20111022 Ver 1_Anderson Farms Stream Final Mit Plans_20130513

Strickland, Bev
From: Kulz, Eric
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2013 9:25 AM
To: Strickland, Bev
Subject: FW: Anderson Farm Mitigation Plan
Attachments: AFMB- MITIGATION PLAN- 12192012 FINAL.pdf
For laserfiche 11 -1022
Eric W. Kulz
Environmental Senior Specialist
N.C. division of Water Quality
Wetlands, Buffers, Stormwater - Compliance & Permitting Unit
1650 MSC
• ' ' .I MI
E -mail correspondence to and from this address may be subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be
disclosed to third parties
From: Natalie Bouchard [ mai Ito: nbouchard Cd)altamontenvironmentaLcom]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2013 2:25 PM
To: Kulz, Eric
Cc: Zan Price; Stuart Ryman
Subject: Anderson Farm Mitigation Plan
Hello Eric,
I hope you are well. I tried sending the Anderson Farm Mitigation Plan last Friday, but it appears the
40 MB file did not send. Please find the attached Mitigation Plan, and please do not hesitate to
contact us if there is anything else we can assist you with.
Regards,
Natalie
Natalie Bouchard, EIT
Altamont Environmental, Inc.
231 Haywood Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Tel. [phone]
Cell. 734.771.7744
Fax. [phone]
nbouchard analtamontenvironmental.com
www.altamontenvironmental.com

ANDERSON FARM STREAM MITIGATION BANK
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC
MITIGATION BANKING INSTRUMENT

(Version June 2009)
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE ANDERSON FARM STREAM MITIGATION
BANK
IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
This Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) is made and entered into on the day of
, 2012, by the AFFP, LLC, hereinafter Sponsor, and the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies, upon its execution of this MBI, the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM), and the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). The Corps, together with the State and Federal
agencies that execute this MBI, are hereinafter collectively referred to as the Interagency Review
Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish a mitigation bank (Bank) providing
compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland impacts separately authorized by Section 404
Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in appropriate
circumstances;
WHEREAS the Sponsor is the record owner of that certain parcel of land containing
approximately 25 acres located in Buncombe County, North Carolina, described in the Anderson
Farm Stream Mitigation Plan (Mitigation Plan), and as shown on the attached survey (Property);
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site is a suitable mitigation
bank site, and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan is likely to result in net gains in
wetland and /or stream functions at the Bank site, and have therefore approved the Mitigation
Plan;
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the following
provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this MBI.
Section L• General Provisions
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration and enhancement
activities at the Bank site, and for the overall operation and management of the Bank. The
Sponsor assumes the legal responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation once a
permittee secures credits from the Sponsor and the DE receives documentation that confirms the
Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the required compensatory mitigation.

(Version June 2009)
B. The goal of the Bank is to restore and enhance stream systems and their functions to
compensate in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable stream impacts authorized by Section
404 of the Clean Water Act permits and or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in
circumstances deemed appropriate by the Corps after consultation, through the permit review
process, with members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland impacts authorized by Clean Water Act
permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations,
including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the National Environmental Policy Act,
and all other applicable Federal and State legislation, rules and regulations. This agreement has
been drafted in accordance with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of
Aquatic Resources effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation Rule ").
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the District Engineer (DE) of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District. The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of mitigation
banks. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports, recommending remedial
measures, approving credit releases, and approving modifications to this instrument. The IRT's
role and responsibilities are more fully set forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The
IRT will work to reach consensus on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies through the
permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount and type of
compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted wetland impacts, and whether
or not the use of credits from the Bank is appropriate to offset those impacts. In the case of
permit applications and compensatory mitigation required solely under the Section 401 Water
Quality Certification rules of North Carolina, the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) will
determine the amount of credits that can be withdrawn from the Bank.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to establish compensatory
mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate and practicable. Where practicable, in -kind
compensatory mitigation is preferred.
Section II: Geographic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the bank is authorized
to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA for this Bank shall
include the French Broad River Basin Hydrologic Unit 06010105 in North Carolina. The
Bank site will restore aquatic resources for low elevation, warm water streams similar to those
found throughout the aforementioned HUC. The low mountain alluvial forest ecosystem that
will occupy the proposed buffer will also utilize an assemblage of native hardwood species found

