20201654 Ver 1_Response to DWR add-info Final_20210517

Project Submittal Interim Form
NORTH CAROLINA
Enrlranmenrcl QLeaffty
Updated September 4, 2020
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk * below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type:*
f For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
r New Project
✓ Modification/New Project with Existing ID
C' More Information Response
✓ Other Agency Comments
✓ Pre -Application Submittal
✓ Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
✓ Stream or Buffer Appeal
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
* Yes rNo
Project Contact Information
Name: R. Clement Riddle
Wio is submitting the inforrration?
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #:* Existing Version:*
2020-1654 1
20170001 (no dashes) 1
Project Name:*
Mulberry Gap Farms, LLC
Is this a public transportation project?*
✓ Yes
C' No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?*
✓ Yes r No r Unknown
County (ies) *
Madison
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Response to DWR add -info Final 5.17.21.pdf 5.94MB
Only pi or krre files are accepted.

Describe the attachments or add comments:
Response to April 15 add -info letter
* By checking the box and signing box below, I certify that:
• I, the project proponent, hereby certifies that all information contained herein is true, accurate, and complete to
the best of my knowledge and belief.
• I, the project proponent, hereby requests that the certifying authority review and take action on this CWA 401
certification request within the applicable reasonable period of time.
• I agree that submission of this online form is a "transaction" subject to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I agree to conduct this transaction by electronic means pursuant to Chapter 66, Article 40 of the NC General
Statutes (the "Uniform Electronic Transactions Act");
• I understand that an electronic signature has the same legal effect and can be enforced in the same way as a
written signature; AND
• I intend to electronically sign and submit the online form.
Signature:*
. C1eevTrv{cIcdle
Submittal Date: Is filled in automatically once submitted.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57C8F2FA-BAB3-4EB4-9DCA-4FCF303AF580
CLrWaer
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
May 17, 2021
Ms. Sue Homewood
NC DWR, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
450 W. Hanes Mill Road, Suite 300
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105
RE: Mulberry Gap Farms, LLC
DWR Request for Additional Information
Jackson County, North Carolina
DWQ Project # 2020-1654; USACE Action ID SAW-2017-02281
Dear Ms. Homewood,
Please reference the letter dated April 15, 2021 (Attachment A) sent by the NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) in response to the permit application submitted by ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC), on behalf of Mulberry Gap, LLC (Applicant) represented by Mr. Richard
Kelly. The permit application requested written authorization for impacts associated with
development of the School of Wisdom and Enlightenment and associated infrastructure. The
purpose of this letter is to provide the DWR with substantive responses to the issues raised in the
April 15, 2021 letter, and request that the DWR directly contact the undersigned should the
responses provided in this letter not adequately address their concerns.
In response to these concerns, the Applicant has engaged a further review of the planning for the
development with its various consultants to determine what, if any, further modifications might be
undertaken to enlarge the avoidance envelope or further minimize impacts to wetland/stream
resources. Based on that review and our desire to be as responsive as possible to the regulatory
concerns for permitting this project, the Applicant proposes the following adjustments:
• The Applicant has reduced stream and wetland impacts for the entrance road by
acquiring an additional 2.5-acre tract and relocating the entrance road on U.S. Highway
25. This additional tract allowed the applicant to eliminate proposed impact S1 (10
linear feet of stream) and proposed impacts W2, W3, and W4 (0.026 acre of wetland).
The additional property has an existing stream culvert that will be used for the entrance
road crossing. A revised impact plan Figure 5A (Attachment B) reflects these changes.
The additional tract was delineated on April 29, 2021. A copy of the delineation map
is included as Attachment C. This delineation is being sent to the Corps of Engineers
for verification with the upcoming response to Corps comments.
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57C8F2FA-BAB3-4EB4-9DCA-4FCF303AF580
Mr. Sue Homewood
May 17, 2021
Page 2 of 4
DWR Comment #1— If the USACE requests a response to any comments received as a result of
the Public Notice, please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A
NCAC 02H.0502(c)]
The applicant will provide DWR with copies of all responses sent to the USACE that would
arise from comments received while the project is on Public Notice.
DWR Comment #2. The Division believes the overall project purpose may be achieved by
avoiding the impacts associated with the beaver dam analog (BDA) structures. Please explain why
the ecological function of the streams and wetlands on site cannot be improved using natural
channel design techniques such as in -stream structures to provide bedform diversity and
floodplain access and/or by removing invasive vegetation and re-establishing native vegetation.
Please be aware that if it is determined that impacts to the streams and wetlands associated with
the BDAs cannot be avoided, then the conversion of streams and wetlands to open water will be
considered a loss of existing use and will require mitigation.
An explanation is provided in the draft Project Justification & Design Narrative for
Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs (Attachment D) that details why this design is appropriate
for ecosystem improvements and the limitations of "natural channel design" for meeting
the project purpose.
DWR Comment #3. The project proposes to impact a wetland (NJW1) that the USACE has
determined is not subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Please clarify whether the
subject wetland is eligible for permitting under the 15A NCAC 02H .1300 rules for discharges to
isolated wetlands and isolated waters. You must provide documentation that the wetland meets
the definition of isolated previously used by the USACE (see
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Policies Gui
des Manuals/cwa_jurisdiction , following rapanos120208.pdf). Please note that if the wetland is
not eligible for coverage under 15A NCAC 02H .1300 then there is currently no permitting
mechanism to apply for impacts to the wetland and you should consider modifying your project to
avoid impacts to the wetland. [15A NCAC 02H . 0506(b)]
On March 16, 2021 the EMC proposed a new rule: 15A NCAC 02H .1301 & .1400 -
Discharges to Federally Non -Jurisdictional Wetlands and Federally Non -Jurisdictional
Classified Surface Waters. The Temporary Isolated Wetland Rules was approved by the
EMC on May 13, 2021 and may become effective May 28, 2021, pending a review by the
rules commission. The temporary rule allows for impacts to basins, bogs and other isolated
waters that are determined to be non jurisdictional by the US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waters of the U.S. Rule effective June 22, 2020. Impacts to isolated wetlands on the
proposed project total 0.035 acres. Under the new rule, these impacts (less than 0.33 acres)
do not require notification to the DWR. However, impacts to non jurisdictional wetlands
are shown on, Figure 5A.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57C8F2FA-BAB3-4EB4-9DCA-4FCF303AF580
Mr. Sue Homewood
May 17, 2021
Page 3 of 4
DWR Comment #4. It appears that there may be another non jurisdictional wetland proposed for
impact, depicted on Figure 5A, associated with the road network in the vicinity of the School of
Business Wisdom. The feature is depicted in pink hatching and the road appears to cross it. Please
clarify if impacts to this wetland will be avoided.
This road is known as Wisdom Way. The location of this road was moved further to the
south and mostly avoids the isolated/federally non jurisdictional wetland at this location.
Potential impact to this feature may include 0.001 acres impact. Figure 5A (Attachment
B) has been revised and show this proposed impact.
DWR Comment #5. There is a wetland at the lower end of the stream enhancement reach. Will
this wetland be impacted in any way (e.g. construction access) during stream enhancement
activities? If so, how will the wetland be restored following construction?
This wetland will not be impacted in the stream enhancement activities that are proposed
upstream of this location.
DWR Comment #6. How will the disturbed areas, and in particular the stream banks, associated
with the culvert removals be stabilized and/or restored?
Several culverts as identified on Figure 5 will be removed. The culvert removals that will
provide free -flowing stream channels will have the banks regraded to provide floodplain
benches and stable stream bottoms. The streambeds will be evaluated for stability and
improvements, where needed, will be installed per site detail (Attachment D; Appendix
B). Culvert removals in areas proposed for BDA inundation will have the banks graded
to a stable 3:1 Slope or less. The former stream beds will be evaluated for stability and
improvements, where needed, will be installed per the site detail (Attachment D; Appendix
B). Native vegetation will be planted on the stream banks and in wetland areas.
DWR Comment #7. Please confirm stormwater from built upon area will be transported via
dispersed flow and vegetated conveyances. Please provide additional details regarding the
stormwater treatment plan for the welcome center parking lot. The Division of Water Resources
will be responsible for review and approval of any stormwater management plan associated with
the development.
The overall site response regarding stormwater and drainage is to use an Integrated Water
Resources Plan for the project that integrates natural patterns of hydrology into the site
master plan. This approach will allow for a sustainable response regarding stormwater
measures while emphasizing opportunities to harvest rainwater, reduce stormwater runoff,
replenish groundwater resources, and enhance ecosystems and biodiversity. Additional
measures for the reduction of impervious surfaces are also part of this low impact
development and the project will not use curb and gutter anywhere on the project so we
can treat and convey stormwater via vegetated swales and rain gardens.

DocuSign Envelope ID: 57C8F2FA-BAB3-4EB4-9DCA-4FCF303AF580
Mr. Sue Homewood
May 17, 2021
Page 4 of 4
For the reception center and guest parking lot, Mercer Design Group will be submitting
any stormwater plans directly to the NC DWR Raleigh office in June 2021. A copy of these
stormwater plans will also be sent directly to Ms. Chonticha McDaniel and Ms. Sue
Homewood, DWR. Stormwater treatment from this parking lot will incorporate the use of
permeable pavement and biofiltration. The current parking site plans indicate 16,250 sf of
permeable paving at the parking spaces; 39,400 sf of impervious asphalt for drive access;
1,565 sf of impervious concrete pavers at the reception arrival; and 1200 sf of impervious
concrete paver walkways. With a total of approx. 58,415 sf of paved surfaces indicated,
the parking and reception area indicates 28% of pervious surface relative to the overall
pavement surfaces in the 100-car parking area.
The applicant believes the information included in this submittal addresses all issues set forth by
the DWR in the letter dated April 15, 2021. Should you have any questions or comments
concerning this project, please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800.
Sincerely,
r—DocuSigned by:
2. U 2,aai�
`-0A79F7DC85EE4F7...
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — DWR Request for Additional Information, April 15, 2021
Attachment B — Revised Stream & Wetland Impact Map (Figure 5A)
Attachment C — Frisby Tract delineation
Attachment D — Project Justification & Design Narrative
Copy Furnished:
NC Division of Water Resources, Asheville Regional Office — Andrew Moore
US Army Corps of Engineers, Asheville Regulatory Field Office — Brandee Boggs

