University
of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Rouse, Parke, Jr.
2001 The Great Wagon Road: From Philadelphia to the South. The Dietz Press, Richmond, VA.

Royce, Charles C.
1975 The Cherokee Nation of Indians. Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago, IL. Reprint of the
1887 edition.

Sassaman, Kenneth
1993 Early Pottery in the Southeast: Tradition and Innovation in Cooking Technology.
University of Alabama Press, Tuscaloosa.

Savage, Beth L. and Sarah Dillard Pope
1998 National Register Bulletin: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Sheehan, Mark C., Donald R. Whitehead, and Stephen T. Jackson
1985 Late Quaternary Environmental History of the Richard B. Russell Multiple Resource Area.
Submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Savannah District.

Sheldon, Elizabeth S.
1983 Vegetational History of the Wallace Reservoir. Early Georgia 11(1-2):19-31.

43 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Simpkins, Daniel L.
1986 A Comparison of Pisgah Plant Food Remains from the Warren Wilson Site (31BN29) With
Related Archaeological Complexes and Records of the Historic Cherokee. In The Conference
on Cherokee Prehistory, assembled by David G. Moore, pp. 20-41. Warren Wilson College,
Swannanoa, NC.

Smathers, George H.
1938 The History of Land Titles in Western North Carolina. Miller Printing Company,
Asheville, NC.

South, Stanley
1980 The Discovery of Santa Elena. Research Manuscript Series, 165. South Carolina Institute
of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of South Carolina, Columbia.

Southern Appalachian Center (SAC)
1979 A Socioeconomic Overview of Western North Carolina. Mars Hill College, Mars Hill, NC.

Stanford, Dennis
2006 Paleoamerican Origins: Models, Evidence, and Future Directions. In Paleoamerican
Origins: Beyond Clovis. Robson Bonnichsen, Betty Meggers, D. Gentry Steele, and Bradley T
Lepper, eds., pp. 313–353. Texas A & M University Press, College Station.

Swanton, John R.
1979 The Indians of the Southeastern United States. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington,
D.C. Reprint of the 1946 edition.

Teresita Press [TP]
2007 Macon County History, Electronic Document. http:www.teresita.com/html/history.html.

Town of Murphy (TOM)
2009 History of Murphy, NC and Statistics for the Town of Murphy, Electronic document.
http://www.townofmurphync.com/townhistory.php.

Townsend, Jan, John H. Sprinkle, Jr., and John Knoerl
1993 Guidelines for Evaluating and Registering Historical Archaeological Sites and Districts.
National Register Bulletin 36. National Park Service. United States Department of the Interior,
Washington, D.C.

United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
2020 Web Soil Survey, Electronic Document. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.

Van Doren, Mark
1928 Travels of William Bartram, Dover Publications, Inc., New York.

Van Noppen, Ina Woestemeyer and John J. Van Noppen
1973 Western North Carolina Since the Civil War. Appalachian Consortium Press, Boone, NC.

Ward, H. Trawick
1965 Correlation of Mississippian Sites and Soil Types. Southeastern Archaeological
Conference Bulletin 3.

44 East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
Trawick H. Ward continued
1983 A Review of Archaeology in the North Carolina Piedmont: A Study of Change. In The
Prehistory of North Carolina: An Archaeology Symposium, edited by Mark A. Mathis and
Jeffrey J. Crow, pp. 53-81. North Carolina Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

Ward, H. Trawick and R.P. Stephen Davis, Jr.
1999 Time Before History, The Archaeology of North Carolina. University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.

Wharton, Charles H.
1989 The Natural Environments of Georgia. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Atlanta.
Wythe County Genealogical and Historical Association

Whittenburg, James P.
1997 Planters, Merchants, and Lawyers: Social Change and the Origins of the North Carolina
Regulation. The William and Mary Quarterly 34(2):215–238.

Williams, Samuel Cole (editor)
1930 Early Travels in the Tennessee Country. Williams Publishing, Nashville, TN.

1986 The History of the American Indians. Promontory Press, New York. Originally published
in London in 1775.

Wood, Brian
2011 Soil Survey of Graham County, North Carolina. Electronic Document,
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/grahamNC2011/Gra
ham_NC.pdf.

Woodall, J. Ned
1988 Archeological Investigations in the Yadkin River Valley, 1984-1987. Wake Forest
University Archaeology Laboratories, Winston-Salem.

Woodward, Grace Steele
1963 The Cherokees. University of Oklahoma, Norman.

Zuber, Richard L.
1969 North Carolina During Reconstruction. North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources,
Division of Archives and History, Raleigh.

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina

Appendix A. Resume of Principal Investigator

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
DAWN M. REID
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
121 E. First Street
Clayton, North Carolina 27520
[phone] Fax [phone]
[e-mail]

PROFESSIONAL POSITIONS
President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - July 2008 to present
Vice President, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. - 2003 to July 2008
President, Heritage Partners, LLC. - 2007 to present
Senior Archaeologist/Principal Investigator, Brockington and Associates, Inc. - 1993 to 2003

EDUCATION
B.S. in Anthropology, University of California, Riverside, 1992
M.A. in Geography, University of Georgia, Athens, 1999

AREAS OF SPECIALIZATION
Client and Agency Consultations for Planning and Development
Vertebrate Faunal Analysis

PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATION MEMBERSHIP
Register of Professional Archaeologists (ROPA) Society for American Archaeology
Southeastern Archaeological Conference Mid-Atlantic Archaeology Conference
Archaeological Society of South Carolina Council of South Carolina Professional
Archaeologists
North Carolina Archaeological Society North Carolina Council of Professional
Archaeologists

Cultural Resource Surveys (Phase I) and Archaeological Site Testing (Phase II) - Representative Examples

• Airport Expansions for Concord Regional Airport (Cabarrus County), Hickory Regional Airport (Burke
County)

• Greenways for Appomattox County, Virginia (Appomattox Heritage Trail), Isle of Wight County (Fort
Huger)

• Utility Corridors for Duke Energy (Charlotte), FPS (Charlotte), BREMCO (Asheville), SCE&G
(Columbia), Georgia Power Company (Atlanta), Transco Pipeline (Houston), ANR Pipeline (Detroit), and
others

• Transportation Corridors for Georgia Department of Transportation (Atlanta), South Carolina
Department of Transportation (Columbia), North Carolina Department of Transportation (Raleigh)

• Development Tracts for numerous independent developers, engineering firms, and local and county
governments throughout Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia, and federal agencies
including the USFS (South Carolina) and the USACE (Mobile and Wilmington Districts)

Archaeological Data Recovery (Phase III) - Representative Examples

• Civil War encampment (44IW0204) for Isle of Wight County, Isle of Wight, VA

• Prehistoric village (31ON1578) and late 18th/early 19th century plantation (31ON1582) for R.A.
Management, Charlotte, NC

East Buffalo Creek Restoration Area
Graham County, North Carolina
• 18th century residence (38BU1650) for Meggett, LLC, Bluffton, SC

• Prehistoric camps/villages (38HR243, 38HR254, and 38HR258) for Tidewater Plantation and Golf Club,
Myrtle Beach, SC

EXPERIENCE AT MILITARY FACILITIES

Fort Benning, Columbus, Georgia; Townsend Bombing Range, McIntosh County, Georgia; Fort Bragg, Fayette ville,
North Carolina; Camp Lejeune, Jacksonville, North Carolina; Fort Jackson, Columbia, South Carolina; Fort
Buchanan, Puerto Rico; Milan Army Ammunition Plant, TN

FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION RELATED INVESTIGATIONS

Georgia Power Company -Flint River Hydroelectric Project
Duke Energy - Lake James and Lake Norman, North Carolina; Fishing Creek, South Carolina

*A detailed listing of individual projects and publications is available upon request

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.  

In areas where equipment will not manually remove multiflora rose, biological control 
is most cost effective strategy over monitoring period (see below). Eriophyid mites 
have been observed at project site and offer an effective, passive control for 
multiflora rose.   

Biological Control: 
Rose rosette disease is viral pathogen vectored by native eriophyid mites.  Infected 
plants display bright red or pink top growth and rust colored, whorled new growth.  
Significant die back is observed after 2 years, some large individual take 4‐5 years to 
completely die back to ground.  

Rose Seed Chalcid (Megastigmus aculeatus) is an imported Japanese wasp that lays 
eggs into ovules of multiflora rose.  Wasp larvae eat seed ovules upon emergence, 
effectively controlling spread of multiflora rose.  SE‐EPPC (Southeast Exotic Pest Plant 
Council) survey has found that 50% of multiflora rose seed in West Virginia study was 
infected by wasps.  The same study estimates that up to 90% of multiflora rose in SE 
US will be infected by these wasps in the next 20 years.   