(Version June 2009)
throughout Western North Carolina. Use of a Bank site to compensate for impacts beyond the
GSA may be considered by the Corps or the permitting agency on a case -by -case basis.
Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the information
listed in 332.4(c)(2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Bank site is comprised of two headwater stream systems that drain into Newfound
Creek. Both stream systems have been adversely impacted by silvicultural and agricultural
management activities. A more detailed description of the baseline conditions on the site is
contained in the Mitigation Plan.
B. The Sponsor will perform work described on pages 10 -29 of the Mitigation Plan, including
2,930 linear feet (lf) of Priority 11 stream restoration and 525 if The purpose of this work, and
the objective of the Bank, is to provide high- quality compensatory mitigation for permitted
impacts within the French Broad River Basin via the restoration, enhancement, and preservation
of existing streams within the project area.
C. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site as described on pages 30 -32 of the Mitigation Plan,
or until such time as the IRT determines that the success criteria described on page 30 of the
Mitigation Plan have been met.
D. The members of the MT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property for the purposes of
inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Reporting
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, an annual
report describing the current condition of the Bank and the condition of the Bank in relation to
the success criteria in the Mitigation Plan. The Sponsor shall provide to the DE any monitoring
reports described on page 33 of the Mitigation Plan.
B. The Sponsor shall provide ledger reports documenting credit transactions as described in
Section VIII of this MBI.
C. The Sponsor shall provide notification to the DE each time a credit transaction occurs.

(Version June 2009)
Section V. Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, and may, at any time, after consultation with the
Sponsor and the IRT, direct the Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank site. Remedial
action required by the DE shall be designed to achieve the success criteria specified in the
Mitigation Plan. All remedial actions required under this section shall include a work schedule
and monitoring criteria that will take into account physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant to the above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to achieve the
required success criteria, it shall provide notice of such proposed remedial action to all members
of the MT. No remedial actions shall be taken without the concurrence of the DE, in
consultation with the IRT.
Section VI: Use of Mitigation Credits
Description of Wetland Community Types:
A. Wetland community types found in a mitigation bank will be described in accordance with the
procedures found in the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM, USACE, 2007). It is
expected that impacts to the NC WAM types listed below will be compensated by the Mitigation
Types as listed in order to qualify as "In- Kind" mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In- Kind"
mitigation may be allowed at the discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
Mitigation Type
NCWAM Type
CAMA CoastalWetland
Salt/Brackish Marsh*
verine
Riverine Swamp Forest/Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh, Tidal
Freshwater Marsh
Riparian
Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Wetland, Flood- Plain
Pool, Mountain Bog*
Non-Riparian wetter variety
on- Riverine Swamp Forest, Seep, Small Basin Wetland,
ocosins, Estuarine Woody
Non-Riparian, Drier Variety
ine Flat, Pine Savannah, Hardwood Flat

(Version June 2009)
TABLE 1. STREAM CREDIT TOTALS
Reach Name
Restoration (Priority
II)
Enhancement (LI)
SCF (18.5 %)
UT -1
1,296
150
240
UT -2
658
375
122
UT -3
976
0
181
TOTAL (If)
2,930
525
CREDITS
2,930
350
542
TOTAL CREDITS
3,822
Note: All stream credits are designated as warm water systems.
B. It is anticipated by the parties that in most cases in which the DE, after consultation with the
IRT, has determined that mitigation credits from the Bank may be used to offset wetland impacts
authorized by Section 404 permits and /or Section 10 permits, that the Restoration Equivalents, as
enumerated above, constitute credits that are considered to be equal to restoration credits for the
purposes of compensatory mitigation. Therefore, the use of Restoration credits or Restoration
Equivalents credits, or any combination thereof, is acceptable to the DE for any permit
requirement so long as the required amount of credits are debited for a given mitigation
requirements. It is also understood that in order to satisfy mitigation requirements imposed by
the NC Division of Water Quality, that restoration impact amounts must be at a minimum of 1:1
such that for every one acre of impact, at least one acre of mitigation must be in the form of
restoration. Additionally, decisions regarding stream mitigation will be made consistent with
current policy and guidance and will be made on a case by case basis. Wetland and stream
compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -case basis based on considerations of
functions of the wetlands and /or streams impacted, the severity of the wetland and /or stream
impacts, the relative age of the mitigation site, whether the compensatory mitigation is in -kind,
and the physical proximity of the wetland and /or stream impacts to the Bank site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using credits from
the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all decisions concerning the amount
and type of such credits to be used to offset wetland and water impacts authorized by Department
of the Army permits, shall be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
and implementing regulations and guidance, after notice of any proposed use of the Bank to the