Attachment A
DWR Request for Additional Information, April 15, 2021

DocuSign Envelope ID: D9737C7B-8B78-48D3-B93C-5C2E894DFA5E
ROY COOPER
Governor
DIONNE DELLI-GATTI
Secretory
S. DANIEL SMITH
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
April 15, 2021
DWR # 20201654
Madison County
Mulberry Farm — Madison LLC
Attn: Mr. Richard Kelly
1126 Upper Thomas Branch Road
Marshall, NC 28753
Subject: REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
Mulberry Gap Farms
Dear Mr. Kelly:
On February 2, 2021, the Division of Water Resources (Division) received your application dated
February 2, 2021, requesting a 401 Water Quality Certification from the Division for your project. On
February 17, 2021 we notified you that the project would require an Individual 401 Water Quality
Certification and on March 4, 2021 the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued a Public Notice for
the proposed project which completed the application process and began the Division's review period in
accordance with 15A NCAC 02H .0506. The Division has determined that your application is incomplete
and cannot be processed. The application is on -hold until all of the following information is received:
1. If the USACE requests a response to any comments received as a result of the Public Notice,
please provide the Division with a copy of your response to the USACE. [15A NCAC 02H
.0502(c)]
2. The Division believes the overall project purpose may be achieved by avoiding the impacts
associated with the beaver dam analog (BDA) structures. Please explain why the ecological
function of the streams and wetlands on site cannot be improved using natural channel design
techniques such as in -stream structures to provide bedform diversity and floodplain access
and/or by removing invasive vegetation and re-establishing native vegetation. Please be aware
that if it is determined that impacts to the streams and wetlands associated with the BDAs
cannot be avoided, then the conversion of streams and wetlands to open water will be
considered a loss of existing use and will require mitigation. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(1)]
3. The project proposes to impact a wetland (NJW1) that the USACE has determined is not subject
to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Please clarify whether the subject wetland is
eligible for permitting under the 15A NCAC 02H .1300 rules for discharges to isolated wetlands
and isolated waters. You must provide documentation that the wetland meets the definition of
isolated previously used by the USACE (see
D_E
NORTH CAROLINA �/
Dnsmn6M or mlmnmongi pUel
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: D9737C7B-8B78-48D3-B93C-5C2E894DFA5E
Mulberry Farm — Madison LLC
Request for Additional Information
Page 2 of 3
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Surface%20Water%20Protection/401/Policies Gui
des Manuals/cwa jurisdiction following rapanos120208.pdf). Please note that if the wetland is
not eligible for coverage under 15A NCAC 02H .1300 then there is currently no permitting
mechanism to apply for impacts to the wetland and you should consider modifying your project
to avoid impacts to the wetland. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)]
4. It appears that there may be another non -jurisdictional wetland proposed for impact, depicted
on Figure 5A, associated with the road network in the vicinity of the School of Business Wisdom.
The feature is depicted in pink hatching and the road appears to cross it. Please clarify if impacts
to this wetland will be avoided. [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)]
5. There is a wetland at the lower end of the stream enhancement reach. Will this wetland be
impacted in any way (e.g. construction access) during stream enhancement activities? If so, how
will the wetland be restored following construction? [15A NCAC 02H .0506 (a)(6) and (7) and
15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
6. How will the disturbed areas, and in particular the stream banks, associated with the culvert
removals be stabilized and/or restored? [15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(2)]
7. Please confirm stormwater from built upon area will be transported via dispersed flow and
vegetated conveyances. Please provide additional details regarding the stormwater treatment
plan for the welcome center parking lot. The Division of Water Resources will be responsible for
review and approval of any stormwater management plan associated with the development.
[15A NCAC 02H .0506(b)(3)]
Pursuant to Title 15A NCAC 02H .0502(e), the applicant shall furnish all of the above requested
information for the proper consideration of the application. Please respond in writing within 30
calendar days of receipt of this letter by sending one (1) copy of all of the above requested information
to the 401 & Buffer Permitting Branch, 1617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 OR by
submitting all of the above requested information through this
link: https://edocs.deq.nc.gov/Forms/Supplemental-Information-Form (note the DWR# requested on
the link is referenced above).
If all of the requested information is not received within 30 calendar days of receipt of this letter, the
Division will be unable to approve the application and it will be denied as incomplete. The denial of this
project will necessitate reapplication to the Division for approval, including a complete application
package and the appropriate fee.
Please be aware that you have no authorization under the Water Quality Certification Rules for this
activity and any work done within waters of the state may be a violation of North Carolina General
Statutes and Administrative Code.
D_E
NORTH CAROIJNA \` �/
Dnsmn6Mor mnmongi pUel
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

DocuSign Envelope ID: D9737C7B-8B78-48D3-B93C-5C2E894DFA5E
Mulberry Farm — Madison LLC
Request for Additional Information
Page 3 of 3
Please contact Sue Homewood at 336-776-9693 or [e-mail] if you have any
questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
,—DocuSigned by:
`— 8FB 19B649DD2478...
Jeffrey Poupart, Section Chief
Water Quality Permitting Section
Division of Water Resources
cc: Clement Riddle and Alea Tuttle, ClearWater Environmental Consultants (via email)
Brandee Boggs, USACE Asheville Regulatory Field Office (via email)
Andrea Leslie, NCWRC (via email)
Byron Hamstead, USFWS (via email)
DWR ARO 401 files
DWR 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
D_E
NORTH CAROIJNA \` �/
Dnsmn6Mor mnmongi pUel
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Water Resources
512 North Salisbury Street 11617 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1617
919.707.9000

Attachment B
Revised Stream & Wetland Impact Map (Figure 5A)

LEGEND
=11=11=11=11=nm
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
WETLAND - NO DISTURBANCE
LINEAR WETLAND
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
NON -JURISDICTIONAL LINEAR WETLAND
EXISTING OPEN WATER
STREAM
CULVERT TO REMAIN
CULVERT TO REMOVE
PROPOSED CULVERT
PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT
PROPOSED STREAM IMPACT
PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION
IMPACT SUMMARY
Project Area
448.02 AC
Jurisdictional Waters of the US
Perennial & Intermittent Streams 19,514 LF
Wetlands
Existing Open Waters
1.966 AC
0.558 AC
NWP 39 Impacts
Culvert Crossing Stream Impacts 30 LF
*BDA TB4 fill Stream Impacts 46 LF
0.004 AC
0.003 AC
TOTAL NWP 39 STREAM IMPACTS 76 LF
Wetland Fill Impacts
*BDA TB4 fill Wetland Impacts
0.007 AC
0.003 AC
0.002 AC
TOTAL NWP 39 WETLAND IMPACTS
0.005 AC
NWP 27 Impacts
Culvert Removal Stream Impacts 268 LF
*Stream Enhancement Impacts 240 LF
*BDA Restoration Stream Impacts 1,649 LF
0.011 AC
0.0275 AC
0.1157 AC
TOTAL NWP 27 STREAM IMPACTS 2,157 LF
*BDA Restoration Wetland Impacts
0.1542 AC
0.077 AC
TOTAL NWP 27 WETLAND IMPACTS
*Refer to RDE Drawings C101 and C102
0.077 AC
•
EXISTING CULVERT TO
REMAIN, TYP.
•
1
•
•
•
SCHOOL OF BUSINESS WISDOM
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACT NJW2 (0.00 I AC)
S7: EXISTING 20 LF (0.00 I AC)
CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/
RESTORED
SCHOOL OF HEALING AND ENLIGHTENMENT
S3: EXISTING 74 LF (0.003 AC)
CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/
RESTORED
CULVERTS TO REMAIN
WHOLENESS SANCTUARY
BRIDGE
S6: EXISTING 118 LF (0.005 AC) CULVERT
TO BE REMOVED/ RESTORED
S5: EXISTING 29 LF (0.00 I AC) CULVERT
TO BE REMOVED/ RESTORED
•
•
♦
S.
•
♦
BRIDGE
REFER TO RDE DRAWINGS C 101 FOR
IMPACTS S8-S9 (177 LF; 0.012 AC)
IMPACTS W5-W6 (0.029)
RECEPTION CENTER
WETLAND IMPACT WI (0.003 AC)
•
I
1
1
US HIGHWAY 25/70
AlOP
•
•
♦
•
.
i
•
♦
S4: EXISTING 27 LF (0.001 AC)
CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/
RESTORED
BRIDGE
DINING HALL
EVENT CENTER
MEETING HALL
—REFER TO RDE DRAWINGS C 102
i, FOR IMPACTS SIO-S30 (1758 FT;
\ 0.134 AC) IMPACTS W7-W9 (0.05 AC)
EXISTING 79 LF CULVERT TO BE
� REPLACED WITH 109 LF
/ PROPOSED NEW IMPACT S I: 30 LF
(0.004 AC)
e4
q1V Ail*�oMgs
q0
EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO REMAIN
NEW ENTRANCE ROAD
ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING
NON -JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACT NJW I (0.034 AC)
Osgood
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
JOEL OSGOOD, RLA
14 CHURCH STREET
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
828.527.6466
SEAL
ISSUED
DATE ISSUED: 17-MAY-2020
DRAWN BY: ZAC, KMD, RJB
APPROVED BY: JJO
REVISIONS
SHEET TITLE
PRELIMINARY
IMPACT
PLAN
MULBERRY
FARM -
MADISON, LLC.
MARSHALL, NC
PRELIMINARY
FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
0' 150' 300' 600
SCALE: 1" = 300'-0"
L-1.00
SHEET 1 OF 1
THE DRAWINGS, SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER
DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY OSGOOD LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE INC. FOR THIS PROJECT ARE INSTRUMENTS
OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SERVICE FOR USE
SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT. REPRODUCTION
OR USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OTHER THAN FOR THIS
PROJECT WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS PROHIBITED. UNAUTHORIZED
USE WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION.
Copyright 2020 - Osgood Landscape Architecture, Inc.

Attachment C
Frisby Tract Wetland/Stream Delineation

Frisby Tract -Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
0
Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been located
within sub -meter accuracy utilizing a Trimble mapping grade Global
Positioning System (GPS) and the subsequent differential correction of that
data. GPS points may demonstrate uncorrectable errors due to topography,
vegetative cover, and/or multipath signal error.
Note: The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. These
areas have been flagged in the field; however, they have not been surveyed.
Although ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) is confident in
our assessment, The US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the only agency
That can make final decisions regarding jurisdictional wetland and waters of
The US delineations. Therefore, all preliminary determinations are subject to
change until written verification is obtained. CEC strongly recommends that
written verification be obtained from the Corps prior to closing on the
property, beginning any site work, or making any legal reliance on this
determination.
This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to CEC
at the time of production. This map is for informational purposes only and
should not be used to determine precise boundaries, roadways, property
boundary lines, nor legal descriptions. This map shall not be construed to be
an official survey of any data depicted.
Source Data: Topo and Project Boundary- Madison County GIS
50
Potentially Jurisdictional Water
Legend
I
Madison County PIN 8798398531
Previous Mulberry Delineation
Stream
Approximate Culvert
Linear Wetland (Previous Delineation)
Stream (Previous Delineation)
Contours - 10ft
100
200
Feet
Madison County,
North Carolina
CLearWater
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Stream and Wetland
Delineation Map
Delineated April 29, 2021
Figure 5

Attachment D
Project Justification & Design Narrative for Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs

Project Justification
& Design Narrative For
Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs
Prepared for
The School of Wholeness
& Enlightenment
Madison County, NC
May 2021
/IV Robinson
AN Design
k N Engineers

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1. Background
1.2. Project Goals & Approach
1.3. Literature Review
1.3.1. Stream Evolution
1.3.2. Process Domains
1.3.3. Connectivity Paradigm
2. INTRODUCTION TO LAND USE LEGACIES
2.1. Background
2.2. Project Goals & Approach
2.3. Literature Review
2.3.1. Stream Evolution
2.3.2. Process Domains
2.3.3. Connectivity Paradigm
3. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
3.1. The Stream Evolution Model
3.2. Process Domains
3.3. Connectivity Paradigm
3.4. Beaver Hydrologic Habitat
4. DESIGN
4.1. Design Approach
4.2. Proposed Features
4.2.1. Beaver Dam Analog (BDA) Typology
4.2.2. Beaver Pool Design
4.2.3. Additional Woody Structures
4.2.4. Flow Diversion Devices
4.2.5. Vegetation
WORKS CITED
APPENDIX
2