Source: https://www.se‐eppc.org/manual/multirose.html 

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
Construction Sequence 0.3.1
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 4.0-4.2
Additional Grading 5.0-5.3
Details 6.1-6.10
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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO NOT USE FORCONSTRUCTIONFINAL PLANS
ISSUED AUGUST 14, 2020
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Cover Notes.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaTitle Sheet005-45020HBERJM0.1August 14, 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
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NOT USE FORCONSTRUCTION0'250'500'750'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
0.2
August 14, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Project Overview CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECEC
E
C
E
CE
CECECE
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 CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUERAMLONGHORN, 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 EXCLUSIONAREA14.9 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: 29EXISTING LOWER DIRTROAD TO BE ABANDONEDAND CROSSINGS REMOVEDEXISTING UPPER DIRT ROADTO BE NATURALIZEDEXISTING LOWERDIRT ROADUT3UT1UT2UT4UT4AUT4UT6UT7UT5EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT3UT2EAST BUFFALO ROADUT4BHISTORIC FIELD/ROADOVERBURDENTO BEREMOVEDBURIEDHYDRICSOILSEXISTING PORTION OF PIN: 566200090043TO BE SUBDIVIDED OR RECOMBINED WITHADJACENT MELARTI PARCELRE-ESTABLISHMENTEXISTING CLAYDRAIN TILEB6BURIEDHYDRICSOILS14"
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'80'120'200'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
0.2.1
August 14, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Project Valley OverviewOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHEOHE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUUT3UT1UT4AUT4UT6UT7
UT
5
UT3UT2EASEMENT EXCLUSION AREA14.9 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 2.5.1STATION 3000+95END UT2 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN WORK UT2 REACH 2STA. 4000+52END UT3 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN WORK UT3 REACH 2NO STREAMWORK ON UT4ASTA. 1003+66EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 3+96 END UT1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1000+00BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1 -ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1005+50END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2 - RESTORATIONSTA. 1013+57CONTINUE EAST BUFFALO CREEKREACH 2STA 6002+48END UT5 REACH 2STA 1017+16END EAST BUFFALO CREEKREACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA. 4010+46END UT3 REACH 2BEGIN UT3 REACH 3 - ENHANCEMENT ISTA. 5002+29END UT4 REACH 2STA 1013+92END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2BEGIN EAST BUFFALO REEK REACH 3 -ENHANCEMENT IISTA 1008+37 CONTINUE EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2STA 3007+33END UT2 REACH 25000+52END UT4 REACH 1 -PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT4 REACH 2 -ENHANCEMENT ISTA 6000+67END UT5 REACH 1 - PRESERVATIONBEGIN UT5 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT IIPROPOSED POWERLINE RELOCATION,ABANDON OLD LINEAND EASEMENTEXISTING POWERLINE ANDEASEMENT TO BERELOCATED AS SHOWNFALL 2020EAST BU
F
FA
LO
CREEKSTA 0+00BEGIN UT1 - ENHANCEMENT IISTA 4014+26END UT3 REACH 3STATION 3001+46BEGIN UT2 - ENHANCEMENT I CREDITSTA. 4000+52BEGIN UT3 REACH 2 -RESTORATION CREDIT
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUE0+001+00
1+69
0+001+002+002+540+001+002+002+54G!G2G3G4206520702075208020702085208020752060205520502065206020502055EAST BUFFALO ROADUT3UT2EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT
5UT4
ABCDDDEFHGIJUT4AKXS 2XS 1EXCLUSION PARCEL VIA SUBDIVISIONDGWG 1GWG 2GWG 3GWG 4B1B2B3B4B5B6B7B8B9B10B11B12HARVEST BIOTA,HARVEST BED MATERIALFOR REUSE (REFER TO 0.3.1),THEN FILL PER GRADINGPLAN OR APPLY FLOODPLAINPOOL AND DEPRESSIONDETAIL AS DIRECTEDPROPOSED STREAMALIGNMENTDISTURBANCE TO BE MINIMIZEDDURING CONSTRUCTION OF UT3GRADE OUT HISTORIC ROAD BED ANDCROWNED FIELD TO RELIC HYDRIC SOILSPLUG AND REMOVEFIELD LOCATEDDRAIN TILE OUTLETPLANT EXISTING WETLANDS PERPLANTING PLAN SHEETS ASPRIMARY ENHANCEMENT ACTIVITY(TYP)PROPOSED LOCATION OFRELOCATED UTILITY LINEREMOVE CLAYDRAIN TILE TOUPGRADIENTPROPERTY LIMITSGWG 520702075208020852090207020752080208520900+000+501+001+502+002+50HISTORIC FIELD/ROAD20552060206520702075205520602065207020750+000+501+001+501+70HISTORIC FIELD/ROADRE-ESTABLISHMENTRE-ESTABLISHMENTB614"0'50'100'150'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Overview.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
0.2.2
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
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 K0.001.02ReestablishmentTotal1.752.47Wetland K 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 CREDIT1GROUNDWATER GAUGE (GWG #)CREDITSPROPOSED RATION/A3:11.5:13:13:13:13:11:10.000.000.000.1350.4420.0780.015N/AN/A0.0050.0171.0171.708N/AN/AN/AN/A1.GAGES 1-4 WERE INSTALLED AT INDICATED LOCATIONS IN MARCH2020 TO RECORD WETLAND HYDROLOGY DURING GROWINGSEASON.2.GAGE 5 WILL BE INSTALLED FOR POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.3.GAGE 4 WILL BE MOVED FURTHER NORTH TO THE CENTER OF THEPROPOSED WETLAND AREA FOR POST CONSTRUCTION MONITORING.MITIGATION PLAN NOTE:SOILINVESTIGATIONBORINGDEPTH TOHYDRICINDICATORB1NON-HYDRICB26" - F3B3NON-HYDRIC16" - F3B40" - F3B54" - F3B6NON-HYDRIC18" - F3B7NON-HYDRICB82" - F3B9NON-HYDRICB107" - F3B112" - F3B126" - F3SOIL BORING LOCATION (B#)REV. 5/11/205/11/20 Updated wetland K
grading per soil scientist report
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Cover Notes.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaGeneral Notes and Symbols005-45020HBERJM0.3August 14, 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
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 6.5
Proposed Log Vane
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.5
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 Erosion Control Features
Proposed Various Constructed
Riffles Per Plans
See Sheet 6.1-6.2
Proposed Brush Toe
See Sheet 6.4, Detail 1
Proposed Bank Grading and
Invasive Treatment
See Plans for Additional Notes
Proposed Floodplain Roughening
Proposed Vegetated Stone Toe
Protection
See Sheet 6.4, Detail 2
Proposed Structures
SAF SAF
[x][x]
CE CE CE Proposed Haul Road
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.12
Proposed Temporary Rock Sediment Dam
See Detail 3, Sheet 6.8
Proposed Temporary Crossing
See Detail 2, Sheet 6.9
Proposed Construction Entrance
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.10
Use Existing Drive Entrance
Staging/Stockpile Areas
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.12
Straw Wattles
See Detail 1, Sheet 6.9
LOD LOD
Proposed Rock Step
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 4
Proposed Log Step
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 3
Proposed Cascading
Riffle-Pool Sequence
Proposed Level Spreader
See Sheet 6.11, Detail 2
Proposed Rock Slide
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 1
Proposed Rock Drop
See Sheet 6.3, Detail 2
Proposed Tree Removal
Proposed Floodplain Pool
See Sheet 6.11, Detail 1
OU OU OU
OUE OUE
SAFSAFProposed Tree SaveXXXOUOUOU
Proposed Rock Cascade
See Sheet 6.1, Detail 1
Proposed Live Willow Logs
Proposed Live Tag Alder Rootball T
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Cover Notes.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaConstruction Sequence005-45020HBERJM0.3.1August 14, 2020Construction Sequence:
THE FOLLOWING FOUR ITEMS MAY BE COMPLETED IN THE ORDER PREFERRED BY CONTRACTOR, EXCEPT AS DIRECTED BY THE DESIGNER:
21.Install all in-stream and in-bank bioengineering such as brush toe and sod mats according to details and specifications.
22.Sod mats may be used in lieu of coir fiber matting to stabilize all stream banks on site at the discretion of the Designer. 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.
23.Seed (with specified temporary and permanent seed mix) and straw mulch areas where the coir fiber matting is to be installed.
24.Complete grading and shaping of the adjacent floodplain areas according to grades shown on the plan.
25.Once the new channel and banks are stabilized, follow pump around system detail to turn flow from the existing channel into the new channel.
26.At this time, or a later time, backfill abandoned channel sections with stockpiled soil according to the grades shown on the Plans. Non-native and invasive
vegetation (e.g. Chinese privet and multiflora rose) shall be entirely removed from the existing channel prior to backfilling. Vegetation on abandoned
channel banks to receive fill shall be removed prior to the backfilling of abandoned channels to ensure flow paths are blocked and backfill can be
compacted.
27.General note: 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 with topsoil shall be treated according to the planting plan.
28.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.
29.Stabilize areas of the upper portion of the site that will not be further disturbed. Close out any access, haul or staging areas that are no longer necessary.
Permanent close out of such areas shall include soil ripping to address compaction.
30.Proceed to the lower portion of the site that has both online and offline channel reaches to be constructed (UT4 Reach 2, UT3 Reach 3, UT5 Reach 2, and
East Buffalo Creek Reach 3). Where applicable, construct the proposed stream channels in the dry to the grade and dimensions specified in the
cross-sections and profile. When dry channels cannot be constructed without impacting existing channel due to proximity, pump around existing channel
during work on offline channel.
31.Construct crossings and stabilize and prepare associated erosion and sediment controls along haul roads prior to crossing creeks. Install silt fence and/or
safety fence to protect stream and wetlands from primary or secondary impacts from the work.
32.Utilize pump around operation for all bank grading and clearing on these reaches and return to same day stabilization requirements for all in-stream
work.
BIOTA HARVESTING
33.Contractor or Designer, as determined by final agreement between Contractor and Designer, shall collect and relocate aquatic biota wherever possible
along the existing stream before completely dewatering or applying fill to old channel.
34.Existing stream channels to be abandoned may be cleared (without grubbing) to provide access to streams for harvesting of biota. Minimize disturbance
to the maximum extent possible. Do not clear potential transplant material without designer approval (alders and other small diameter native trees and
shrubs)
35.Using kick nets and seines, capture and relocate animals from existing channels to be abandoned and relocate them to stable channels that will undergo
minimal or no additional disturbance during the project construction activities.
36.After relocation, attempt to relocate substrate to new channels while both channels have water facilitated through groundwater, pumping or other
diversion or partial diversion. Implement measures to ensure that flowing water does not come into contact with work area and cause erosion and
sedimentation to live water downstream. This may involve partial pumping of flow to reduce flow below erosive levels while still facilitating adequate
habitat to support organisms being relocated. Construct and/or seed riffles and/or pools with native material retrieved from wet existing channel.
ROAD AND CROSSING DECOMMISSIONING (SOUTH SIDE OF EAST BUFFALO ROAD)
37.Utilize existing entrances for one-time access. Existing entrances may be supplemented as necessary due to site conditions to address erosion control
concerns. Maintain road free of sediment and ensure road is protected from equipement during access to these entrances.
38.Do not haul in imported materials or export materials without installing a temporary construction entrance.
39.Existing primary roads should be decommissioned from the highest elevation to the lowest, removing access and crossings as the contractor progresses
toward the construction entrance.
40.Crossing decommissioning shall utilize on-site materials to the maximum extent possible. Any grading not shown in the Additional Grading plans or called
for in the details or specifications will require designer approval.
41.After crossings have been decommissioned, regraded entries shall be established to deter further entry at existing entrances. Contractor shall utilize local
materials and fill to establish restriction of access.
CONSTRUCTION DEMOBILIZATION
42.Remove any remaining temporary stream crossings.
43.The Contractor shall ensure that the site is free of trash and leftover materials prior to demobilization of equipment from the site.
44.Complete the removal of any additional stockpiled material from the site.
45.Demobilize grading equipment from the site.
46.All rock and other stockpiled materials not utilized in site grading 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.
47.Rip, 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. Staging areas and hauls roads which have been compacted due to heavy equipment traffic must be
ripped and/or disked to depth of 8” at a minimum.
PLANTING
48.Complete transplanting of on-site material as directed during the course of construction.
49.Following construction, by area, or after all site grading activities are complete, install live stakes and herbaceous plugs along the stream banks according
to the plans and specifications.
General Construction Notes for All Reaches
1.All erosion and sediment control practices shall comply with the North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual. All project
activities shall comply with all permit and waiver requirements and conditions. Issued permits and waivers, as applicable, will be included in the project
manual.
2.Where feasible, more than one offline section may be constructed concurrently. Offline sections shall be tied online sequentially from downstream to
upstream. Refer to pump around system notes for other tie-in requirements. See Biota Harvesting Sequence when diverting existing stream flow to proposed
channel.
3.Contractor will install pump around systems to divert flow while working in live, flowing channels and when executing tie-ins. The Contractor shall operate
and maintain the pump around system continuously until the disturbed area is stabilized.
4.Contractor shall disturb only as much channel bank as can be stabilized with temporary seeding, mulch, and erosion control matting by the end of each work
day.
5.Clearing and grubbing activities on active channels shall not extend more than 150 linear feet ahead of in-stream work. When these activities may result in
erosion and sedimentation to the stream channel, a pump around system is required to be in place until all cleared and grubbed areas are stabilized.
6.All graded areas with slopes steeper than 3:1 will be stabilized within seven (7) working days. All other areas will be stabilized within 14 working days.
7.When crossing an active section of new or old stream channel, a temporary stream crossing – timber mat shall be installed according to the detail and
specification.
8.Locations for staging and stockpile areas and temporary stream crossings have been provided on the Plans. Alternative staging and/or stockpile areas and
stream crossings may be used by the Contractor provided that the areas are within the limits of disturbance, all practices comply with the North Carolina
Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and Design Manual, and that the Designer approves the areas prior to implementation. The type of stream crossing
may not be modified without modification to the permit.
9.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.
10.Contractor is to make every effort to avoid damaging or removing existing trees where possible and as directed by the designer.
11.Under no circumstances will the Contractor exceed the limits of disturbance as shown on the Plans.
12.Any off-site borrow and waste required for this project must come from a site with an approved erosion control plan, a site regulated under the Mining Act of
1971, or a landfill regulated by the Division of Solid Waste Management. No borrow or waste soil is anticipated on the project and the designer shall be
notified if any borrow or waste of soil is to occur in order to update permits as necessary prior to commencement of such activities.
13.Existing trash/debris generated from demolition activities and/or denoted within the plans must be disposed of at a facility regulated by the NC Division of
Solid Waste Management or per Division of Solid Waste Management or Division of Water Resources Rules and Regulations.
INITIAL SITE PREPARATION
1.Contact North Carolina “One Call” Center (811) before any excavation.
2.Contact Division of Energy, Mineral and Land Resources 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 anticipated sediment loss, divert water off haul roads into grassed strips, install silt
fence or other acceptable sediment and erosion control practices to reduce velocities and trap sediment. In area where temporary diversions or barriers are
necessary when roads are not in use, wattles may be used
6.Set up temporary facilities, locate equipment outside of 25’ trout buffers and preferably within designated staging areas. Use staging areas to contain
materials and stockpile soil for future use.
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 and
NCG01 permit.
STREAM, WETLAND AND ADJACENT 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. When physical invasive removal is proposed (see plans, Sheet 3.4), remove all non-native and invasive vegetation prior to
beginning the channel or wetland construction using a pump around and restabilizing these areas upon completion when the work may result in erosion and
sedimentation to streams or wetlands. Remove or restabilize all fine material that may be washed downstream prior to returning flow to channels.
9.Prior to mobilization, Contractor shall prepare a refined sequence of work and construction schedule for review and approval by Designer.
10.Contractor shall begin work on the Northeast side of the site. Install construction entrances, staging areas, and crossings and stabilize haul roads for
mobilization to active work areas.
11.Flag trees and clearing and grubbing areas for designer approval prior to commencing removal.
12.When clearing and grubbing or conducting grading work in or on the bank of creeks, set up pump around system prior to commencing grading operations.
Disturb only that area along the creek channel and banks that can be stabilized with seed and permanent matting, or temporary matting, by the end of the
day.
13.Remove and grub invasive species prior to commencing earth moving activities. Where applicable, harvest and stockpile topsoil (separately) for reuse.
14.When grading the wetland reestablishment area, commence by locating subsurface drainage pipes. Complete larger cuts prior to commencing fine grading of
adjacent areas. Install slope breaks using soil berms to reduce the effective slope length that water will travel. Use silt fence or wattles to divert flow from
upgradient around the work area to East Buffalo Creek across original ground. Any areas that have been disturbed should be matted and/or stabilized with
check dams prior to routing diverted flow across these areas.
15.Soil obtained from wetland grading may be stockpiled utilizing designated haul roads and staging/stockpile areas, thoroughly dried, then used as fill
throughout the entire site .
16.Offline sections shall be tied online sequentially from downstream to upstream. When directed, the contractor shall pump or divert water into the new online
channel before constructing tie-in in order to wash riffles free of excess sediment and remove sediment prior to tying into live downstream channel.
17.When grading access road to electric utility corridor adjacent to UT2 Reach 2, install sediment barrier to protect downgradient areas, properly compact all
placed material in accordance with grading specification, apply matting to side slopes steeper than 3:1.
18.Close out any access, haul or staging areas that are no longer necessary. Permanent close out of such areas shall include soil ripping to address compaction.
19.Proceed to the middle portion of the site that has multiple offline channel reaches to be constructed (East Buffalo Creek Reach 2, UT2 Reach 2 offline portion,
UT3 Reach 2). Construct the proposed stream channels in the dry to the grade and dimensions specified in the cross-sections and profile. Same day
stabilization may not be required when constructing offline channel segments (when these areas are depressional with no inflow or outflow).
20.The first offline channel will use harvested onsite stone material from a non-channel source, supplemented with offsite material as necessary. There-after,
transfer biota from existing streams to be abandoned to existing or new online channels, then transfer coarse material for use in new channel structures
(riffles, rock sills, rock vanes, etc.). See Biota Harvesting Sequence for additional details.
Construction Sequence (continued):
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.1August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.2August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaEast Buffalo Creek Reach 3Typical SectionsEast Buffalo Creek Reach 3 - Riffle
Areas designated in plan view only from
STA 1013+92 - 1017+16
East Buffalo Creek Reach 3 - Pool.
POOL TYPICAL NOTE:
MINIMAL PROFILE WORK IS PROPOSED. AT INSTALLED CHANNEL
NARROWING STRUCTURES, CONTRACTOR SHALL ADAPT REACH 2 POOL
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 COBBLE
NOTE: TYPICAL SECTION DOES NOT APPLY THROUGHOUT. THE
INTENT IS FOR CONTRACTOR TO 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.3August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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+33
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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.4August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.5August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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
2.5:10.5'
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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.6August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.7August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION005-45020HBERJM1.8August 14, 2020X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Typicals.dwgAugust 13, 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
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 OTHER
INVASIVES 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 6:14 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 GROUNDCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CECE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
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 IISTA 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 BANKSTA 1003+66 TO 1005+50 LEFT 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+0020802085 STABILIZE WITH MATTINGEAST BUFFALO CREEKUT1MATCH LINE - STA