(Version June 2009)
members of the IRT, and consultation with the members of the IRT concerning such use. Notice
to and consultation with the members of the IRT shall be through the permit review process.
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required success criteria have been achieved.
A. Credit Release Schedule for Wetlands (other than forested): If deemed appropriate by the
IRT, fifteen percent (15 %) of the Bank's total restoration credits shall be available for sale
immediately upon completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement;
2. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3. Mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of the financial assurance described in Section IX of this MBI; and
5. Recordation of the long -term protection mechanism described in Section X of this MBI,
as well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE.
The Sponsor must complete the initial physical and biological improvements to the Bank site
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan no later than the first full growing season following initial
debiting of the Bank. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required
success criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale
by the Sponsor on the following schedule:
1. 15 % upon completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant
to the Mitigation Plan (total 30 %);
2. 10% after first year, if interim success measures are met (total 40 %);
3. 15% after second year, if interim success measures are met (total 55 %);
4. 20% after third year, if interim success measures are met (total 75 %);
5. 10% after fourth year, if interim success measures are met (total 85 %);
6. 15% after fifth year, if Success Criteria are met (total 100 %).
The above schedule applies only to the extent the Sponsor documents acceptable survival and
growth of planted vegetation, and attainment of acceptable wetland hydrology as described under
the Success Criteria in the monitoring section of the Mitigation Plan. The final 15% of credits
will be available for sale only upon a determination by the IRT of functional success as defined
in the Mitigation Plan.

(Version June 2009)
B. Credit Release Schedule for Forested Wetlands: If deemed appropriate by the IRT, fifteen
percent (15 %) of the Bank's total restoration credits shall be available for sale immediately upon
completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for membership
in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement;
2. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3. Mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of the financial assurance described in Section IX of this MBI; and
Recordation of the long -term protection mechanism described in Section X of this MBI, as
well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE.
The Sponsor must complete the initial physical and biological improvements to the Bank site
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan no later than the first full growing season following initial
debiting of the Bank. Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required
success criteria and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for sale
by the Sponsor on the following schedule:
1. 15 % upon completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant
to the Mitigation Plan (total 30 %);
2. 10% after first year, if interim success measures are met (total 40 %);
3. 10% after second year, if interim success measures are met (total 50 %);
4. 10% after third year, if interim success measures are met (total 60 %);
5. 10% after fourth year, if interim success measures are met (total 70 %);
6. 10% after fifth year, if Success Criteria are met (total 80 %);
7. 10% after sixth year, if vegetative Success Criteria are met (90 %); and
8. 10% after seventh year, if vegetative Success Criteria are met (100 %).
Provided that all Success Criteria are met, the IRT may allow the Sponsor to discontinue
hydrologic monitoring after the fifth year. The Sponsor will be required to monitor vegetation
for an additional two years after the fifth year for a total of seven years.
C. Credit Release Schedule for Streams: The following credit release schedule applies only to
those stream projects where Restoration or Enhancement I has been performed where pattern,
dimension, and profile, or dimension and profile (respectively) have been improved. Projects
constructed on the outer coastal plain that are subject to the Coastal Plain Information Paper
(USACE/DWQ 2007) where an engineered stream channel was not constructed, will be subject
to the criteria enumerated for wetlands above.
If deemed appropriate by the IRT, fifteen percent (15 %) of the Bank's total stream credits shall
be available for sale immediately upon completion of all of the following:

(Version June 2009)
1. Execution of this MBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for membership
in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement;
2. Approval of the final Mitigation Plan;
3. Mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of the financial assurance described in Section IX of this MBI; and
5. Recordation of the long -term protection mechanism described in Section X of this MBI, as
well as a title opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE.
Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required success criteria and
monitoring, additional stream credits will be available for sale by the Sponsor on the following
schedule:
1. 15 % upon completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made pursuant
to the Mitigation Plan (total 30 %);
2. 10% after first year, provided channel is stable and all other success measures are met
(total 40 %);
3. 10% after second year, provided channel is stable and all other success measures are met
(total 50 %);
4. 10% after third year, provided channel is stable and all other success measures are met
(total 60 %);
5. 10% after fourth year, provided channel is stable and all other success measures are met
(total 70 %);
6. 15% after fifth year, provided channel is stable and all other success measures are met
(total 85 %).
A reserve of 15% of the Bank's total stream credits shall be released any time after two bank -full
events have occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other Success
Criteria are met. In the event that less than two bank -full events occur during the monitoring
period, remaining credit release shall be at the discretion of the IRT.
Section VIII: Accounting Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the IRT for maintaining
accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such procedures shall include the generation of
a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time they are debited from the Bank. All
ledger reports shall identify credits debited and remaining by type of credit and shall include for
each reported debit the Corps ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized
and the permitted impacts for each resource type. Each time an approved credit transaction
occurs, the Sponsor must notify the DE within 30 days of the transaction.

(Version June 2009)
B. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of the date of
execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit availability (e.g.,
additional credits released, credit sales suspended), and the beginning and ending balance of
credits remaining. The Sponsor shall submit the annual report to the DE, for distribution to each
member of the IRT, until such time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is
otherwise terminated.
Section IX: Financial Assurances
A. The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT sufficient to
assure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial
work required pursuant to this MBI. One account has been funded up to $100,000.00 to cover
30% of the projected construction budget. The other account has been funded up to $5,000.00 to
cover 10% of the monitoring budget. These accounts have been established with Asheville
Savings Bank located in Asheville, North Carolina. Correspondence from this institution is
included in Appendix D.
B. Financial assurances shall be payable at the direction of the DE to his designee or to a
standby trust. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to the Corps of Engineers in the
event of default by the Bank Sponsor are not acceptable.
C. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives notification at
least 120 days in advance of any termination or revocation.
Section X: Long -Term Protection
A. The Sponsor shall grant a CE, in form acceptable to the IRT, sufficient to protect the Bank
site in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual, preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the
property inconsistent with its use as mitigation property, including any activity that would
materially alter the biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands or
streams within the Bank site, consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the CE will be
to assure that future use of the Bank site will result in the restoration, protection, maintenance
and enhancement of wetland functions described in the Mitigation Plan. The Buncombe County
Soil and Water Conservation District will serve as the CE holder for the Bank.
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the mitigation
property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that would conflict with its
use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that have priority over the recorded
preservation mechanism.

(Version June 2009)
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site property either
in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state agency, or other appropriate
nonprofit organization. The Sponsor is responsible for ensuring that that the CE is re- recorded to
ensure that it remains within the chain of title. The terms and conditions of this conveyance shall
not conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall such conveyance enlarge or modify
the uses specified in the CE.
The CE must contain a provision requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any
action is taken to void or modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any
other legal claims over, the project site.
Section XI: Long -term Management
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long -term management plan described pages 34 -35 of the
Mitigation Plan. This plan includes the establishment of an escrow account that will be funded
by the sale of credits from the Bank. As credits are released and sold, two (2) percent of the
proceeds will be deposited in the escrow account. This escrow account will provide funds for
long -term maintenance (e.g. fence repairs, bridge repairs, etc.) and annual monitoring costs. The
account will be established and managed by the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy
(SAHC).
B. SAHC, the landowner of the Bank property and adjacent acreage, will be responsible for the
long -term management and stewardship of the property. These activities will be conducted in
cooperation with the holder of the CE.
Section X11: Default and Closure
A. It is agreed to establish and /or maintain the Bank site until (i) credits have been exhausted or
banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the Sponsor provided to the DE
and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been determined and agreed upon by the DE and
IRT that the debited Bank site has satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation Plan.
If the DE determines that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying with
the terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions may include, but are
not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing available credits,
utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and to the
extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or conditions beyond the
Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely affects its ability to perform its
10