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Madison County Soil Survey (1942)
Figure 2: Site Photographs (summer 2020)
Figure 3: Aggradational Deposits in Fluvial Systems
Figure 4: Cluer & Thorne's Stream Evolution Model (SEM)
Figure 5: Process -Driven Ecological Benefits Associated with SEM Stages
Figure 6: Connectivity Concept Overlay
Figure 7: Riparian Hydrologic Drought
3

4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SoWE) wants to transform degraded
streams and abandoned agricultural fields into flourishing native habitat. If their motives
are not pure, it is only because they do not want to foster this naturally beautiful aesthetic
within a vacuum of wilderness without humans in it. Rather, they would put the natural
landscape and the wildlife it attracts on full display to visitors of their proposed new
campus. Robinson Design Engineers (RDE) finds the project goals commendable, and we
are proud to serve as the liaison to these efforts.
Currently, the streams on SoWE's property are narrow, racing trickles, and even when
these streams emerge from confined, gorge -like valleys into valley flats, the channels
remain simplified and homogenous and disconnected from their floodplains. This is not a
new condition, nor sadly is it a unique case. Even if all human activity in the watershed
ceased today, the streams on site would evolve through a slow adaptation to legacy
effects of land use, cycling through further degradation and widening. Riparian corridors
would suffer increasing levels of Riparian Hydrologic Drought, and it would take many
human lifetimes before wetlands would expand, riparian zones would flourish, and the
streams would sustain themselves as sediment sinks instead of sediment sources.
At SoWE, we have a unique opportunity to repair stream to land connectivity, even as
human activity within the watershed increases! The broad and flat terrain near the
confluence of Hopewell and Thomas branch is ideally suited for a wetland -stream complex
using biomimicry of one ecosystem engineer's formerly ubiquitous handiwork.
Anastomosing streams flowing through dense wetland areas and buffered by wide riparian
corridors, known as Stage 0, prevailed for eons, as they were designed and sustained by
Castor canadensis carolinensis, the carolina beaver.
Rewilding beaver colonies is problematic in most of the developed world for societal
reasons, but not on ecological grounds. As an alternative to beaver reintroduction, many
practitioners across the globe are emulating this master builder by establishing "Beaver
Dam Analogs" (BDAs) that generate food and forage supporting the life cycles of plants,
animals, and other living things coevolved to the patch dynamics fostered by this keystone
species. Broad valleys with productive soils are naturally scarce in Madison County, and
because they are scarce, they have been preferentially developed for agriculture or
transportation infrastructure. Proposing BDAs and the Stage 8 restoration approach is
only possible because SoWE is relinquishing these valuable flatlands from development.
The intent of the BDAs on this project site is to enhance the physical, chemical, and
biological integrity of the surface waters and wetlands to be featured as an attraction for
visitors to the School. An obvious co -benefit of this project approach is that it will slow the
flow water, passively rebuild bed and banks, phytoremediate runoff, and provide habitat
that enhances Waters of the US held in the public trust. The inevitable result of BDAs is

5
the sustenance of streams and expansion of wetlands. In this way, the project approach
effectively removes the stream corridor from future development.
In our experience, Natural Channel Design methods tend to offer a short cut to decreased
sediment transfer rates in the short term, yet they are at high risk for failure and tend not
to deliver long term habitat improvements. Here at SoWE, we have an unusual opportunity
to work with pioneering clients to develop the land with integrity and leave it better than we
found it. Based on our research experience and observation of beaver in their natural
environment, we feel confident that BDAs will foster the truest to natural design available
for this project site with the highest level of ecological benefits.
2. INTRODUCTION TO LAND USE LEGACIES
Legacy effects of rapid sediment exchange caused by forest clearing and agricultural
cultivation, affecting both uplands and valley bottoms, drastically altered the southeastern
landscape, primarily over the course of the early 19th to early 20th centuries (Trimble
1975; Jackson et al. 2005; Walter & Merritts 2008; Wohl 2019; Ferguson 1999; Dearman
& James 2019). Hugh Hammond Bennett, who grew up in North Carolina's Piedmont
amongst row -cropped tobacco farms, wrote prolifically over the course of the 1930's to
draw national attention to the degradation of his southeastern home: "This paper is not
primarily concerned with the effects of normal or natural erosion, except as a basis for
comparison. It pertains to changed physical, chemical, and biologic conditions resulting
from abnormal erosion, the accelerated soil washing following man's activities, his free
use of axe and plow and the overcrowding of live stock upon sloping ranges" (Bennett
1932, pg. 385). It was Bennett who secured federal funding to establish the Soil Erosion
Service, which became the Soil Conservation Service, now known as the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (Helms 2008; Sporcic & Skidmore 2011).
Missing from the forest floor, missing from the valley bottoms, untold volumes of topsoil
forever lost, wasted away, carried off downstream and buried under yet another blanket of
eroded deposits — the infertile subsoil, friable parent material, weathered rock, and
jagged gravel pieces exposed when the forest floor vanished. All of this missing water
holding capacity, not to mention plant available nutrients and the microorganisms that
make it so, have forever changed the hydrogeomorphic processes at work in this
landscape, shown in Fig. 1 below in a soil map from 1942 checkered with varying
designations of `accelerated erosion,' which is to say, anthropogenic process disruption.

6
Hnn
$4
ACCELERATED EROSION
S Moderate sheet erosion
SS Severe sheet erosion
G Moderate gully erosion
GG Severe gully erosion
SG Moderate sheet and gully erosion
-- Gully
Fig. 1: The map above has been adapted from the Soil Survey of Madison County by
Goldston et al. (1942a) to highlight the project area (roughly circled) and includes the part
of the legend referring to accelerated erosion.
The soil scientists who mapped Madison County in the early 1940's have this to say about
the conditions of mountain streams in the region:
"As a whole, Madison County is rough and rugged, as most of the mountain slopes are
very steep — in some places precipitous. The streams have played a major part in making
the relief what it is today. In places they have cut valleys several hundred feet deep, and
in some places these valleys, or gorges, are flanked by precipitous walls. [...] Streams
have dissected these low, steep hills so badly that comparatively little level land remains.
[...] Slopes to streams are steep, and only in very few places does any bottom land occur
at the foot of these slopes or along the streams. [...] The streams have thoroughly
dissected the Blue Ridge Plateau. They have cut very narrow V-shaped valleys and
gorges and have created an extremely rugged land form. Drainage is good to excessive.
The streams are swift and transport large quantities of material." (Goldston et al. 1942b,
pg. 3 - 4)
The legacy effects of land use are still in evidence on the property today. Some portions of
the streams look little better than excavated roadside ditches. The lawn is kept closely

7
clipped on either side, and the presence of grass is in and of itself an indication the stream
is currently unable to support obligate wetland plants (Fig. 2A). Where native hydrophilic
vegetation is able to reach deep to the water table lowered to meet the base level of
incised streams, roots dangle from cut banks and will soon crumble and fall into the flow, if
they haven't already (Fig. 2B). Such slumped material, jagged gravel pieces, and steep
banks are all too familiar to us. Gullies are on nearly every site we visit.
•
Fig. 2: These photos depict streams visited in August of 2020 on the project site. The
photo on the right (A) shows Thomas Branch hardly able to sustain baseflow. The photo
on the left (B) shows Hopewell Branch and demonstrates how incision triggers Riparian
Hydrologic Drought.
Shifting Baselines Syndrome (SBS) is a term that describes a phenomenon concerning
regulatory standards of ecosystem management. Stemming from fisheries science, where
regulations such as catch limits are established with a recent past condition set as the
standard for return to a state of equilibrium, misremembered prior conditions often result in
successive lowering of expectations through 'generational amnesia' over human lifetimes,
as the impairments of one generation are adopted as baselines of the next (Campbell et
al., 2009; Papworth et al. 2008). Generational amnesia seems an apt diagnosis regarding
society's expectations of stream form and function in the southeast, as the Carolinas
establish Reference Hydraulic Geometry Curves, or design stream dimensions based on
regression curve analysis of 'reference condition' channel form. This method of
comparative analysis, while useful for understanding trends between a watershed's
drainage area and response variables of channel slope, width, depth, etc., could dictate
prescriptive stream form measurements that do not take into account the highly variable
landscape context of mountain streams and the omnipresent, underlying co -morbidities
impairing them, not to mention the wide error bands recognizing variation along the fitted
regression equation.
How would it look and feel to restore and conserve these relatively flat alluvial systems?
Historical evidence and recent scholarship strongly suggest that this hydrologic landscape
should be a sluggish, productive backwater marsh, created by a pleasingly -messy series

8
of small and frequent beaver dams. Here, in this mountainous Madison County context,
that would mean willow, birch, and other native riparian trees would ring upstream areas
of the marsh; dead and down trees would stand a slant in its chesty backwater, providing
perches and nesting cavities for birds and bats. If you plodded into the ponded water your
step fall would sink into silt and leaves. The sweet smell of decomposing organic material
would waft through the air. Heterotroph invertebrates of this system, so-called "shredders",
can be five times more abundant in this habitat than in single -thread channels. Because of
the topographic complexity and the tenacious vegetation, the ponded water would
frustrate anglers, but native fauna would thrive. Warblers, sandpipers, and flycatchers
would perch in the overhanging willows; peepers (frogs) would provide a twilight
symphony, croaking along the marshy aprons; the deep, cool pools and refuge channels
would provide abundant trout shelter; and otters may eventually chase these trout through
the submerged branches of downed trees.
To recover this waterway to pre -settlement conditions is impossible. To stabilize it and
keep it just the same as it is today by using, for example, `natural channel design,' would
be to preserve a blighted system. The overarching goal of our work is to repair the
disconnected valleys and simplified streams by fostering conditions that can support a
thriving wetland complex and the positive feedback loops unleashed by working with, not
against nature. This work will restore natural processes that slow the flow of water,
increase floodplain soil fertility, enable hyporheic groundwater exchange, and provide
suitable habitat for the return of rare mountain wetland plant species within the perpetual
care of an environmentally conscientious land stewardship program at SoWE.
This design narrative presents our research to provide justification that Beaver Dam
Analogue structures (BDAs) are the most promising means to accomplish the goal of
restoring these streams into their native and natural state — a stream -wetland complex.
This narrative also presents our design approach to building these wetland complex
systems, outlines regulatory considerations, and provides schematic design drawings,
example materials, and case studies to help guide the project. We recognize that the
approach we are taking using BDAs is novel in the Carolinas, but rest assured, it is
nothing new, and it is being implemented successfully across the nation.