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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.1.1
August 14, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II1. 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- EAST BUFFALO REACH 1:
20502055206020652070207520802085205020552060206520702075208020851004+201004+501005+001005+501006+001006+501007+001007+501008+001008+50-8.9%-6.7%-0.0%STA = 1005+50ELEV = 2074.28STA = 1005+70ELEV = 2072.31STA = 1005+76ELEV = 2070.20STA = 1005+95
ELEV = 2070.51STA = 1006+00ELEV = 2068.51STA = 1006+17
ELEV = 2069.09STA = 1006+21ELEV = 2067.59STA = 1006+45ELEV = 2065.43STA = 1006+76ELEV = 2063.45STA = 1006+81
ELEV = 2065.26
STA = 1006+99
ELEV = 2063.51STA = 1007+07ELEV = 2060.61STA = 1007+13
ELEV = 2062.91
STA = 1007+32
ELEV = 2061.34STA = 1007+41ELEV = 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+79ELEV = 2056.78STA = 1007+81
ELEV = 2058.49
STA = 1007+92
ELEV = 2057.33
STA = 1008+07
ELEV = 2056.83
STA = 1008+22
ELEV = 2055.46STA = 1008+28ELEV = 2053.46STA = 1008+32ELEV = 2055.36STA = 1008+00ELEV = 2055.13STA = 1008+42
ELEV = 2054.69
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+52ELEV = 2067.23STA = 1006+57ELEV = 2064.84STA = 1006+60
ELEV = 2066.39STA = 1006+67ELEV = 2065.86EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLXXXXXXXXXXX20
7
0
2075 20802085
2060
2065
2070
20
7
5
2080
STA 1008+37EAST BUFFALO CREEK - RESTORATIONSTA 3025+33UT2 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 LIVESTAKINGPHYSICAL 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+002075
20652
0
7
0 2075208020852
0
6
020652070
205520602065EAST BUFFALO CREEKUT2CR-CSCR-CSCR-CSCR-CSCR-CHCR-CSCR-CHCR-CSCR-CHCR-CSCR-CRCR-CRCR-CRMATCH 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.1.2
August 14, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
East Buffalo Creek
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II1. 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- EAST BUFFALO REACH 1:
20302035204020452050205520602065203020352040204520502055206020651008+501009+001009+501010+001010+501011+001011+501012+001012+501013+00-3.7%-5.8%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSED BANKFULL-7.2%-7.7%-8.2%-9.0%-8.5%-7.7%-6.1%-7.4%-7.2%-12.4%-5.7%-4.8%-4.2%-4.5%-3.7%-4.3%-3.2%-4.1%STA = 1008+52ELEV = 2051.22STA = 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+53ELEV = 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+37
ELEV = 2043.14STA = 1010+45ELEV = 2041.04STA = 1010+51
ELEV = 2042.54
STA = 1010+67
ELEV = 2041.37STA = 1010+83ELEV = 2039.45STA = 1010+99
ELEV = 2040.32STA = 1011+04ELEV = 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 = 2033.98
STA = 1012+97ELEV = 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 = 2040.82OUEOUEOUEOUE
XXXX
XXX2040204520502055
20352040
2045 20502055ROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGCONSTRUCT FLOOD FLOWREENTRY POINT USING NATIVESTONE AND SOIL MIXSCARIFY AND RESEEDEXISTING FARM ROADEXISTING FA
R
M