(Version June 2009)
obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God, lightning, earthquake, fire, landslide, or
interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by any governmental body; (iii)
change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance or permit condition, or the interpretation or
enforcement thereof, (iv) any order, judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or
local court, administrative agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of
any permit, license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank Sponsor
is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice thereof to the IRT as soon
as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before the final availability of all credits for
sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to restore the property to its condition prior to such
event, in a manner sufficient to provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior
to such delay or failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the Sponsor only to the
extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the MT.
C. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance standards, the
Sponsor may submit a request to close out the bank site to the DE. The DE, in consultation with
the MT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the request within 60 days of such
submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has achieved the performance standards in
accordance with the mitigation plan and all obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a
close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Any agency participant may terminate its participation in the IRT with notice in writing to all
other parties to this agreement. Termination shall be effective seven (7) days from placing
written notices in the United States mail. Member withdrawal shall not affect any prior sale of
credits and all remaining parties shall continue to implement and enforce the terms of this MBI.
B. Modification of this MBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in 332.8 of the
mitigation rule.
C. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one except the signatories hereof,
their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek enforcement hereof.
D. This MBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter
hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
E. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this MBI are held to be invalid,
illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceablility will not
11

(Version June 2009)
affect any other provisions hereof, and this MBI shall be construed as if such invalid, illegal or
unenforceable provision had not been contained herein.
F. This MBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of North Carolina
and the United States as appropriate.
G. This MBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or more counterparts, all
of which together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
H. The terms and conditions of this MBI shall be binding upon, and inure to the benefit of the
parties hereto and their respective successors.
I. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of the parties at their
respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Name
Title
Address
Corps:
Mr./Ms.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Address
EPA:
Mr./Ms.
Wetlands Section - Region IV
Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
FWS:
Mr./Ms.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Fish and Wildlife Enhancement
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636 -3726
12

(Version June 2009)
NMFS:
Mr./Ms.
National Marine Fisheries, NOAA
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
NRCS:
Mr./Mrs.
Natural Resources Conservation Service
*Address
NCWRC:
Mr./Ms. *
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
*Address
NCDCM:
Mr./Ms. *
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
*Address
NCDWQ:
Mr./Ms. *
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626 -0535
13

(Version June 2009)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The * Mitigation Bank In * County, North Carolina ":
Sponsor:
IM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
Date:
By: Date:
14

(Version June 2009)
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The * Mitigation Bank In * County, North Carolina ":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By:
Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By:
Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Water Quality:
By:
Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By:
Date:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management:
By: Date:
15

(Version June 2009)
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank - Final Mitigation Plan
Appendix B: Property Survey and Legal Description
Appendix C: Map — Geographic Service Area
Appendix D: Form of Financial Assurance
Appendix E: Form of Preservation Mechanism
16