9
3. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
Most of human development has grown around a lopsided division of the world, so that
"islands of wild" are normal and expected. Instead of this narrow understanding of our role
in the universe, the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SoWE) aims to integrate
conservation into every aspect of the campus it has envisioned. We commend the
architect's vision to first restore the land, unlock its natural beauty, and then build human
interfaces within these natural systems. We have been working closely as a team during
the design process to foster a rare relationship at SoWE. Instead of subjecting the existing
conditions to suit the built environment, this project seeks first and foremost to develop a
flourishing natural environment, and then to thoughtfully tie in the human infrastructure.
The form of a stream is an expression of the history of the surrounding landscape (both
natural and anthropogenic) and regional climatic variables, which influence the mass
balance of water, sediment, and organic material transferred from the contributing
drainage area into valley bottoms, shaping waterways (Knighton 1984; Julien & Raslan
1998; Brooks et al. 2012; Kasprak et al. 2016; Leopold et al. 2020; Wohl 2020). Few of
these factors remain static, and fluctuations in water, sediment, and wood affect stream
form both along a spatial and temporal continuum.
Montgomery and Buffington (1997) note that unlike low -gradient stream networks, high-
energy mountain drainage basins are prone to external forcing by constraints such as
confinement within a narrow valley, shallow bedrock outcroppings, natural woody debris
pileups, and the influence of anchoring riparian vegetation, all of which force morphologies
that would otherwise, in an analogous unobstructed flow pattern, take on the morphology
of a higher energy system. Studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate that
log jams and woody debris pileups have the capacity to create aggradational deposits
over streams that would otherwise flow across exposed bedrock and that the systematic
removal of these naturally -accumulating obstructions have reduced backwater sloughs,
side channels, and meandering headwater tributaries to a more simplistic single -threaded
planform (Montgomery et al. 1996; Sedell & Froggat 1985, see Fig. 3). Wohl (2013)
suggests that research conducted in the Pacific Northwest offers insight into the beaver
once played in shaping North American rivers, as most thorough fluvial geomorphic
investigations have occurred in streams that suffered deforestation, beaver extirpation,
and obstruction removal long before the scientists arrived to study them with
contemporary quantification methods.

10
Fig. 3: On the left, a diagram from Montgomery et al. (1996) depicts stores of sediment
(grey hatching) raising stream beds behind natural debris jams (marked as an X). On the
right, Sedell & Froggatt (1984) depict the loss of planform heterogeneity to the Willamette
River in Oregon over time.
A contentious debate within the field of river restoration in the US hinges on one
classification system, the Rosgen classification system and method of `natural channel
design' (Malakoff 2004; Kondolf 2006; Simon et al. 2007; Rosgen 2008; Simon et al. 2008;
Lave 2008). Kasprak et al. (2016) found that Rosgen's Classification system aligned well
with the River Styles Framework of Brierly and Fryirs (2013), popular in Australia, but that
both classification systems failed to accurately predict processes in streams with
significant anthropogenic disturbances and biotic controls, such as beaver activity and
cattle grazing. Nevertheless, aspects of Rosgen's method have become so entrenched in
the regulatory permitting process for stream restoration, compliance is all but mandatory,
as other restoration methods have adopted aspects of Rosgen's approach.
River restoration efforts typically focus on the geometry of channels with the goals of
reducing and then balancing sediment loads at the reach scale, effectively attempting to
turn every reach into a sediment transfer zone. This perpetuates an erroneous approach
to management of the alluvial channel system and may partially explain why the
regeneration of high -quality habitat remains limited (Doyle & Shields 2012) and restoration
of freshwater ecosystems remains elusive (Bernhardt & Palmer 2011).
Conceptual frameworks for understanding the spatial and temporal processes affecting
stream geometry and its effects will be discussed in this section on Project Justification,
including the concepts of stream evolution, process domains, and connectivity. Within
these concept clarifications, we offer corresponding limitations to Natural Channel Design.
We conclude this section with specific justification for mimicking beaver activity as a water
resource conservation and enhancement project. This context will provide a foundation for
the next section on our Design Approach, which proposes an intervention that is built to
recover within the recurrence intervals of natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes
(e.g. storms and construction), rather than to rigidly hold form in spite of inevitable

11
changes and disturbance within the watershed, as Natural Channel Design methodologies
would.
3.1 The Stream Evolution Model
Schumm's (1997) Channel Evolution Model (CEM) provides a framework for stream form
alternatives by helping to predict the natural evolutionary sequence of streams as they
adapt to disruptions both natural and anthropogenic. Assumptions inherent in Schumm's
Channel Evolution Model (CEM) include the Stage I precursor form, which presupposes
that undisrupted streams have a single -threaded planform; whereas growing evidence
suggests that single -threaded channels are a symptom of beaver extirpation, natural
debris obstruction removal, and active straightening, or channelization, of streams, and do
not adequately describe the precursor stage of undisrupted streams which would exhibit
an anastomosing or braided planform of wetland complexes and vegetated isles
interrupting and separating streamflow (Naiman et al. 1988; Walter & Merritts 2008; Wohl
2013; Cluer & Thorne 2014; Pollock et al. 2014; Goldfarb 2018). Cluer & Thorne (2014)
adapted Schumm's CEM to incorporate this relatively recently understood precursor stage
(Stage 0 Anastomosing) and provide further detail on complex responses of streams to
anthropogenic disruptions of mass balance equations of sediment, water, and wood in
streams — the Stream Evolution Model (SEM). Another important difference in Cluer &
Thorne's (2014) expansion on Schumm's concept is that they have redrawn the
progression of stages into a cyclical, not linear progression, where Stages 0 — 4 can
become stuck in a feedback loop not unlike a "short-circuit," where downcutting and
widening can be triggered over and over again (see Fig. 4).

p
STAGE T
STAGE 0
Wet Wwdlan•
Anattenwung
Gra\tM W.14..41
STAGE
Alwwmeatat
♦tat.
At:.liter
Lateral). Amve
alp
STAGE •
•
•
"1$4
STAGE I
*vs Se.11e Thr..e
71#!2.
•
WeterenE •
Dem.nent
Pretest
STAGES
•
• STAGE •
STAGE I
D.EraWt.An
.4/
d
12
STAGE 7
E7SYMNUleE
STAGE It
Fig. 4: Cluer & Thorne's (2014) Stream Evolution Model (SEM) adapts the Channel
Evolution Model (Schumm 1977) to include a precursor stage (Stage 0) to better
represent predisturbance conditions, two successor stages to cover late -stage evolution,
and a cyclical rather than linear progression. Dashed arrows indicate 'short-circuits' in the
normal progression, indicating for example that a Stage 0 stream can evolve to Stage 1
and recover to Stage 0, a Stage 4-3-4 shortcircuit, which occurs when multiple head cuts
migrate through a reach and which may be particularly destructive. Arrows outside the
circle represent 'dead end' stages, constructed and maintained (2) and arrested (3s)
where an erosion -resistant layer in the local lithology stabilizes incised channel banks.
The Stream Evolution Model & Limitations of Natural Channel Design
The channels in most alluvial reaches are restored from Stage 3 to Stage 6 forms in the
Stream Evolution Model (SEM, see Fig. 4). These relatively low value forms are then
preserved through contrived stabilization measures. In a recent webinar, Colin Thorne
suggested that another 'arrested' stage could be included as an offshoot to Stage 6
(Quasi -equilibrium) where restoration activities halt lateral activity at Stage 7 through
biotechnical revetments of beds and banks, just as with Stage 3a (Thorne 2020). The only
way out of this short-circuit cycle of degradational process, according Cluer & Thorne
(2014), is through the eventual longitudinal gradient stabilization of sufficient degradation
and widening at Stage 5 for the stream to recover a terraced floodplain of alluvial
deposition inset in the large, degraded former channel boundaries. This hypothesis is
supported by the literature on stream competence, as for example, Montgomery &
Buffington (1997) point to the availability and limitations of sediment supply as a driving
factor in the form a stream takes. Even though using soft engineering and natural

materials such as biotechnical revetments and large wood have become common,
stabilization impedes the fluvial processes that could drive continued evolution to the
substantially more resilient and ecologically valuable Stages 7 and 8.
STAGS
r
STAG, a
G..au IPnee......
e
STAGE 0
Amstar.. wi
Ntarva w Impn.•, Sella.A .
wren •••
UBOO
E..a.4:a
STAGE 4.3
"44
STAGS I
�� YnSld 71nr
6
STAGS I
A.1.d_G.A w TAMAGNI
•
•
•
•
STAGE l
l
Dfl.4d1.114..
STAG[ d
D.S.adatbn and W.OwW.!
1
STAGS l
STAGE is
A...tl.d Del.adal.en
110
13
Fig. 5: Cluer & Thorne (2014) offer in this diagram a demonstration of associated physical
characteristics and ecosystem benefits associated with each Stage of stream evolution
(shown in Fig. 4). The relative size of the circles represent the ordinal points achieved at
each stage relative to the maximum achievable points, where a high rank represents
'abundant and fully functional' and a low rank signifies 'absent or dysfunctional'. This
conceptual framework of ecosystem benefits and physical attributes demonstrates that a
return to pristinity at Stage 0 is impossible; that to freeze forms at Stage 2 or Stage 6 (the
target of most Natural Channel Design methods) misses enhancing benefits; and that late
adaptations to Stage 8 offer the closest possible return to pre -settlement conditions and
the highest level of habitat enhancement represented by Stage 0.
Cluer & Thorne (2014) diagram conceptual benefits of stream processes throughout the
evolutionary trajectory of dominant process (see Fig. 5). Whereas Rosgen's 'natural
channel design' methodology seeks to freeze streams into a rigid Stage 6 form of 'Quasi
Equilibrium,' we have the capacity to usher surface waters towards a Stage 8
'Anastomosing' stream form with higher benefits to habitat and ecosystem attributes,
according to Cluer & Thorne's (2014) analysis of stream form and function.
The channels on SoWE property are at stages 2 and 3 as described by the SEM diagram.
As the SoWE campus is built and the watershed continues to develop, these channels will
experience the predictable progression to stage 3a (arrested degradation) or a stage 3-4-3
short circuit of degradation and widening. Degraded channels like these are sadly all too

14
common and are a source of solastalgia for the initiated. Polvi et al. (2011) demonstrate
that entrenched stream channels limit the width and frequency of riparian inundation,
having measurable impacts on the health and spread of riparian corridors. Cluer & Thorne
(2014) describe the relative benefits of each stage of the SEM, demonstrating that this
concept for a Stage 8 channel will facilitate multiple aims of habitat enhancement.
3.2 Process Domains
The existence of process domains implies that river networks can be divided into discrete
regions in which ecological community structure and dynamics respond to distinctly
different physical disturbance regimes (Montgomery 1999). Wohl (2020) provides a
comprehensive literature review exhibiting the usefulness of categorizing process domains
along a river network. By delineating these process domains we can understand spatial
patterns of riparian vegetation (Polvi et al. 2011), sediment dynamics (Wohl 2010a),
organic carbon stock in river corridors (Wohl et al. 2012c; Sutfin and Wohl 2017), aquatic
ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity (Bellmore and Baxter 2014), channel geometry
(Livers and Wohl 2015), and connectivity (Wohl et al. 2019a).
Some river geomorphic parameters exhibit progressive downstream trends whereas
others exhibit so much local variation that any systematic longitudinal trends which might
be present are obscured (Wohl 2010b). Local variation that overwhelms progressive
trends is particularly characteristic of mountainous terrain, where spatially abrupt
longitudinal transitions in substrate resistance, gradient, valley geometry, and sediment
sources can create substantial variability in river process and form. Under these
conditions, characterizing river dynamics based on these longitudinal transitions can be
more accurate than assuming that parameters will change progressively downstream.
Examples of geomorphic parameters for which spatial variation is better explained by
process domain classifications than by drainage area or discharge include riparian zone
width (Polvi et al. 2011), floodplain volume and carbon storage (Wohl et al. 2012c),
connectivity (Wohl et al. 2019a), instream wood load (Wohl and Cadol 2011), and biomass
and biodiversity (Bellmore and Baxter 2014; Herdrich et al. 2018; Venarsky et al. 2018).
Process Domains & Limitations of Natural Channel Design
A geomorphic perspective on river resilience would characterize a resilient river as having
two basic characteristics. First, a resilient river has the ability to adjust form and process in
response to changes in water, sediment, and wood inputs, whether these changes occur
over many decades to centuries (e.g. climate variability) or over relatively short time
periods (e.g. watershed development or a large flood). This is an important distinction
from a robust river system which must rigidly maintain one set of conditions in order not to
fail. An artificially dammed river is robust. A beaver dammed river is resilient. The latter
can be flexible to changing conditions and recover or be made stronger by disturbance,