R
O
A
DREMOVE EXISTING FENCE(LIVESTOCK TO BE REMOVEDFROM SITE)SEE UT5 ENHANCEMENT IIPLAN SHEET 2.6.13007+331009+001010+001011+001012+001013+006002+0020502055204020452035204
0 ROUGHEN FLOOD FLOW PATHUSING ONSITE WOOD ANDDENSE LIVESTAKINGUT5EAST BUFFALO
CREEKCR-CRCR-CRCR-CHCR-CRCR-CSCR-CHCR-CRCR-CRCR-CHCR-CHCR-CRCR-CHCR-CRCR-CSCR-CRCR-CRCR-CRMATCH 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.1.3
August 14, 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+50-3.7%-3.2%-4.1%-4.3%-3.3%STA = 1017+15
ELEV = 2019.15EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLSTA = 1013+02ELEV = 2033.58STA = 1013+26ELEV = 2032.59STA = 1013+35ELEV = 2030.59STA = 1013+39ELEV = 2032.39STA = 1013+86ELEV = 2029.03STA = 1013+94ELEV = 2030.63STA = 1013+56ELEV = 2029.86STA = 1013+63ELEV = 2031.71STA = 1013+77ELEV = 2031.09
STA = 1014+98
ELEV = 2027.20
SAFSAFSAFCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESAFSAFSAFCECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
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 IIREMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)PROPOSED SINGLE LOG VANE1013+001014+001015+001016+001
0
1
7
+00
10
1
8
+
0
06002+00203520352035AS DIRECTED, REMOVE LARGEPRIVET CLUMPS FROM RIGHTBANK AND REBUILD TOTYPICAL DIMENSIONPROPOSED BANK GRADINGSHALL REMOVE LEVY ANDAPPLY LEFT BANK BENCHINGFROM TYPICAL SECTIONSEE SHEET 1.2EAST BUFFALO CREEKEXISTING
R
E
S
I
D
E
N
T
I
A
L

R
O
A
D CR-CRCR-CHCR-JZCR-CSCR-CRCR-CRMATCH 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.1.4
August 14, 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 LIVESTOCK5. APPLY STEP PROFILE AT TOP OF REACH. MAKEMINOR ADJUSTMENTS TO CHANNEL BOTTOMWIDTH USING STRUCTURES. CONDUCT LEVYREMOVAL AND BENCHING ON LEFT BANKWHERE SHOWN.0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)
20802085209020952100210521102115208020852090209521002105211021150+000+501+001+502+002+503+003+504+00EXISTING GROUNDCE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
20952
1
0
0 21052110 211521202125
2090
209521002105211021152120
208520902095 0+001+002+003+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
0HARVEST PLACED BOULDERS FOR REUSE2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.2.1
August 14, 2020 Sheet IndexEast Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
UT1
Stream Plan and Profile 0'4'8'12'(VERTICAL)ENHANCEMENT II - UT1:1. TREAT PRIVET AND INVASIVE SPECIES2. SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ON BOTH BANKS PER PLANTING PLAN
2095210021052110211521202125213021352095210021052110211521202125213021352999+503000+003000+503001+003001+503002+003002+503003+003003+50STA = 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%EXISTING 36" CMPINV.IN 2035.69'INV.OUT 2028.01'EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECE CE CE CECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECE CECE CE CE
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
C
E
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECE CE CE CECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECE CECE CE CE
C
E
C
E
CE
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
2105
21
1
0
2
1
1
521202125213021352140
2090
2095
2
1
0
0
2135214021452150215521602165217021752180218521502155
2105
21
1
0
2
1
1
52120STATION 3000+95BEGIN UT2 REACH 2 - ENHANCEMENT INO CREDITPROPOSED START OF UTILITYRELOCATION BY DUKE POWERFILL AND ABANDONEXISTING DITCHCONSTRUCT ACCESS ROADTO PROPOSED OVERHEADUTILITY EASEMENTSTATION 3001+46END UTILITY EASEMENTENHANCEMENT ICREDIT BEGINSREMOVE OR CUT-STUMPTREAT PRIVET, SLOPE AND MATBANKS WHERE DISTURBEDSTA 3002+48 TO 3003+953001+003002+003003+0021
1
0
21
1
5
21
2
02125
2
1
1
0
21
1
5 RETAIN EXISTING 36" CMPINV. IN 2035.69'INV. OUT 2028.01'STA. 3002+48BEGIN BANK GRADING INERODED SEGMENTS ANDWHERE NECESSARY FORINVASIVE REMOVALREMOVE OR CUT-STUMPCONDUCT MECHANICAL REMOVAL OFINVASIVES PRIOR TO STREAMWORKMAKE FIELD MODIFICATIONS TO LEFTBANK GRADING AS DIRECTED TO SAVELARGE TREESREMOVE LOCUST TREESREMOVE FENCE,CONDUCT PHYSICALINVASIVES REMOVALFROM FENCE TO UT2MATCHLIN
E