APPENDIX A - ANDERSON FARM STREAM MITIGATION BANK - FINAL MITIGATION PLAN

MITIGATION PLAN
DECEMBER 2012
PREPARED FOR:
AFFP, LLC
PREPARED BY.•
HEADWATERS RESTORATION, LLC
ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
A
N
D
E
R
S
O
N
F
A
R
M
S T
R
E
A
M
M
I
T
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
B
A
N
K
MITIGATION PLAN
DECEMBER 2012
PREPARED FOR:
AFFP, LLC
PREPARED BY.•
HEADWATERS RESTORATION, LLC
ALTAMONT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................. ..............................4
A. Site Location ............................................................................. ..............................4
B. Watershed Characterization ...................................................... ..............................4
C. Future Site Development .......................................................... ..............................5
II. MITIGATION GOALS .......................................................... ..............................5
A. Project Purpose ......................................................................... ..............................5
B. Geographic Service Area (GSA) ............................................... ..............................7
III. SITE CONDITIONS ............................................................ ..............................7
A. Community Types .....................................................................
..............................7
B. Vegetation .................................................................................
..............................7
C. Soil Characteristics ...................................................................
..............................8
D. Hydrology /Hydraulic Characteristics .........................................
..............................8
E. Stream Classification ................................................................
..............................9
F. Jurisdictional Determination .......................................................
..............................9
G. Cultural Resources ..................................................................
.............................10
IV. STREAM RESTORATION PLAN ...................................... .............................10
A. Introduction .............................................................................. .............................10
B. Hydrologic Modeling ..................................................................
.............................12
C. Bankfull Verification ..................................................................
.............................14
D. Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................
.............................17
E. Priority 11 Stream Restoration -
UT -1 a ......................................
.............................22
F. Priority 11 Stream Restoration -
UT-lb .......................................
.............................23
G. Priority 11 Stream Restoration -
UT- 2 ........................................
.............................25
H. Priority 11 Stream Restoration -
UT- 3 ........................................
.............................26
1. Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
- UT- 1b .....................................
.............................27
J. Stream Enhancement (Level 1)
- UT -2 ......................................
.............................27
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 2
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

K. Riparian Buffer Restoration ...................................................... .............................27
V. POST - CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN ................. .............................30
A. Success Criteria ....................................................................... .............................30
B. Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................. .............................31
C. Hydrologic Monitoring .............................................................. .............................32
VI. BANK OPERATION .......................................................... .............................32
A. Project Team ............................................................................. .............................32
B. Credit Totals ............................................................................. .............................32
C. Financial Assurances ............................................................... .............................34
D. Long -Term Management Plan .................................................. .............................34
VII. CONCLUSION ................................................................. .............................35
VIII. SOURCES OF INFORMATION ...................................... .............................37
FIGURES................................................................................. .............................38
APPENDIX A - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS .................................. .............................39
APPENDIX B - USACE STREAM DATA FORMS .................. .............................40
APPENDIX C - JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS .................... .............................41
APPENDIX D - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE - SUMMARY
LETTER................................................................................. ............................... 42
APPENDIX E - STREAM DESIGN /ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS ...............43
APPENDIX F - STREAM BUFFER MAP ................................ .............................44
BANK SPONSOR INFORMATION:
AFFP, LLC
34 Wall Street, Suite 502
Asheville, NC 28801
Fax: [phone]
Phone: [phone]
Email: ak47consult @gmail.com
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 3
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