15
the former is at its best on the day of installation and only gets worse over time (see Graf
2001; Wohl 2004; Wohl & Beckman 2014).
Second, a resilient river has spatial and temporal ranges of water, sediment, and large
wood inputs and river geometry similar to those present under natural conditions (Wohl
2020). Montgomery and Buffington (1997) distinguish source, transport, and response
segments in reach -scale classification of mountain channel morphology. Sklar and
Dietrich (1998) hypothesize consistent changes in dominant incision mechanism (e.g.
headcuts) and substrate type (coarse -bed alluvial, fine -bed alluvial) at threshold slopes,
regardless of drainage area.
Natural Channel Design would presuppose that all streams on the project site should exist
as sediment transfer zones, stabilizing beds and banks with boulders, rock toes, and other
robust features resistant to high-energy flows. If instead, we acknowledge legacy
manipulations to channel-floodplain connectivity, we can restore these channels to a
resilient system that takes a lower -gradient process domain as its target. Where the
streams emerge from confined valleys, the Carolina beaver would have had an outsized
effect on stream form and function. By emulating beaver and recognizing an opportunity to
transition dominant processes, we should see Thomas and Hopewell transform into a
lower -energy, diffuse storage area to capture the water, sediment, and wood we would
expect to find in these broad valleys.
3.3 Connectivity Paradigm
The spectrum of stream connectivity to disconnectivity (see Fig. 6) describes the
longitudinal (upstream/downstream), vertical (surface water/ground water), and lateral
(floodplain/instream) exchange over spatial and temporal scales, involving the movement
of water, organic material, and sediment (Ward 1989; Montgomery 1999; Kondolf et al.
2006; Wohl & Beckman 2014; Wohl 2019). Connectivity is neither a priori better nor worse
than disconnectivity, depending on constraints imposed by the natural context. A high -
gradient mountain stream passing through a closely confined valley, for example, would
exhibit lateral disconnectivity, but experience high longitudinal connectivity, exporting
runoff, sediment, and organic material downstream. Conversely, an anastomosing stream
would experience high lateral connectivity, delivering sediment, organic material and water
to floodplains, but longitudinal connectivity would occur much more slowly in this diffuse
energy zone.

channelization
removal of large wood +M/N
removal of beaver dams
Water, Sediment, Wood,
Solute, Animals
Water, Sediment,
Wood, Salutes
■ Animals
Water, Solutes, Animals
IMP
flow
regulation
1
levees
bank stabilization
channelization
floodplain drainage
16
Fig. 6: From Wohl (2019), this diagram demonstrates the concept of connectivity, the
movement of water, sediment, wood, solutes, and organisms vertically between the
atmosphere and groundwater, longitudinally from upstream to downstream, and laterally
between a stream and its floodplain. Examples of anthropogenic disruptions to
connectivity are offered next to the wavy lines breaking the arrows of connective transfer.
Among the many challenges in managing rivers are those of quantifying connectivity and
understanding how human activities have and will increase or decrease connectivity within
a landscape (Kondolf et al. 2006). This connectivity ultimately reflects geomorphic context
and governs the extent to which a river network or a reach of a river is integrated into its
floodplain and the greater landscape. Geomorphic context includes spatial dimensions of
river corridor geometry, location within a drainage basin, and location within a global
context (Wohl 2020).
High connectivity implies that matter and organisms move rapidly and easily within a river
network. Landscapes typically include some characteristics that create at least temporary
storage and limit connectivity. Subsurface units of low permeability can limit the
downslope transmission of water from hillslopes to channels, or limit hyporheic and
ground -water exchanges along channels (e.g. Gooseff et al. 2017). Lakes, broad
floodplains with extensive wetlands, and numerous channel -spanning obstructions such
as beaver dams and logjams can substantially decrease the rate at which floods move
through a river network (e.g. Lininger & Latrubesse 2016; Wegener et al. 2017). Extensive
and active floodplains increase the residence time of suspended particles, including
sediment and soluble nutrients, within a river network, so that these basins have a greater

17
capacity to store and filter whatever the water carries than streams without extensive
floodplains or with inaccessible floodplains.
Some river networks naturally have high levels of connectivity, whereas others include
many features that limit connectivity (e.g. Burchsted et al. 2010; Mould and Fryirs 2017).
The three dimensions of connectivity commonly have different relations to reach -scale
characteristics: channel obstructions such as logjams and beaver dams, for example,
promote lateral and vertical connectivity for water, solutes, and particulate organic matter,
but limit longitudinal connectivity for these materials. High sediment inputs that promote
channel avulsion and high rates of lateral migration may increase lateral connectivity for
water, solutes, sediment, and large wood, but restrict longitudinal connectivity for these
materials.
Connectivity Paradign & Limitations of Natural Channel Design
Natural Channel Design conducted with the best of intentions retains the potential to
become subsumed under the future heading legacy effects of hydromodification.
Understanding the connectivity paradigm within the natural context of valley slope, stream
segment, and underlying geology helps elucidate pathways to recovery where streams
have long suffered human -induced impacts. The paradigm at these SoWE sites is similar
to many other agriculturally manipulated and impaired floodplains in western North
Carolina: increase in longitudinal connectivity (stream straightening), a decrease in lateral
connectivity (drain floodplains for planting), and indirectly decreasing vertical connectivity
(incision impacts ground -surface water interaction).
The streams on the SoWE property flow through headwater valleys with relatively thin,
narrow alluvial veneers over bedrock and then experience a drastic shift as they enter the
broadest valleys on the property. Streams situated in valleys like these, on long-standing
farmsteads, have assuredly been impacted through centuries of anthropogenic
management. And, predictably, the more incipient soils in these areas will be the first to
degrade, continuing their march through the Stream Evolution Model (SEM). However,
these broad valley areas also present an opportunity. These areas are relatively flat and
the finer grained soils are fertile ground for riparian trees and wetland meadow grasses.
Using BDA techniques, these broad valley areas can be fast -forwarded into wetland
complex systems; they will provide greater floodplain buffers and increased hyporheic
exchange. The presence of these floodplain buffers will create depositional zones, and
progressively more extensive floodplains providing greater average residence time of
sediment, surface flow during overbank floods, and subsurface flow. Coarse and fine
particulate organic matter will be sequestered within these wetland complex systems.
3.4 Beaver Hydrologic Habitat

18
Contemporary research on log pieces and log jams as structural interventions capable of
reversing stream incision has considerably influenced stream restoration methods in other
parts of the United States. In the arid Southwest, for example, Beaver Dam Analogs
(BDAs) and Post Assisted Log Structures (PALS), sometimes combined with beaver
reintroductions, have significantly improved the hydrological and ecological functions of
restored streams (see review Philiod et al. 2017). Many of these methods draw from
designs adapted in the early 1900's by the USDA Forest Service and Soil Erosion Service
(see, e.g. Kraebel & Pilsbury 1934; Ayres 1936). While these practices have enjoyed a
renaissance in the western US, their application to the unique environmental legacies of
the southeast are underrepresented in the literature and in practice (Wohl 2019). Hand -
built wooden structures offer tremendous potential to reverse stream incision in the
Southeast by passively raising stream beds and reducing stress on banks.
In the wetter conditions of the southeast, there is a chance that seasonally inundated
riparian zones can become permanently flooded areas, as hyporheic exchange allows
groundwater sources to connect depressional wetlands with additional water inputs.
Beaver ponds have been shown to increase hyporheic exchange, buffering water
temperatures (Weber et al. 2017) and influencing nutrient dynamics (Margolis et al. 2001;
Bason et al. 2017). Riparian zones of beaver ponds have been shown to have denser
above ground biomass compared to riparian zones of same or similar species composition
in nearby unobstructed stream side zones (Gatti et al. 2018).
The effects of beaver on the hydrologic condition of streams has rippling effects for the
floodplain and the plant communities comprising them. As Naiman et al. (1988)
demonstrate, some of these effects catalyze long-term successional processes, even if
the ponds are abandoned and transform back into streams. By slowing the flow of water,
beaver create positive feedback loops that allow vegetation to establish, which further
decreases hydraulic stress (Box 2018). Beaver ponds create sediment sinks that build up
stream beds, creating newly exposed areas for vegetation to establish (Osterkamp &
Hupp 2010). The slower water allows sediment to settle raising the stream bed level,
offering incising streams an avenue for reunion with its floodplain (Pollock et al. 2014).
This latter mechanism is of particular interest to the southeastern region given the ubiquity
of gullying in response to historic land cultivation legacies.
Streams suffering from legacy effects of incision may experience a condition called
Riparian Hydrologic Drought, where incision causes both fewer instances of floodplain
activation achieved by overbank flows (decreased lateral connectivity), as well as a
localized lowering of the water table near incised streams (decreased vertical connectivity)
(Groffman et al. 2003; Hardison et al. 2009). In Fig. 7 below, Hardison et al. (2009)
diagram the comparative lateral and vertical disconnectivity of incised stream channels.
On the left, a cross section of a stream is depicted where vertical connectivity is
demonstrated by the high water table saturating floodplain soils, and lateral connectivity is
possible within the breadth of the bold arrows demarcating the floodplain. In the diagram
on the right, stream incision is halted by the confining unit, as in Cluer & Thorne's (2014)

19
SEM Stage 3s (see Fig. 4 above). Vertical and lateral disconnectivity is indicated by the
lowered water table and narrowing of the 'floodplain'. The effect this has is called Riparian
Hydrologic Drought, a wilting of riparian corridors starved of nutrients and seeds delivered
in floods and groundwater accessible to shallow rhizospheres of wetland vascular plant
species.
(b)
1,
"Floodplain"
If —)I
I I
I I
I II
Fig. 7: From Hardison et al. (2009), demonstrating the differences in channel form that
can lead to Riparian Hydrologic Drought, the wilting of short -rooted riparian vascular
plants as incision lowers the local water table and deprives floodplains of periodic
inundation during high flow events.
Comparative analyses conducted in the Appalachians and across the Carolinas indicate
that beaver ponded streams are better for bat forage (Francl et al. 2004) and nesting
(Menzel et al. 2001), better for avian communities (Otis & Edwards1999), better at
reducing suspended sediment and nitrate loads (Bason et al. 2017), better for the
richness, diversity, and evenness of herpetofaunal communities (Metts et al. 2001) than
other streams, wetlands, or forests depending on the study in question. Of particular
interest to regulators concerned about minimizing impacts to the 'use' of streams and
wetland in favor of beaver ponds, you might read the concluding paragraphs of one essay,
the heading of which is entitled, "Beavers do not present a threat to flowing -water species
and need not be controlled for that reason" (Snodgrass 1997, pg. 1055). Snodgrass
suggests that land managers should only consider beaver removal when land
management objectives favor valuable timber stands and the preservation of access
roads. The client and design team are aware of this management issue and are
developing the buildings and roads with potential flood extends and wetland expansion in
mind.