-

S
T
A

3
0
0
3
+
4
5UT2UT2 EA
S
T

B
U
F
F
A
L
O

R
O
A
D
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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.3.1
August 14, 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
-8.0%-9.3%-8.0%-8.1%-5.5%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLOUEOUEXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2060206520702065207020
7
5
2075
2080 2085 2090 2095 20802085209020952100
UT2EA
S
T
BU
F
FA
LO
CR
E
EK STA. 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
020752060
2
0
6
5
2
0
7
0
205520602065REMOVE FENCE,CONDUCT PHYSICALINVASIVES REMOVAL FROMFENCE TO UT2MATCHLINE - STA 3003+45
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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.3.2
August 14, 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 = 2091.50STA = 4001+68ELEV = 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
-12.7%-16.6%-13.7%-19.1%-15.7%-12.7%-12.8%-12.6%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-12.7%-11.4%-11.2%-14.7%-12.3%-12.8%EXISTING 36" CMPINV.IN 2108.24'INV.OUT 2104.07'EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLSTATION 4001+00REPEAT CASCADINGRIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECE 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 ABANDONEDSTABILIZE ROAD PIPEOUTLET AND SPREAD FLOWINTO PROPOSED BUFFERROUGHEN FLOOD
FLOW
PATHUSING
ONS
ITE
WOOD
ANDDENSE L
IVESTAK
INGCONSTRUCT ACCESS ROADSTA. 4000+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'MAKE FIELD MODIFICATIONS TO LEFTBANK GRADING AS DIRECTED TO SAVELARGE TREESUT3EAST BUFFALO ROAD CR-CSMATCH 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 ABCD20652070DEPTH VARIES1.1' TO 2.3'SEE TYP SECTIONSHEET 1.4Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.4.1
August 14, 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 = 2054.60
-4.5%-6.1%-10.2%-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%-8.4%-7.5%-9.3%-8.6%-9.1%-10.6%-10.2%-10.2%-10.2%-10.2%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSEDGRADEPROPOSEDBANKFULLSTATION 4004+66END CASCADINGRIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUEOUECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE20402045
20502055 2060 20652070
2040
2
0
4
5
2050
20552060206520702075
HARVEST EXISTING STREAM BEDMATERIAL AND FILL EXISTINGCHANNELEXISTING POWER LINETHROUGH FIELD TOBE RELOCATEDOUTSIDE OF BUFFERSTA 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'UT3EAST BUFFALO ROADCR-CHCR-CSCR-CSCR-JZCR-CSCR-WDCR-CRCR-CSCR-CRCR-WDCR-CHCR-JZCR-CSCR-CRCR-WDCR-CSMATCH LINE - STA 4003+80
MATCH LINE - STA 4008+30
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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.4.2
August 14, 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+21ELEV = 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
-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%-9.1%-4.9%-4.6%-3.0%-4.1%-20.5%-4.9%-3.6%-5.0%-5.4%-5.1%-5.4%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECECE20202
0
2
5 20302020
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+005002+295002+00
20302035
202020202025203020202025REMOVE EXISTING CULVERTCR-JZCR-CHCR-CSCR-CRCR-JZCR-CHCR-CSCR-CSCR-CSCR-CHCR-WDCR-CSCR-CHCR-JZCR-CSCR-CHMATCH 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.4.3
August 14, 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 = 2012.00-2.6%-3.1%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOHECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEX
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 UT4AREMOVE EXISTING FENCEWITHIN EASEMENT (TYP)4012+004013+004014+004014+47OUE MIN. 30 FT FROMSTREAM BANKFULL20152020202020152020UT3UT4AEAST BUFFALO ROADCR-CSCR-WDCR-JZCR-CRCR-JZMATCH 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.4.4
August 14, 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 = 2026.96
-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
EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECE
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'STRUCTURE LOCATION TO BEDESIGNATED IN THE FIELD BASEDON JUNCUS STABILIZATION4010+0
0
401
1
+
0
0
5
0
0
2
+
2
95000+005001+005002+00203020252030
2025 STA. 5000+65END ROWBEGIN UT4 REACH 2 -RESTORATION CREDITU
T
3UT4EAST BUFFALO ROAD
UT
3
CR-
C
H
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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.5.1
August 14, 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+81ELEV = 2040.12STA = 6000+86
ELEV = 2040.81STA = 6001+06ELEV = 2038.75STA = 6001+11
ELEV = 2039.50STA = 6001+24ELEV = 2038.23STA = 6001+28
ELEV = 2038.75STA = 6001+42ELEV = 2037.13STA = 6001+49
ELEV = 2037.83STA = 6001+55ELEV = 2036.89STA = 6001+59
ELEV = 2037.41STA = 6001+72ELEV = 2036.12STA = 6001+75
ELEV = 2036.67STA = 6001+92ELEV = 2034.92STA = 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 = 2034.13-12.0%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-4.4%-7.1%-6.9%-19.7%-24.0%-24.0%-17.2%-22.6%-12.0%-6.9%-4.4%-7.1%EXISTING GROUNDPROPOSED GRADEPROPOSED BANKFULLXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX2040
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
2040
2035 2040204520452035 CR-CRCR-CSCR-CSCR-CSCR-CHCR-CS2.1.12.1.22.1.32.1.42.4.42.4.32.4.22.4.12.2.12.5.12.3.12.3.22.6.1EAST 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION 0'20'40'60'(HORIZONTAL)N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Profiles.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
2.6.1
August 14, 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 Willow840.5" cal.Canopy10%Salix sericeaSilky Willow840.5" cal.Subcanopy30%Cornus amomumSilky Dogwood840.5" cal.Subcanopy25%Sambucus canadensisElderberry840.5" cal.Subcanopy10%Physocarpos opulifoliusNinebark840.5" cal.Shrub25%*Percentages may be altered by designer to maximum of 40%Total100%Herbaceous PlugsJuncus effususCommon Rush103-52.0" plugHerb50%Carex luridaShallow Sedge103-52.0" plugHerb20%Carex crinitaFringed Sedge103-52.0" plugHerb15%Cyperus strigosusStraw-colored Flatsedge103-52.0" plugHerb15%Total100%*Plug species and spacing may be adjusted by designer, minimum 3 species. Max spacing may be increased by designer.X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg August 13, 2020
East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Planting Plan
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
3.0
August 14, 2020 Note:Permanent Riparian seeding in all disturbed areas within Conservation Easement andright-of-ways.NCDOT Right-of-way planting subject 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 ZoneSheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTIONRiparian 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 YearDichantheliumclandestinumDeertongueHerb2.0All 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 ZoneSpecies***Common NameMax SpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. Caliper SizeStratumPercent OfStemsPlatanus occidentalisSycamore126-12'0.25"Canopy5%Prunus serotina -uBlack Cherry126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Populus deltoides -uEastern Cottonwood126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Tilia Americana -uAmerican Linden126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Diospyros virginianaPersimmon126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Quercus rubraNorthern Red Oak126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Acer negundo -uBoxelder126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Ulmus rubra -uSlippery Elm126-12'0.25"Canopy10%Betula lenta* -uSweet Birch126-12'0.25"Canopy5%Nyssa sylvatica -uBlack Gum126-12'0.25"Canopy5%Asimina trilobaPaw Paw126-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%Corylus americana** -uAmerican Hazelnut126-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%Liriodendron tulipifera -uTulip Poplar126-12'0.25"Canopy5%* Preferred substitutes: B. alleghaniensis or Magnolia fraseri, acuminata or fraseri or other substitutes if not available100%**Preferred substitutes: Lindera benzoin, Halesia caroliniana, or other substitutes if not available***A minimum of 10 species will be planted from this list. Other substitutes are allowable as follows (up to 10% each): Fagus grandifolia,Quercus falca, Oxydendrum arboreum , Hamamelis virginiana, Quercus alba, Carpinus caroliniana, Betula alleghaniensis, Aesculus flava, Acerrubrum (as volunteer only) -u : species for upland planting areas designated on Sheet 3.1Wetland Planting ZoneSpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. Caliper SizeStratumPercentOf StemsBare Root or Tubling*Plantanus occidentalisSycamore12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy8%Liriodendron tulipiferaTulip Poplar12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy2%Alnus serrulataTag Alder12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Populus deltoidesEastern Cottowood12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy8%Malus angustifoliaSouthern Crabapple12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy8%Tilia americanaWhite Basswood12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy5%Acer negundoBoxelder12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy6%Ulmus rubraSlippery Elm12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy6%Oxydendrum arboreumSourwood12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy5%Euonymus americanusStrawberry Bush12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub2%Quercus rubraNorthern Red Oak12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy5%Betula lentaSweet Birch12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy5% Carpinus carolinianaAmerican Hornbeam12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy2%Hamamelis virginianaWitch Hazel12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy2%Nyssa sylvaticaBlack Gum12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub6%Clethra acuminatasweet-pepperbush12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub2%Ilex montanaMountain winterberry12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub1%Bare Root, Live Stake or Tubling*Salix nigraBlack Willow12 ft6-12'0.25"Canopy7%Salix sericeaSilky Willow12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%100%Elective Wetland Plugs**SpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv.SpacingMin. SizeStratumPercentOf PlugsXanthorhiza simplicissimaYellowrootN/ATBDN/AHerbN/AOsmunda cinnamomeaCinnamon fernN/ATBDN/AHerbN/AOsmunda claytonianaInterrupted fernN/ATBDN/AHerbN/AArisaema triphyllum spp.TriphyllumJack-in-the-pulpitN/ATBDN/AHerbN/ACarex atlanticaPricky bog sedgeN/ATBDN/AHerbN/AScirpus spp.WoolgrassN/ATBDN/AHerbN/A*A minimum of 10 species will be planted from this list. It is anticipated that some species listed will be unavailable from commerical source asbare root species. Designer has the option to increase any species to maximum of 15%. Where available in larger size plant material, designerwill consider using in larger size as a smaller percentage. Acer rubrum may be used as a volunteer species.**The purpose of elective wetland plugs list is to allow designer to elect, at their discretion, to plant species not available in seed mix, butavailable as plugs, 4" containers or similar. The number of wetland plugs to be planted will be determined by the designer and the purpose willbe to establish small colonies that can expand over time. Where unavailable or infeasible to obtain, wetland plugs may be eliminated.Temporary SeedingApproved DateTypePlanting Rate (lbs/acre)Jan 1 - May 1Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Humic DG (Lime)200Soil conditioner (Humic DG)50In-houseStraw Mulch4000May 1 - Aug 15German Millet (Setaria italica)40Ladino/Red/Crimson Clover20Humic DG (Lime)200Soil conditioner (Humic DG)50In-houseStraw Mulch4000Aug 15 - Dec 30Rye Grain (Secale cereale)120Ladino/Red/Crimson Clover20Humic DG (Lime)200Soil conditioner (Humic DG)100In-houseStraw Mulch4000Note:All disturbed areas.See Detail 3, Sheet 6.7 forBare Root installation instructions.Utility Right-of Way Planting Zone - Shrub and Low Growing SpeciesSpeciesCommon NameMax SpacingIndiv. SpacingMin. Caliper SizeStratumPercent OfStemsAlnus serrulataTag Alder12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy15%Itea virginicaVirginia Sweetspire12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Ilex verticillataWinterberry12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Rhododendron maximum -uRosebay Rhododendron12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Kalmia latifolia -uMountain Laurel12 ft6-12'0.25"Shub10%Physocarpus opulifolius -uNinebark12 ft6-12'0.25"Shrub10%Sambucus canadensisElderberry12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Cephalanthus occidentalisButtonbush12 ft6-12'0.25"Subcanopy5%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 fotanesiana***Minimum of five species shall be planted in utility ROW, ROW species may be livestaked or installed as tubling where applicable.-u : species for upland planting areas designated on Sheet 3.1Supplemental Shaded Area Riparian Planting ZoneSpecies*Common NameMaxSpacingIndiv.SpacingMin.CaliperSizeStratumPercentOf StemsAlnus serrulataTag alder126-12'0.25"Subcanopy20%Itea virginica Virginia sweetspire126-12'0.25"Shrub20%Ilex veritcillata Winterberry126-12'0.25"Subcanopy10%Physocarpus opulifolius Ninebark126-12'0.25"Shrub20%Sambucus canadenis -u Elderberry126-12'0.25"Shrub20%Viburnum lentago -u Nannyberry126-12'0.25"Shrub10%*Shade tolerant Riparian Planting Zone or Wetland Planting species may be substituted100% -u : species for upland planting areas designated on Sheet 3.1Wetland Seeding - Open CanopyPure Live Seed (20 lbs/acre)Approved DateSpecies NameCommon NameStratumDensity (lbs/acre)All YearPolygonum sagittatumArrowleaf TearthumbHerb0.5All YearColeatoenia ancepsBeaked PanicgrassHerb1.5All YearPanicum virgatumSwitchgrassHerb2.0All YearVernonia noveboracensisIronweedHerb1.0All YearEupatorium fistulosumJoe Pye WeedHerb0.5All YearSagittaria latifoliaBroadleaf ArrowheadHerb0.5All YearDichanthelium clandestinumDeertongueHerb1.5All YearElymus virginianaVirginia Wild RyeHerb2.0All YearScirpus cyperinusWoolgrassHerb1.0All YearCarex vulpinoideaFox SedgeHerb1.5All YearJuncus effususCommon RushHerb1.0All YearJuncus tenuisPath RushHerb1.0All YearCarex frankiiFrank's SedgeHerb1.0All YearCarex luridaShallow SedgeHerb1.0All YearBidens aristosaBur-marigoldHerb1.0All YearCarex crinitaFringed SedgeHerb1.0All YearHamamelis virginianaWitchhazelShrub1.0All YearCephalanthus occidentalisButton BushShrub1.020.0
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
3.1
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'80'160'240'(HORIZONTAL)NOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE 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