20
4. DESIGN
"We cannot know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were
doing nothing."
Our restoration work is guided by the above refrain, written in 1979 by the farmer -poet,
Wendell Berry. In all of our work, we strive to emulate and catalyze the natural processes
of self -renewing ecosystems. Our experience continues to strengthen our devotion to
natural process -based restoration as the only sustainable way to manage aquatic
resources.
4.1 Design Approach
For Mulberry Gap, our approach includes hydraulic and geomorphic design
considerations. This approach ensures that the individual BDA features are dimensioned
to sufficiently resist the stresses and velocities they will experience during regular floods,
while allowing certain areas to break -away during extreme, catastrophic events (i.e. dam
break, 100 year recurrence storm).
Scholarship and responsible practice demand that river restoration be based on or include
five principles (Kondolf and Larson 1995; Hughes et al. 2001; Kondolf et al. 2001; Ward et
al. 2001; Hilderbrand et al. 2005; Wohl et al. 2005; Kondolf et al. 2006; Sear et al. 2008;
Brierley and Fryirs 2009; Hester and Gooseff 2010).
These principles — and how we've endeavored to implement them — can be summarized
as follows:
First, restoration should be designed with explicit recognition of complexity and
uncertainty regarding river process and form, including the historical context of variations
in process and form through time. We have observed Hopewell Branch and Thomas
Branch through this lens, using Cluer & Thorne's (2014) Stream Evolution Model (SEM) to
conceptualize not only the present dominant processes at work, but those trajectories that
may apply under expected future scenarios and the legacies of the past that compromise
habitat on site today.
Second, restoration should emphasize processes that create and sustain river processes,
rather than imposition of rigid forms that are unlikely to be sustainable under future water
and sediment regimes. On Hopewell Branch and Thomas Branch, we are recommending
wetland complex systems created by small BDA structures that enable the system to
undergo the transformation it would eventually undergo if we did nothing. Further, our
intention is not to build permanent structures or "freeze" the stream in time 1 year after
construction. Rather, we are proposing wetland complex systems that will be stable in the

21
near -term while catalyzing processes that offer a path to self -adjustment and ongoing
improvement despite changes to the watershed.
This is an important consideration for our restoration approach as the planned
development in the Thomas Branch watershed would otherwise cause degradation, and
the development pattern in the Hopewell Branch watershed is uncontrolled and
unpredictable. To expect incoming flows to follow the same trends present in our recent
observations (2019-2020), would be folly. Our approach is to design a channel and a
floodplain that anticipate future geomorphic trends and have the capacity to adapt and
thrive in spite of potential future impacts.
Third, projects should be monitored after completion, using the set of variables most
effective for evaluating achievement of objectives, and at the correct scale of
measurement (Comiti et al. 2009 provides an example of effective monitoring). The
proposed restoration efforts at Mulberry Gap are not tied to any mitigation performance
standards. However, the operations at the proposed SoWE campus will include long-term
operation and maintenance of the grounds, including these wetland complex systems.
There will also be on -site stream and weather gages so that the maintenance plans and
adaptive management can be tied to specific triggers (i.e. storm flood events).
Fourth, consideration of the watershed context, rather than an isolated segment of river,
is crucial because of the influences of physical, chemical, and biological connectivity on
alterations undertaken for river restoration. Our approach aims to leverage the full project
area of floodplain and stream corridor within the context of the high gradient watershed
that feeds it. Moreover, by working within the floodplain area, we will create habitat
diversity that can sustain a more biodiverse community of native flora and fauna adapted
to floodplain conditions long absent from this site.
Fifth, accommodation of the heterogeneity and spatial and temporal variations inherent in
rivers is necessary for successful restoration (Brierley and Fryirs 2009). The proposed
wetland complex systems on Hopewell Branch and Thomas Branch will continue to adjust
parameters such as bedform configuration, grain -size distribution, and emergent
vegetation clustering in response to fluctuations in water, sediment, and wood yields.
These adjustments are commonly not synchronous or of the same magnitude between
distinct reaches of the river. So, our design will allow the BDA features some freedom to
adjust, and this will be reflected in the long-term operation and maintenance plan.
4.2 Proposed Features
RDE considered two approaches to water resource conservation and restoration
enhancement during the design phase: Natural Channel Design and Process -Based
Design. The former approach was screened from consideration because it fails to achieve

22
a high level of habitat conservation and enhancement, a consideration of utmost
importance for the client (SoWE).
Natural Channel Design, as described in the Engineering Handbook on stream
restoration, is at its heart a misnomer. Former channels are abandoned for excavated
channels in the floodplain. Beds and banks are rigidly held in place by robust quantities of
rock not native to the local lithology. This approach creates an artificial and contorted
canal masquerading as a 'natural feature'. On the other hand, Process Based Design
catalyzes self -renewing cycles of stream/floodplain/wetland interactions to create habitat
that is responsive to the natural forces at work on the site. We trust natural processes will
dictate the expansion of wetland areas and delineation of streams. And the client is willing
to accommodate increased lateral and vertical connectivity over strictly defined and rigidly
maintained canal and wetland boundaries.
RDE and the State of North Carolina have a unique opportunity on this site to follow the
lead of many other states in the US currently engaged in encouraging beaver mimicry and
hopeful beaver reintroduction. In the arid western United States, Process -Based
Restoration approaches including beaver dam analogs, post -assisted log structures, large
woody debris jams, and rewilding of beaver have made demonstrable improvements to
fish populations, riparian corridor width and vegetation densities, water quality parameters
such as temperature, turbidity, and nutrient concentrations, and fire suppression in every
case we know of. While in the west, primary habitat loss has occurred from a legacy of
overgrazing and water diversion, here in the southeast, legacy effects of soil loss and
'positive drainage improvements' have had similar consequence to aquatic habitat and the
native plant communities that depend on soggy soils and periodic flooding for the
nutrients, seed dispersal, and open space to achieve population dynamics that work with,
rather than against, the coevolution of wetland communities and ecosystem engineers,
like the beaver that once had a hand in every trickle of WoUS, an indelible and forgotten
influence on the landscape.
4.2.1 Beaver Dam Analog (BDA) Typology
We considered three design alternatives for the BDA structures:
1) Post & Weave BDA: Posts driven into the channel and floodplain at regular intervals
with long small caliper trees and branches woven into the structure. Mud, gravel, and
stone is packed against this hand -built structure. These structures are intended to
provide habitat that attract beavers. This would not be a permanent feature; it would
require regular maintenance and would likely need to be re -built in the event of an
extreme storm event.
2) Full Engineered Design with Facade: Building on the option above, but with extensive
grading and structural subsurface elements (sheet piles, concrete cores, etc.). These
structural elements would physically impound the water, provide a non -erodible barrier,

23
and prevent seepage. This also requires regular maintenance but is less susceptible to
failure and is less adaptable to changes in regimes of flow, sediment, and wood. This
option has been disregarded because of its reliance on non -natural materials and
susceptibility to weaken over time and its susceptibility to failure with changing
conditions. This alternative offers a robust, but not resilient approach.
3) Aggradation Structure: In this third option — which we are proposing at SoWE —
engineered materials (stone aggregates, woody materials, and fine grained soils)
provide the 'core' of a retention structure upon which additional mud and sticks are
placed to replicate a beaver dam. Post and weave BDA is then built on top of this
earthen feature. This would require regular maintenance, but less maintenance than the
post & weave option alone, and would be more robust in the face of extreme storm
events.
This third option (aggradation structure) is contextually appropriate and balances the
benefits and draw -backs of all the three options. The core of these BDA features will be
constructed of carefully blended aggregates for site -specific incipient motion criteria. The
aggregate will include a wide range of grain sizes, mostly native material consisting of
cobble, gravel, sand, and silt, and will be placed in layers of gradually increasing grain
size. When this inner core of the BDA aggradation structure is built, it will appear to be a
natural riffle.
After the core has been constructed, the BDA feature will be capped with interlocked
woody material. A slash matrix will be fanned -out on the downstream side of the feature,
in the dip of the ogee shape, and imported cobble will be used as a downstream armor
layer that anchors the woody material and resists scouring to a higher degree than the
core aggregates. The size of this cobble will be in the uppermost range of the largest
cobble native in the system. The larger cobble will then be covered with a thin layer of the
native bed material, providing a soil matrix for emergent vegetation.
The shape of these BDA features will be convex in plan -view, pointing in the downstream
direction. In profile, they will have a 2H:1V or milder grade on the upstream side with a
designed ogee shape on the downstream side. The downstream side will also consist of
the largest gradation sediments, carefully designed, but likely cobble -sized material and
interwoven with
woody material.
4.2.2 Beaver Pool Design
The future marsh aprons upstream of the BDAs will be selectively excavated to provide
undulations and deep -water refuge. These micro -topographic features can be seen on the
grading plans and the Predicted Depth Maps. The complicated relationship between
seepage, evapotranspiration, and the potential inundation extent is difficult to predict, but
the vegetation plan will feature plants with population dynamics with the capacity to adapt

24
to these unknowable conditions. There is one outlier in this respect: the ponded area
above TB4. The floodplain area above TB4 will be amended with clay soil to reduce
permeability in the deep pool areas, while leaving the existing streams undisturbed and
the fringe areas with their in -situ soils to allow for hyporheic exchange (see Engineering
plans, sheet C102).
Deep -water in this case will be defined as greater than 3 feet depth, with maximum depths
achieving 5-7 feet. A variety of depths and morphologies will provide habitat and thermal
heterogeneity. These deep -water areas will stifle growth of emergent wetland plants
keeping vigorous vegetation growth along the fringe areas.
The BDA features and their inundated areas will initially take a calm ponded shape, but
ultimately, these features are meant to change and to adjust based on their temporally
varied inputs of water, sediment, and wood.
4.2.3 Additional Woody Structures
Other low -tech, process -based restoration strategies will be incorporated as the design
progresses, or as an adaptive management strategy through long term operation and
maintenance. For example, on the downstream end of Hopewell Branch, where the valley
necks -down to a more confined floodplain, a BDA weir -like feature will be infeasible.
However, it would be appropriate to install a permeable large woody debris structure (see
example detail in the Engineering Plan). This would allow base -flow to pass through
unencumbered but would provide an additional backwater effect on its upstream BDA
counterparts during storm events — reducing erosional forces on those features and
capturing woody debris and large sediment particles. This approach would decrease
erosive forces in -stream and increase resident times for wood, organic material, and
sediment — contributing to the overall goal of the wetland complex system.
Refer to the Givens Estates case study for an example of low -tech, process -based
restoration project using Engineered Woody Jams.
4.2.4 Flow Diversion Devices
So-called "beaver deceivers" — or more sophisticated Agridrain systems — are a
common tool used to manage nuisance water levels of beaver impoundments. These
devices can be incorporated on the peripheral of beaver -made dams or human -made
BDA's to avoid unwanted flooding, but they must be carefully designed so that they are
not immediately clogged by the eager beaver. These devices are commonly installed at
existing roadway culverts, and generally these devices fall within the non -notifying
category of activities in Waters of the US.
We have incorporated a flow diversion device into this plan, but the purpose is NOT so
that the pools maintain a minimum elevation. Instead, this device is anticipating potential

25
flooding problems. As initially designed, the stream -wetland complex will not inundate
roads or walking paths. However, in the event that natural processes cause flooding, this
flow diversion device will already be installed to allow for vehicular and pedestrian
ingress/egress around the complex. Natural processes that could cause this type of
flooding include beaver activity that increases the elevation of the BDAs, or sediment and
wood recruitment from large storm events.
An Agridrain device will be embedded into the BDA weir, but separated from the main
BDA spillway area. The intake areas for this Agridrain device will be caped with "T"
connection and screened to dissuade from clogging. This intake will be placed in a deep
pool and the outlet will be buried and in the downstream floodplain and released in the
downstream channel.
The need for additional flow diversion devices is not anticipated at this time.
4.2.5 Vegetation
Native riparian plant species have evolved to withstand and depend on the natural flow
regimes and disturbance regimes that trigger seed dispersal, cavitation, and propagule
establishment in stream corridors and adjacent floodplains, so that extreme deviations due
to anthropogenic disruption could incur cascading habitat impacts (Tyree et al. 1994;
Schaff et al. 2003; Merritt et al. 2010; Osterkamp & Hupp 2010; Wohl 2019). Thus, spatial
and temporal dynamics of connectivity are important factors driving the form and function
of streams as ecological agents of the landscape. Although beaver reintroduction is not
planned, and is not a specific goal of these efforts, the vegetation plans are being
prepared in -keeping with beaver habitat.
Most of a beaver's diet is made up of tree bark and cambium. Cambium is the soft tissue
that grows under the bark of a tree. Willow, maple, birch, aspen, cottonwood, beech,
poplar, and alder trees are preferred varieties, but beaver are known to eat other
vegetation like roots and buds and other water plants.
All plantings around the BDA complex will be native species adapted to the hydrologic
conditions we intend to restore on site. A list of desirable native vegetation that will be
incorporated is included in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. Riparian, wetland, and
emergent planting plans are being prepared by Osgood Landscape Architecture.
A selection of plants that are under consideration for both the initial planting plan, and the
long-term adaptive management of these areas are included below.

26
Riparian Zones
Trees
o Red Maple - Acer rubrum
o Swamp White Oak - Quercus bicolor
o Smooth Serviceberry - Amelanchier laevis
o American Elderberry - Sambucus canadensis
o Black Gum - Nyssa sylvatica
o Bitternut Hickory - Carya cordiformis
o Fringetree - Chionanthus virginicus
o Sourwood - Oxydendrum arboreum
o Ironwood - Carpinus caroliniana
o River Birch - Betula nigra
o American Holly - Ilex opaca
(spec it in drier areas within the riparian zone)
o Sycamore - Platanus occidentalis
o PawPaw - Asimina triloba
o Black Willow - Salix nigra
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Shrubs
o Winterberry - Ilex verticillata
o Possumhaw - Ilex decidua
o Silky Dogwood - Cornus amomum
(this spreads to form thickets - use sparingly in the planted area around the managed
main pond and more of it in the other less managed riparian areas)
o Spicebush - Lindera benzoin
o Sweetspire - Itea virginica
o Buttonbush - Cephalanthus occidentalis
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Sweet pepperbush - Clethra acuminata
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Witch hazel - Hamamelis virginiana
o Doghobble - Luecothoe fontanesiana
o Possumhaw Viburnum - Viburnum nudum
o Silky willow - Salix sericea
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Herbaceous / Grasses
o Fox sedge - Carex vulpinoidea
o Blunt broom sedge - Carex scoparia
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Tussock sedge - Carex stricta
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Pink Turtlehead - Chelone lyonii

27
o Golden Groundsel - Packera obovata
o Mountain Mint - Pycnanthemum virginianum
o Milkweed - Asclepias incarnata
o Grass leaved Goldenrod - Solidago graminifolia
o Sensitive Fern - Onoclea sensibilis
o Cinnamon Fern - Osmunda cinnamomeum
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Joe Pye Weed - Eupatorium purpureum
o Switchgrass - Panicum virgatum
(this is a fast spreader - consider specing it sparingly in the planted area around the
managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed riparian areas)
o River oats - Chasmanthium latifolium
(this is a fast spreader - consider specing it sparingly (or not at all) in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed
riparian areas)
o Indian Grass - Sorghastrum nutans
o Cardinal Flower - Lobelia cardinalis
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o New England aster - Aster novae-angliae
o Jack in the Pulpit - Arisaema triphyllum
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Emergent Zones
Herbaceous / Grasses
o Soft Stem bulrush - Scirpus validus
o Common Rush - Juncus effusus
o Blunt Spike Rush - Elocharis obtusa
o Pickeralweed - Pontederia cordata
(this is a fast spreader - consider specing it sparingly (or not at all) in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other more wild riparian
areas. If this plant is both hearty and spreads quickly, it may be best used in areas
where the expected water level is the most unpredictable.)
o Southern Blue Flag - Iris virginica
o Sweetflag - Acorus calamus
(straight species)
o Lizard's Tail - Saururus cernus
this is a fast spreader - consider specing it sparingly (or not at all) in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed
riparian areas. Maybe use this one and Pickeralweed as more "wild" solutions.
o Arrow Arrum - Peltandra virginica
o Duck Potato - Sagittaria fasciculata

28
REFERENCES
Ayres, Q. (1936). Soil Erosion and its Control. MeGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc: New
York.
Bason, C. W., Kroes, D. E., & Brinson, M. M. (2017). The effect of beaver ponds on water
quality in rural coastal plain streams. Southeastern naturalist, 16(4), 584-602.
Bellmore, J. R., & Baxter, C. V. (2014). Effects of geomorphic process domains on river
ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments. River Research
and Applications, 30(5), 617-630.
Bennett, H.H. (1932). Relation of Erosion to Vegetative Changes. The Scientific Monthly,
35(5), 385-415.
Bernhardt, E. S. & Palmer, M. A. (2011). River restoration: the fuzzy logic of repairing
reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926-
1931.
Box, Samuel, "Impacts of Vegetation Growth on Reach -scale Flood Hydraulics in a Sand -
bed River and the Implications for Vegetation -morphology Coevolution" (2018). Graduate
Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11144.
Brierley, G., & Fryirs, K. (2009). Don't fight the site: three geomorphic considerations in
catchment -scale river rehabilitation planning. Environmental Management, 43(6), 1201-
1218.
Brierley, G. J., & Fryirs, K. A. (2013). Geomorphology and river management: applications
of the river styles framework. John Wiley & Sons.
Brooks, K. N., Ffolliott, P. F., & Magner, J. A. (2012). Hydrology and the Management of
Watersheds. John Wiley & Sons.
Burchsted, D., Daniels, M., Thorson, R., & Vokoun, J. (2010). The river discontinuum:
applying beaver modifications to baseline conditions for restoration of forested
headwaters. BioScience, 60(11), 908-922.
Campbell, L.M., Gray, N.J., Hazen, E.L., & Schackeroff, J.M. (2009). Beyond Baselines:
Rethinking Priorities for Ocean Conservation. Ecology and Society, 14(1).
Cluer, B., & Thorne C. (2014) A stream evolution model integrating habitat and ecosystem
benefits. River Research and Applications, 30: 135-154.

29
Comiti, F., Cadol, D., & Wohl, E. (2009). Flow regimes, bed morphology, and flow
resistance in self -formed step -pool channels. Water Resources Research, 45(4), W04424.
Dearman, T.L. & James, L.A. (2019) Patterns of legacy sediment deposits in a small
South Carolina Piedmont catchment, USA. Geomorphology, 343: 1-14.
Doyle, M. W., & Douglas Shields, F. (2012). Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under
the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 48(3), 494-509.
Ferguson, B. K. (1999). The alluvial history and environmental legacy of the abandoned
Scull Shoals mill. Landscape Journal, 18(2), 147-156.
Francl, K. E., Ford, W. M., & Castleberry, S. B. (2004). Bat activity in central Appalachian
wetlands. Georgia Journal of Science, 62(2), 87.
Gatti, R. C., Callaghan, T. V., Rozhkova-Timina, I., Dudko, A., Lim, A., Vorobyev, S. N., ...
& Pokrovsky, O. S. (2018). The role of Eurasian beaver (Castor fiber) in the storage,
emission and deposition of carbon in lakes and rivers of the River Ob flood plain, western
Siberia. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 1371-1379.
Goldfarb, B. (2018). Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and why They Matter.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Goldston, E.F., Davis, W.A., Croom, C.W., & Davidson, S.F. (1942a). Soil Survey:
Madison County, North Carolina. [Map] United States Department of Agriculture. Series
1936, No. 19. Available at:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_MANUSCRIPTS/north_carolina/madisonNC 1942
/map.pdf
Goldston, E.F., Davis, W.A., Croom, C.W., & Davidson, S.F. (1942b). Soil Survey:
Madison County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture. Series 1936,
No. 19. Available at:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/madisonNC1942
/madisonNC1942.pdf
Gooseff, M. N., Wlostowski, A., McKnight, D. M., & Jaros, C. (2017). Hydrologic
connectivity and implications for ecosystem processes -Lessons from naked watersheds.
Geomorphology, 277: 63-71.
Graf, W.L. (2001) Damage Control: Restoring the Physical Integrity of America's Rivers.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(1): 1-27.

30
Groffman, P.M, Bain, D.J., Band, L.E., Belt, K.T., Brush, G.S., Grove, J.M., Pouyat, R.V.,
Yesilonis, I.C., & Zipperer, W.C. (2003). Down by the Riverside: Urban Riparian Ecology.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1:315-321.
Hardison, E.C., O'Driscoll, M.A., DeLoatch, J.P., Howard, R.J., & Brinson, M.M. (2009)
Urban land use, channel incision, and water table decline along coastal plain streams,
North Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(4): 1032-1046.
Herdrich, A. T., Winkelman, D. L., Venarsky, M. P., Walters, D. M., & Wohl, E. (2018). The
loss of large wood affects Rocky Mountain trout populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish,
27(4), 1023-1036.
Helms, D. (2009). Hugh Hammond Bennett and the creation of the soil erosion service.
Journal of soil and water conservation, 64(2), 68A-74A.
Hester, E. T., & Gooseff, M. N. (2010). Moving beyond the banks: Hyporheic restoration is
fundamental to restoring ecological services and functions of streams. Environmental
Science Technology, 44(5), 1521-1525.
Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005). The myths of restoration ecology.
Ecology and Society, 10(1).
Hughes, F.M.R., Adams, W.M., Muller, E. et al. (2001). The importance of different scale
processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands. Regulated Rivers: Research and
Management 17: 325-345.
Jackson, C. R., Martin, J. K., Leigh, D. S., & West, L. T. (2005). A southeastern piedmont
watershed sediment budget: Evidence for a multi -millennial agricultural legacy. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 60(6), 298-310.
Julien, P. Y., & Raslan, Y. (1998). Upper -regime plane bed. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 124(11), 1086-1096.
Kasprak, A., Hough-Snee, N., Beechie, T., Bouwes, N., Brierley, G., Camp, R., Fryirs, K.,
Imaki, H., Jensen, M., O'Brien, G. and Rosgen, D. (2016). The blurred line between form
and process: a comparison of stream channel classification frameworks. PIoS one, 11(3),
e0150293.
Knighton, A. D. (1984). Indices of flow asymmetry in natural streams: definition and
performance. Journal of Hydrology, 73(1-2), 1-19.
Kondolf, G. M. (2006). River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society, 11(2): 42.