R
O
A
D
EAST BUFFALO ROADUPLANDUPLANDUPLAND
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
3.2
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'40'80'120'(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
L
O

R
O
A
D
0'40'80'120'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
3.3
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTIONOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEMATCHLINE SHEET 3.2
UT1UT2UT3EAST BUFFA
LO
CREEKEAST BUFFALO ROAD
0'80'160'240'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Planting.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
3.4
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTIONINVASIVE REMOVAL NOTES:*NO EXCAVATED SOIL TO BE USED ON PROPOSED STREAMBANKS DUE TO INVASIVE ROOT PRESENCEDENSE INFESTATION APPROXIMATE LIMITSOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUERICHARD 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 CLEAR CUT WHEREPOSSIBLE AND THROUGHCUT-STUMP/SPRAY TREATMENTELSEWHEREINVASIVE ENGLISHIVY TO BEREMOVED DURINGSITE GRADINGINVASIVE ENGLISH IVY TO BECHEMICALLY TREATED MULTIPLESEASONS BEGINNING SPRING 2020(APPROXIMATE AREA)CLEAR CUT ANDCHEMICALLY 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

R
O
A
D
EAST BUFFALO ROADWOOD LINE TO BEMECHANICALLY TREATED(APPROXIMATELY 10' INTOWOODS)
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - ESC Plan.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
4.0
August 14, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
ESC Overview
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'80'160'240'(HORIZONTAL)NNOTES:1.NO OFFSITE WASTE OR BORROW SITE SHALL BE USED.2.CONDUCT STREAMBED AND BANK WORK STABILIZING DISTURBEDAREAS PRIOR TO THE END OF EACH WORK DAY SO THAT FLOW MAYBE TURNED BACK INTO THE CHANNEL.3.PROTECT INTEGRITY OF PAVEMENT AT ALL CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCES OFF EAST BUFFALO ROAD.4.MAINTAIN ENTRANCES PER DETAIL.LOD: 23 ACRESOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOULOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODL
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLODLODLODLOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LO
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LOD
LO
D
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD LO
D
LODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD
LODLO
D
LOD
LODLODLOD LOD
LOD
LOD
L
O
D
LODL
O
D
LO
D
LOD LODLODLODOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE OHE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE
CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CE CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECESHEET 3.2SHEET 3.3[x][x
][x][x][x][x][x][
x
][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]T[x][x]SAFSAFSAFSAFSAFLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODSAF[x][x][x][x][x][x]TEND UT3 REACH 2ABEGIN UT3 REACH 2BEND UT3 REACH 1BEGIN UT3 REACH 2AEND UT3 REACH 2ABEGIN UT3 REACH 3END UT4 REACH 2END UT2 REACH 1BEGIN UT2 REACH 2END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 3TTTEAST BUFFALO CREEKUT1UT2UT3UT4UT7 UT6UT4A
EAST BUFFA
LO
CREEKUT3U
T
5EAST BUFFALO ROADEAST BUFFALO ROADEND EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 3BEGIN UT4 REACH 2END UT3 REACH 3WETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENTTBEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1END UT2 REACH 2END UT5T
LOD
LOD LOD
LO
D
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODROAD NATURALIZATION SEEDECOMMISSIONING NOTESON SHEET 5.0ROAD NATURALIZATION SEEDECOMMISSIONING NOTESON SHEET 5.0INVASIVE SPECIESMANAGEMENT[x
][x][x]TUSE EXISTING SITEENTRANCEUSE EXISTING SITEENTRANCEOHEOHEBEGIN UT1END UT1
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - ESC Plan.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
4.1
August 14, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
ESC
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTION0'40'80'120'(HORIZONTAL)NOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOULOD LOD
LOD
LO
D
LO
D LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODL
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LOD
L
O
D
L
O
D
L
O
D
LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD
LODLODLODLODLODLODOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOHE 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 CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEEAST BUFFALO CREEKUT4UT
5UT4AUT3EAST BUFFALO ROAD[x][x][x
]
[x
][x][x][x][x][
x
]
[
x
][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]SAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAFSAFLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODSAFSAF[x]
[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x]TTTEAST BUFFA
LO
ROADEND UT3 REACH 2ABEGIN UT3 REACH 3END UT4 REACH 2END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 3MATCHLINE SHEET 3.2WILDLANDS IS OBTAININGAN ENCROACHMENTAGREEMENT WITH NCDOTFOR WORK WITHIN THERIGHT OF WAY LIMITS.TEMPORARY CROSSING OVEREXISTING PIPE, REMOVE UPONCOMPLETION OF PROJECT.UT
5
T
LO
D
LOD
LODLODEND EAST BUFFALOCREEK REACH 3END UT3 REACH 3BEGIN UT4 REACH 2END UT5
0'40'80'120'(HORIZONTAL)NX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - ESC Plan.dwg August 13, 2020
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
4.2
August 14, 2020 East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
ESC
Sheet
Checked By:
Job Number:
Drawn By:
Project Engineer:
Date:Revisions:
167-B Haywood Rd
Asheville, NC 28806
Tel: [phone]
License No. F-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTIONOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOULODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD
LOD
LOD L
O
D
LODLODLODL
O
D
L
O
D
LO
D
LO
D
LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECEUT1UT2UT3EAST BUFFA
LO
CREEK[x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x][x]
[x][x][x][x][x]TWETLAND RE-ESTABLISHMENTTEND UT3 REACH 2ABEGIN UT3 REACH 2BEND UT3 REACH 1BEGIN UT3 REACH 2AEND UT2 REACH 1BEGIN UT2 REACH 2END EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 1BEGIN EAST BUFFALO CREEK REACH 2MATCHLINE SHEET 3.2WILDLANDS IS OBTAINING ANENCROACHMENT AGREEMENTWITH NCDOT FOR WORK WITHINTHE RIGHT OF WAY LIMITSALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1SUBJECT TO 7-DAY STABILIZATIONREQUIREMENTS. SEED ANDSTRAW IMMEDIATELY, APPLYSLOPE MATTING IF DIRECTEDALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1SUBJECT TO 7-DAY STABILIZATIONREQUIREMENTS. SEED ANDSTRAW IMMEDIATELY, APPLYSLOPE MATTING IF DIRECTEDTEND UT2 REACH 2[x][x][x][x][x][x]TOHEOHEOHEOHEOHEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEOUEBEGIN EAST BUFFALO REACH 1BEGIN UT1END UT1
OUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUOUO
U
O
U
O
U
E
O
U
E
O
U
E
O
U
E0'100'200'300'(HORIZONTAL)East Buffalo Mitigation Site
Graham County, North Carolina
Road Naturalization and Crossing Removal Overview
Additional Grading
005-45020
HB
ER
JM
5.0
August 14, 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-0831JACOB P. MCLEA
N 033578N
O
R
TH CAROLINAPR
OFESSIONALENGINEER SEALP
R
E
L
IM
INA
R
YDO NO
T
U
S
E

FO
RCONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwg August 13, 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 DECOMMISSIONED 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 DECOMMISSIONINGSTART SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEND SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEND SECONDARY ROAD DECOMMISSIONINGSTART PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEND PRIMARY ROAD DECOMMISSIONINGSTART SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEND SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEND SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART SECONDARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEAST BUFFALO ROA
D
REGRADE ENTRY OFF PAVED ROAD TODETER VEHICULAR ACCESSREGRADE ENTRY OFF PAVED ROADTO DETER VEHICULAR ACCESSEND PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGSTART PRIMARY ROADDECOMMISSIONINGEXCLUSION AREA #2LOOSEN SOIL ALONG EXISTINGFARM ACCESS ROAD FORPLANTING - ACCESS ROAD TOBE ABANDONEDREGRADE ACCESS FROM EXCLUSION AREATO DETER VEHICULAR ACCESSREGRADE ACCESS FROM EXCLUSION AREATO DETER VEHICULAR ACCESS
0+00
0+
6
7
2170
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
DECOMMISSIONING
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 Grading005-45020HBERJM5.1August 14, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020UT2
0+000
+
7
8
0+00
0+80
22
1
0
22
1
5
2220
2
2
2
5
2
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 DECOMMISSIONING
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 Grading005-45020HBERJM5.2August 14, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020U
T
3
0+
0
0
0
+
8
00+000+80239023952400APPLY CASCADING
RIFFLE-POOL SEQUENCE
DETAIL ON SHEET 6.1
USE PRIMARY
DECOMMISSIONING 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 Grading005-45020HBERJM5.3August 14, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Culvert Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020U
T
4
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.1August 14, 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 UT2 Reach 2 is 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMINARYDO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTR
U
CTI
O
N
7-15%5-8'
SPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
10'20'12'22'64'
7'15'9'14'45'2'2'7'15'9'14'45'
N/ASPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS
SPACE AS INDICATED ON PLANS N/A
N/A
CR-CS
LOW MOBILITY MIX MATERIAL
REACH 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 3 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
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMINARYDO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTR
U
CTI
O
N
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.2August 14, 2020Chunky Riffle
Not to Scale
Woody Riffle
Not to Scale
Section A-A'
Plan View
RIFFLE BOTTOM
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVE
FINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
Section B-B'
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
Section A-A'
Plan View
Section B-B'
A A'
B
B'
VARIES PER
BASEFLOW
3" MAX
2
6.2
4
6.2
SALVAGED ONSITE
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN:
D50 MAX:
3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
BURIED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER
WOODY DEBRIS
MICRO POOL HABITAT
BEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
3" TO 6" DIAMETER WOODY
DEBRIS WORKED INTO RIFFLE
SUBSTRATE
SALVAGED ONSITE
BED MATERIAL
D50 MIN:
D50 MAX:
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN (DIMS)
TAIL OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE
ELEVATION POINT
PER PROFILE
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
RIFFLE INVERT PER PROFILE
SALVAGED ONSITE
BED MATERIAL
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN (DIMS)
CLASS 1 STONE
OR SALVAGED
ONSITE BOULDERS
MIN (DIMS)SALVAGED ONSITE
BED MATERIAL
TAIL OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
HEAD OF RIFFLE ELEVATION
POINT PER PROFILE
FLOW
A
B'
B
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
A'
TOE OF SLOPE
TOP OF BANK
EMBED/BURY INTO BANK
TO TOP OF BANK LINE
NOTES:
·WOOD SHALL COMPRISE 20% TO 50% OF THE RIFFLE
SURFACE AREA.
·WOODY MATERIAL SHOULD NOT PROTRUDE GREAT THAN
3" ABOVE RIFFLE BED.
·BRUSH SHOULD BE PLACED PERPENDICULAR TO CHANNEL
AT UP TO A 15% ANGLE DOWNSTREAM.
·IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE.
·BRUSH CUTTERS OR OTHER DEVICE MUST BE USED TO
ENSURE PROTRUSION LIMITED TO TOLERANCE IN NOTE 2.
·FOR RIFFLE SLOPES EXCEEDING 5% WHERE DROP OVER
POOL IS PRESENT, GRADE CONTROL SHALL BE ADDED TO
TAIL OF RIFFLE
NOTE:
·IF NECESSARY, SALVAGED ONSITE ROCK MAY BE
SUBSTITUTED WITH QUARRY ROCK OF SIMILAR SIZE.
·FOR RIFFLE SLOPES EXCEEDING 5% WHERE DROP
OVER POOL IS PRESENT, ROCK DROP SHALL BE
ADDED TO TAIL OF RIFFLE
CR-WD
CR-CH
FLOW
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
EXTEND RIFFLE MATERIAL
3" UP SIDE SLOPES FOR
TOE PROTECTION
1
6.2
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
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.
·FOR RIFFLE SLOPES EXCEEDING 5% WHERE
DROP OVER POOL IS PRESENT, LOG STEP
SHALL BE ADDED TO TAIL OF RIFFLE.
·RIFFLE MATERIAL SHALL BE A WELL-GRADED
MIXTURE OF FINE GRAVELS TO LARGE COBBLE
WITH A D50 = 6 INCHES.TOE OF SLOPETOP OF BANKA3
6.2
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
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
NONWOVEN
FILTER FABRIC
CR-CR
CR-JZ
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.3August 14, 2020Log Step
Not to Scale
3
6.3
POOL(TYP)
Rock Drop
Not to Scale
2
6.3
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
Section C-C'
Rock Step
Not to Scale
4
6.3
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:
1.FOOTER LOG TO BE ADDED IF DROP IS
MORE THAN HEADER LOG DIAMETER.
2.LOG SIZE TABLES PER REACH TO BE
ADDED TO 100% PLANS.
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 DROPIRREGULAR 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
6.3
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
SL
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.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.4August 14, 2020Brush Toe
Not to Scale
1
6.4
Vegetated Stone Toe Protection
Not to Scale
3
6.4
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:
·APPLY LIVE STAKING AND JUNCUS PLUGS
DETAIL 1, SHEET 6.7
·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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.5August 14, 2020Log J-Hook
Not to Scale
2
6.5Yθ
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
VANE

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
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONHFOOTER 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
1
6.5
Structure Sizing
TO BE ADDED ON 100% PLANS
3
6.5
SLOPE (S)
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.6August 14, 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 MILPLASTICLINING
3'-0"MIN.& X'MAX.SECTION A-A
NOT TO SCALE
ABOVE GRADE WASHOUT STRUCTURE
NOT TO SCALE
PLAN
SECTION B-B
HIGHCOHESIVE &LOW FILTRATION
SOIL BERM
8"6"
2'
HIGHCOHESIVE &
LOW FILTRATIONSOIL 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.7August 14, 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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.8August 14, 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
6.8
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
BANKFULLTOE 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
6.8
1
6.8
Bare Root Planting
Not to Scale
1 2 3 4 5 6
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
6.8
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONRUBBER MALLET
HAMMER LIVE STAKES WITH
A RUBBER MALLET OR
COMPARABLE HAMMER
THAT WILL PREVENT LIVE
STAKE CRACKING OR
DAMAGE DURING
INSTALLATION
CUT LIVE STAKE
WITH A 2-3" TAPER
AT THE BOTTOM,
ENSURING GROWTH
IS ANGLED AWAY
FROM THE TAPERED
EDGE
INSTALL LIVE STAKE
TO A MINIMUM
DEPTH OF 1'
LIVE STAKES TO BE
INSTALLED DURING
DORMANT SEASON
(TYP)
IF LIVE STAKE IS
SEVERELY DAMAGED
DURING INSTALLATION,
REMOVE AND REPLACE
WITH A NEW LIVE
STAKE
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.9August 14, 20203
6.9
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
6.9
WATER DIVERSION CHANNEL
MUD MATS
SUPPORT LOG
12" Ø MIN.FILTER FABRIC
CLASS B
STONE
10
5' DIM
Temporary Stream Crossing - Mud Mat
Not to Scale
2
6.9
Straw Wattles
Not to Scale
1
6.9
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION10:1 (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
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
·ALL TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS SHOULD BE INSPECTED AT LEAST
ONCE WEEKLY OR AFTER 0.25" OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24 HOURS.
·IF EXCESSIVE SEDIMENT IS BEING TRACKED ON TOP OF MATS THEN
REMOVE WITH SHOVEL AND DISPOSE OF PROPERLY.
·TERRACE SLOPES ENTERING AND EXITING FROM CROSSINGS MUST BE
WELL MAINTAINED. DIVERT SURFACE RUNOFF AWAY FROM
CROSSINGS, APPLY WATTLES AT THE END OF EACH DAY WHEN RAIN IS
ANTICIPATED, APPLY SURFACE STONE AS NECESSARY.
INSTALLATION NOTES:
·CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING WHEN FLOW IS AT OR BELOW NORMAL
BASEFLOW.
·BRIDGE MATS SHALL BE PLACED FROM ABOVE RATHER THAN DRAGGED
INTO PLACE.
·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 CHANNEL. SMALL DIVERSION CHANNELS, ADDITIONAL ROCK,
OR STRAW/COIR WATTLES MAY BE REQUIRED. INSTALL AS DIRECTED.
·STABILIZE AN ACCESS RAMP OF CLASS B STONE TO THE EDGE OF THE MUD
MAT.
·CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING
TO EQUIPMENT USED.
·PLUG GAPS BETWEEN MATS WITH FILTER FABRIC TO PREVENT LOSS OF SOIL
THROUGH GAPS.
·ADDRESS STEEP TRANSITIONS TO THE CROSSING THAT PRESENT AN
EROSION OR SEDIMENTATION RISK WITH APPROPRIATE
COUNTERMEASURES SUCH AS STONE OR END OF DAY COVER OR SEDIMENT
BARRIER APPLICATIONS.2"TRENCH
24" MIN24" MINDOW
N