31
Kondolf, G. M., Boulton, A. J., O'Daniel, S., Poole, G. C., Rahel, F. J., Stanley, E. H., ... &
Huber, H. (2006). Process -based ecological river restoration: visualizing three-
dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and
Society, 11(2).
Kondolf, G.M. and Larson, M. (1995). Historical channel analysis and its application to
riparian and aquatic habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 5: 109-126.
Kondolf, G. M., Smeltzer, M. W., & Railsback, S. F. (2001). Design and performance of a
channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel -bed stream. Environmental
Management, 28(6): 761-776.
Kraebel, C. J., & Pillsbury, A. F. (1934). Handbook of erosion control in mountain
meadows. California Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Lave, R. A. (2008). The Rosgen wars and the shifting political economy of expertise.
University of California, Berkeley.
Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G., Miller, J. P., & Wohl, E. (2020). Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. Dover Publications.
Lininger, K. B., & Latrubesse, E. M. (2016). Flooding hydrology and peak discharge
attenuation along the middle Araguaia River in central Brazil. Catena, 143, 90-101.
Malakoff, D., 2004. The River Doctor. Science 305:937-939.
Margolis, B.E., Castro, M.S., & Raesly, R.L. (2001) The impact of beaver impoundments
on the water chemistry of two Appalachian streams. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic
Science, 58: 2271-2283.
Menzel, M. A., Carter, T. C., Ford, W. M., & Chapman, B. R. (2001). Tree -roost
characteristics of subadult and female adult evening bats (Nycticeius humeralis) in the
Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(1), 112-119.
Metts, B. S., Lanham, J. D., & Russell, K. R. (2001). Evaluation of herpetofaunal
communities on upland streams and beaver -impounded streams in the Upper Piedmont of
South Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(1), 54-65.
Montgomery, D. R. (1999). Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 35(2), 397-410.
Montgomery, D. R., & Buffington, J. M. (1997). Channel -reach morphology in mountain
drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109(5), 596-611.

32
Montgomery, D. R., Abbe, T. B., Buffington, J. M., Peterson, N. P., Schmidt, K. M., &
Stock, J. D. (1996). Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain
drainage basins. Nature, 381(6583), 587-589.
Mould, S., & Fryirs, K. (2017). The Holocene evolution and geomorphology of a chain of
ponds, southeast Australia: Establishing a physical template for river management.
Catena, 149: 349-362.
Naiman, R. J., Johnston, C. A., & Kelley, J. C. (1988). Alteration of North American
streams by beaver. BioScience, 38(11), 753-762.
Osterkamp, W.R., & Hupp, C.R. (2010) Fluvial processes and vegetation —Glimpses of
the past, the present, and perhaps the future. Geomorphology, 116: 274-285.
Otis, D.L., and N.T. Edwards. 1999. Avian communities and habitat relationships in South
Carolina Piedmont Beaver ponds. The American Midland Naturalist 141(1):158-171.
Papworth, S. K., Rist, J., Coad, L., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2009). Evidence for shifting
baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters, 2(2), 93-100.
Pilliod, D. S., Rohde, A. T., Charnley, S., Davee, R. R., Dunham, J. B., Gosnell, H., ... &
Nash, C. (2018). Survey of beaver -related restoration practices in rangeland streams of
the western USA. Environmental management, 61(1), 58-68.
Pollock, M. M., Beechie, T. J., Wheaton, J. M., Jordan, C. E., Bouwes, N., Weber, N., &
Volk, C. (2014). Using beaver dams to restore incised stream ecosystems. BioScience,
64(4), 279-290.
Polvi, L. E., Wohl, E. E., & Merritt, D. M. (2011). Geomorphic and process domain controls
on riparian zones in the Colorado Front Range. Geomorphology, 125(4), 504-516.
Schumm, S.A. (1977). The fluvial system. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Sear, D.A., Wheaton, J.M., and Darby, S.E. (2008). Uncertain restoration of gravelbed
rivers and the role of geomorphology. In: Gravel -Bed Rivers VI: From Process
Understanding to River Restoration (eds. H. Habersack, H. Piegay and M. Rinaldi), 739-
761. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sedell, J. R., & Froggatt, J. L. (1984). Importance of streamside forests to large rivers: The
isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, USA, from its floodplain by snagging and
streamside forest removal: With 2 figures and 1 table in the text. Internationale
Vereinigung fur theoretische and angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen, 22(3), 1828-
1834.

33
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields Jr, F. D., Rhoads, B., & McPhillips, M. (2007).
Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated "natural channel
design" methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response 1.
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(5), 1117-1131.
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields Jr, F. D., Rhoads, B., & McPhillips, M. (2008).
Reply to Discussion by Dave Rosgen on" Critical Evaluation of How the Rosgen
Classification and Associated'Natural Channel Design'Methods Fail to Integrate and
Quantify Fluvial Processes and Channel Responses".
Sklar, L., & Dietrich, W. E. (1998). River longitudinal profiles and bedrock incision models:
Stream power and the influence of sediment supply, in Tinkler, K.J. & Wohl, E.E., eds.,
Rivers over rock: Fluvial processes in bedrock channels: Washington, D.C., American
Geophysical Union, 237-260.
Snodgrass, J. W. (1997). Temporal and spatial dynamics of beaver -created patches as
influenced by management practices in a south-eastern North American landscape.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 1043-1056.
Sporcic, M. A., & Skidmore, E. L. (2011). 75 Years of Wind Erosion Control: The History of
Wind Erosion Prediction. In International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution
(ISELE), 18-21 September 2011, Anchorage, Alaska (p. 31). American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Thorne, C. (2020, Aug. 11). "Missing Reference Condition: Stage 0" [Webinar
Presentation]. In: Module 1: Introduction to Low -Tech Process -Based Restoration.
Available at:
https://lowtechpbr.restoration. usu.edu/workshops/2020/SGI/Modules/modulel . html
Trimble, S. W. (1975). A VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATE OF MAN -INDUCED SOIL EROSION
ON THE SOUTHERN. In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment
Yield and Sources: Proceedings of the Sediment -Yield Workshop, USDA Sedimentation
Laboratory, Oxford, Miss., Nov. 28-30, 1972 (Vol. 40, p. 142). Agricultural Research
Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Walter, R. C., & Merritts, D. J. (2008). Natural streams and the legacy of water -powered
mills. Science, 3/9(5861), 299-304.
Ward, J. V. (1989). The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 8(1), 2-8.

34
Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Uehlinger, U., and Malard, F. (2001). Understanding natural
patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 311-323.
Weber, N., Bouwes, N., Pollock, M.M., Wheaton, J.M., Wathen, G., Wirtz, J., & Jordan,
C.E. (2017) Alteration of stream temperature by natural and artificial beaver dams. PLoS
ONE, 12(5).
Wegener, P., Covino, T., and Wohl, E. (2017). Beaver -mediated lateral hydrologic
connectivity, fluvial carbon and nutrient flux, and aquatic ecosystem metabolism. Water
Resources Research, 53: 4606-4623.
Wohl, E. E. (2004). Disconnected rivers: linking rivers to landscapes. Yale University
Press.
Wohl, E. (2013) Floodplains and wood. Earth -Science Reviews, 123: 194-212.
Wohl, E. (2019). Forgotten legacies: understanding and mitigating historical human
alterations of river corridors. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 5181-5201.
Wohl, E. (2020). Rivers in the Landscape. John Wiley & Sons.
Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M.,
Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L., & Tarboton, D. (2005). River Restoration. Water Resources
Research, 41: W10301.
Wohl, E., & Beckman, N. D. (2014). Leaky rivers: implications of the loss of longitudinal
fluvial disconnectivity in headwater streams. Geomorphology, 205: 27-35.
Wohl, E., & Cadol, D. (2011). Neighborhood matters: patterns and controls on wood
distribution in old -growth forest streams of the Colorado Front Range, USA.
Geomorphology, 125(1), 132-146.
Venarsky, M. P., Walters, D. M., Hall, R. O., Livers, B., & Wohl, E. (2018). Shifting stream
planform state decreases stream productivity yet increases riparian animal production.
Oecologia, 187(1), 167-180.

APPENDIX
A. Predicted Depth Maps & Area Tables
B. Culvert Removal Details
35

PDM1: Predicted Depth Map 1
LEGEND
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
■Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
ARV Robinson
N Design
N Engineers
0

LEGEND
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained
deep pools (3' or greater)
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone -
Infrequently inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
For area upstream
of TB4A&B, see
PDM3 and PDM4
PDM2: Predicted Depth Map 2
ARV Robinson
N Design
N Engineers
0

PDM3: Predicted Depth Map 3
LEGEND
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
■Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
ARV Robinson
N Design
N Engineers
0

LEGEND
PDM4: Predicted Depth Map 4
B6
u rt Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
• (3' or greater)
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones
Typically not inundated
NRobinson
N Engineers

LEGEND
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
(3' or greater)
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
PDM5: Predicted Depth Map 5
^Jr Robinson
N Design
N Engineers

BDA
Deep Pool
Zone (SF)
Deep Marsh -
Submergent
(SF)
Shallow Marsh
- Emergent
(SF)
TOTAL (SF)
TB1
2,319
5,468
4,726
12,513
TB2
294
3,024
3,705
7,023
TB3
678
8,168
8,800
17,646
TB4
5,551
12,337
15,934
33,822
TB5
-
1,424
9,008
10,432
TB6
166
4,070
4,015
8,251
HB4
582
9,343
16,338
26,263
TOTAL
9,590
43,834
62,526
115,950
PDM6: Predicted Depth Map Area Table
N Design n
N Engineers

BDA
Deep Pool
Zone (ac)
Deep Marsh -
Submergent
(ac)
Shallow Marsh
- Emergent
(ac)
TOTAL (ac)
TB1
0.05
0.13
0.11
0.29
TB2
0.01
0.07
0.09
0.16
TB3
0.02
0.19
0.20
0.41
TB4
0.13
0.28
0.37
0.78
TB5
-
0.03
0.21
0.24
TB6
0.00
0.09
0.09
0.19
HB4
0.01
0.21
0.38
0.60
TOTAL
0.22
1.01
1.44
2.66
PDM7: Predicted Depth Map Area Table
N Design n
N Engineers

Match downstream channel
bottom -width
12" overlap, minimum
existing culvert to be removed
vegetation per landscape architect
apply coir matting to all
disturbed channel slopes
o
1,1
A�
A J
Bio-D block soil lift
Compacted sub -grade
Channel bottom of granite ballast stone 8" minimum thickness
Underlain by bedding stone 6" minimum thickness
COMPLETELY FILL ALL INTERSTITIAL SPACES WITH CLEAN SAND
\A\ CREEK CHANNEL - FREE FLOWING
/ apply outside of deep marsh zones SCALE: 1" = 4'
Match downstream channel
bottom -width
CB\ CREEK CHANNEL - WITHIN INUNDATION ZONE
apply inside of deep marsh zones
APPENDIX B. CULVERT REMOVAL DETAILS
existing culvert to be removed
vegetation per landscape architect
Compacted sub -grade
Channel bottom of bedding stone 6" minimum thickness
COMPLETELY FILL ALL INTERSTITIAL SPACES WITH CLEAN SAND
SCALE: 1" = 4'