S
L
O
P
E
WOODEN STAKE WITH WATTLE
ANCHORED TO THE TOP
Profile View
Section View - Ditch Application
NOTE:
1.COIR LOGS CAN BE USED FOR BANK TOE
ESTABLISHMENT OR IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO
ROCK/LOG SPURS, USING 1" X 1" X 36"
HARDWOOD STAKES. INSTALLATION SHALL BE
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1.ALL WATTLES/LOGS SHOULD BE INSPECTED AT
LEAST ONCE WEEKLY OR AFTER 0.25" OF
PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24 HOURS.
2.WATTLES/LOGS COLLAPSING, TEARING, WATER
BYPASSING THE WATTLES/LOGS, OR OTHER
FAILURES SHOULD BE REPAIRED WITHIN 24
HOURS.
3.SEDIMENT TRAPPED BEHIND ROCK SILT CHECK
DAMS SHOULD BE CAREFULLY REMOVED ONCE
DEPTH REACHES 6".
TOP OF EROSION
CONTROL MATTING
SLOPE SURFACE
DOW
N

S
L
O
P
E
SLOPE SURFACE
WOOD STAKE (TYP)
12' DIA. STRAW
WATTLE
DITCH OR SLOPE
GRADETRENCH IN WATTLE
ON BARE SOIL
COMPACTED SOIL
ALONG FRONT AND
BACK (TYP)
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.10August 14, 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
.
SPAC
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
6.10
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
6.10
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 20'10'15'
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
6.1050'12'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
6.10
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-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONMAINTENANCE 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.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
·ALL SILT FENCE SHOULD BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE
WEEKLY OR AFTER 0.25" OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24
HOURS.
·TEARS IN THE FENCE, UNTRENCHED AREAS, OR OTHER
FENCE FAILURES SHOULD BE REPAIRED WITHIN 24 HOURS.
·SEDIMENT TRAPPED BEHIND SILT FENCE SHOULD BE
CAREFULLY REMOVED ONCE DEPTH REACHES 6".
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
·ALL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES SHOULD BE INSPECTED AT LEAST
ONCE WEEKLY OR AFTER 0.25" OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24 HOURS.
·EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF SEDIMENT SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IMMEDIATELY.
·ANY SEDIMENT TRACKED ONTO PUBLIC ROADS SHOULD BE CLEANED
IMMEDIATELY AND THE SOURCE OF THE SEDIMENT ADDRESSED.
NOTES:
·DEWATER SILT-LADEN WATER IN WORK AREA TO REMOVE VISUAL TURBIDITY. DEWATERING INTO
GRASS IS ACCEPTABLE IF TURBIDITY CAN BE REMOVED USING THIS METHOD. ALL DISCHARGE
MUST BE RETURNED TO THE STREAM ALONG A STABILIZED, NON-EROSIVE OUTLET.
·PUMP-AROUND SYSTEM AND PHYSICAL FLOW DIVERSIONS SHALL NOT BE LEFT UNATTENDED
WHILE SYSTEMS ARE IN-PLACE/OPERATING.
·INSTREAM DIVERSIONS AND PUMP-AROUND EQUIPMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE STREAM
IN ANTICIPATION OF OR DURING BANKFULL PRECIPITATION EVENTS. INSTREAM GRADING AND
STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT BE ALLOWED DURING BANKFULL FLOW EVENTS.
·THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE PRECAUTION TO PROTECT AGAINST EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
WHEN TURNING WATER BACK INTO NEWLY CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL. PUMPING, STONE AND
SANDBAGS SHOULD BE USED AS NECESSARY TO DIRECT FLOW IN A NON-EROSIVE WAY. CHANNELS
MUST BE FULLY STABILIZED WITH MATTING AND PERMANENT OR TEMPORARY BED STABILIZATION
MATERIAL/STRUCTURES PRIOR TO RELEASING WATER INTO THESE AREAS.
SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTIONX:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.11August 14, 20205' MIN6"
MIN
NOTES:
·VOID SPACES BETWEEN ROCKS ON BERM SHALL
BE FILLED WITH NATIVE SOILS.
·SIZE PER NCDEQ STORMWATER MANUAL
GUIDANCE FOR LEVEL SPREADERS.R/WR/WR/WA A'
POROUS ROCK
AND SOIL BERM
BOTH ENDS SHALL
TIE IN AT Z + 1'
Plan View
B
1.5' MIN
1' MIN
Earthen Level Spreader Dimensions
B C D E
18" CMP 5'5'5'10'
24" CMP 5'8'10 15'
1.5' MIN
1' MIN
Section A-A'
DE
6"
MINC
1' MIN
Floodplain Depression
Not to Scale
1
6.11
A
A'
Plan View
NOTES:
·INSTALL A DENSE LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, AT POOL
BOTTOM, WHICH SHALL CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS
COLLECTED ON-SITE AND SOIL TO FILL ANY VOID SPACE. LIGHTLY
COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
·TIGHTLY COMPACT EARTH BACKFILL TO PREVENT EXISTING
CHANNEL EROSION
·SEED, MULCH AND INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING AND
BANK STABILIZATION PER PLANS.
POOL BOTTOM
EXISTING CHANNEL
FLOW
B B'
Section A-A'
Earthen Level Spreader
Not to Scale
2
6.11
FLOW
PROPO
S
E
D

G
R
A
D
E
PROPO
S
E
D

G
R
A
D
E 2:1 MAX
POOL BOTTOM
Section B-B'
1.5'
(TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
0TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
ELEVATION AS DESIGNATED
IN GRADING PLANS
NATIVE SOIL
PROPOSED GROUND
5:1 MAX
8" MIN EARTH WITH MIX OF
RAILROAD BALLAST
SOD COVER
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
AND INTEGRATED WOODY DEBRIS AS
DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
DEPRESSION OUTLET AS
DESIGNATED IN PLANS
NATIVE SOIL
6" CLASS A/B MIX WITH
FILTER FABRIC AS SHOWN
IN PLANS
FILTER FABRIC AS DIRECTED
BY THE ENGINEER
PROPOSED FILL
POROUS ROCK AND SOIL BERM
CLASS A/B MIX OR EQUAL
POROUS ROCK AND SOIL BERM
CLASS A/B MIX OR EQUAL
ELEVATION Z
AS SHOWN
ON GRADING
PLANS
ELEVATION Z
AS SHOWN
ON GRADING
PLANS
2:
1
M
A
X
2
:
1
M
AX2:1 MAX
X:\shared\Projects\005-45020 Little Tennessee East Buffalo\Cadd\Plans\45020 - Details.dwgAugust 13, 2020East Buffalo Mitigation SiteGraham County, North CarolinaDetails005-45020HBERJM6.12August 14, 2020SheetChecked By:Job Number:Drawn By:Project Engineer:Date:Revisions:167-B Haywood RdAsheville, NC 28806Tel: [phone]License No. F-0831JAC
OB P. M C L E AN033578NORTH CAROLIN
A
PRO F E SSION
A
L
ENGIN E E RSEAL
PRELIMIN
ARY
DO
N
OT
USE F
OR
CONSTRUCTION2.5 MIN.
1
NOTES:
1.STOCKPILES STAGING AREAS SHALL ONLY BE
PLACED IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS.
2.SILT FENCE SHALL BE PLACED ON STREAM SIDE
OF ALL STOCKPILES.
3.STOCKPILES SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF
50 FEET FROM STORMWATER DRAINS OR
INLETS.
MAINTENANCE NOTES:
1.ALL STOCKPILE AREAS AND SILT FENCES SHALL
BE INSPECTED AT LEAST ONCE PER WEEK OR
AFTER 0.25" OF PRECIPITATION WITHIN 24
HOURS.
2.SILT FENCE SHOULD BE INSPECTED FOR TEARS,
UNTRENCHED AREAS, OR OTHER FAILURES AND
REPAIRED WITHIN 24 HOURS
3.SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM BEHIND
THE SILT FENCE ONCE DEPTH REACHES 6"
4.ANY SOIL STOCKPILES LEFT IN PLACE FOR
LONGER THAN 7 DAYS SHALL BE SEEDED AND
MULCHED OR OTHERWISE STABILIZED.
SILT FENCE
STOCKPI
L
E
Stockpile and Staging Areas
Not to Scale
1
6.11
2
6.11
Haul Roads
Not to Scale
STREAM
PRIMARY HAUL ROAD TO BE
USED THROUGHOUT PROJECT,
SEE NOTE 1 (NOTE 1 APPLIES
TO ALL HAUL ROADS)
NOTES:
1.IF HAUL ROADS ARE A SOURCE OF EROSION, ONE OR
MORE OF SILT FENCE, DIVERSIONS, TEMPORARY
STABILIZATION (STRAW) OR OTHER MEASURES SHALL
BE APPLIED TO PREVENT SEDIMENTATION TO STREAM.
2.ONCE NO LONGER NEEDED TO CONDUCT PROJECT
ACTIVITIES, RENATURALIZE HAUL ROADS AND
CONDUCT RIPPING, DISCING OR PULVERIZING AND
AMENDMENT. THEN SEED AND APPLY MULCH.
HAUL ROADS TO BE
DECOMMISSIONED AND
NATURALIZED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER USE IS NO LONGER
REQUIRED
HAUL ROADS TO BE
DECOMMISSIONED AND
NATURALIZED IMMEDIATELY
AFTER USE IS NO LONGER
REQUIRED