I. INTRODUCTION
The Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank site (approximately 25 acres) consists primarily of channelized
first -order stream systems that have been historically altered as a result of silvicultural and livestock
management practices. The site is part of a 103 -acre parcel located just west of Mag Sluder Road,
approximately ten miles north of Asheville, North Carolina, in Buncombe County. The site consists of
moderately to steeply sloped terrain and is bisected by two main stream systems which flow southward into
Newfound Creek, a third order stream located in the French Broad River Basin (8 -digit Hydrologic Unit
06010105) (Subbasin 06010105090020). Based upon preliminary site investigations, up to 2,930 linear feet
(If) of stream restoration is proposed in addition to approximately 525 If of stream enhancement.
Approximately 25 acres (ac.) of riparian habitat has also been targeted for restoration. As a result, the
restoration effort will provide for increased in- stream habitat, floodwater storage, nutrient retention /sediment
reduction, and riparian habitat expansion for resident and migratory fauna.
A. Site Location
The Anderson Farm tract is located west of Mag Sluder Road (between Asheville and Leicester) in a rural
section of Buncombe County (Figure 1). Drainage within the site is directed south towards Newfound
Creek, which flows into the French Broad River further downstream (Figure 2). Additional site information
including 2010 aerial photography (Figure 3), LIDAR data (Figure 4), and the Buncombe County Soil
Survey map (Figure 5) are also provided.
B. Watershed Characterization
The bank site is located within the French Broad River watershed. The subbasin consists of managed
grazing tracts for livestock, low density residential development, and small areas of commercial
development along the major thoroughfares. Population growth within the subbasin is primarily focused in
the areas around Asheville, Woodfin, and Weaverville. Surface waters within the project area drain south to
Newfound Creek, a tributary of the French Broad River. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality
(NCDWQ) surface water body classification for Newfound Creek is designated as a Class "C water body.
Class "C waters are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish consumption, aquatic life
(including propagation), survival and maintenance of biological integrity, and agriculture. Secondary
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 4
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such
activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
Streams and waterbodies within the watershed are susceptible to impairment from nutrient loading and
high concentrations of fecal coliform bacteria derived from both anthropogenic sources and livestock
operations. According to the French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (NCDWQ, 2011),
contamination levels in the Newfound Creek watershed were sufficient to warrant the development of a
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) in 2005. The TMDL requirement forced the state to prioritize water
quality improvement measures within the basin. Despite the TMDL designation and various grant- funded
projects implemented to improve conditions, this reach remains on the list of 303(4) list of impaired waters
(NCDWQ, 2010a). Concerns regarding continued development pressure within the watershed have also
resulted in the designation of the subbasin as a Targeted Local Watershed by the North Carolina
Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
C. Future Site Development
The proposed project will occupy approximately 25 acres within the 103 -acre parcel. Following
construction of the project, the remaining acreage will be converted into a modern demonstration farm that
will serve as an agriculturally- focused educational center. Proposed activities will likely include specialty
crop production and processing, in addition to livestock and silvicultural management.
II. MITIGATION GOALS
A. Project Purpose
The goal of the proposed bank is to provide high - quality compensatory mitigation for permitted impacts
within the French Broad River Basin via the restoration, enhancement, and preservation of streams and
wetlands. The proposed activities will restore both the hydrologic and vegetative components of two
separate stream systems within the headwaters of an unnamed tributary of Newfound Creek. The following
categories of functions have been targeted for restoration or enhancement within the Anderson Farm
Stream Mitigation Bank:
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 5
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

BIOGEOCHEMICAL CYCLING — The restored stream and buffer systems will capture drainage from the
surrounding watershed, dissipating energy in the downstream environment. As a result, an increase in
retention times will occur, allowing for a suite of biotic and abiotic processes to convert nitrogen and other
nutrients into different forms that may be readily consumed by the surrounding plant community. Increased
retention times also allow for sediment to settle out of solution, reducing downstream pollution. Flow within
the system will also provide a valuable conduit for organic matter which will support downstream food
webs. Cessation of agricultural production and cattle grazing within the headwaters will also reduce the
nutrient and sediment delivery to downstream waters.
HYDROLOGIC /HYDRAULIC —The removal of existing cattle watering infrastructure and impoundments will
provide for the re- establishment of characteristic headwater stream hydrology and contribute to natural
flows throughout both reaches. Re- establishment of riparian vegetation will also reduce runoff velocities
and erosion within the surrounding areas.
PLANT AND ANIMAL HABITAT- Plantings associated with the various habitats will restore the native
hardwood assemblages that existed prior to silvicultural and agricultural management. When coupled with
the variation in topography, these areas provide valuable heterogeneity which supports a more diverse food
web within the ecosystem. This diversity provides a variety of food sources and refuge habitat for local and
migratory species. The development of microhabitats and organic matter inputs to the soil surface will also
lead to increases in plant diversity in these areas.
AQUATIC HABITAT — The removal of existing drainage impoundments and cattle watering infrastructure
from the streams will restore natural flow regimes to both reaches within the project area. Priority II
construction techniques will also create numerous niche habitats through the installation of woody debris,
natural pools, etc. Both methods of restoration will allow for macro - invertebrate and amphibian
communities to repopulate these previously inaccessible areas.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 6
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

The following restoration plan provides information related to project goals and objectives, existing site
conditions, proposed mitigation activities, site - success criteria, financial assurances, property dispensation,
and annual monitoring.
B. Geographic Service Area (GSA)
The proposed project will serve as a general use stream mitigation bank serving the French Broad River
Basin (8 -digit Hydrologic Unit 06010105) which covers approximately 155 square miles within western
North Carolina (Figure 6). The purpose of the bank is to compensate for stream losses authorized by
applicable federal and state regulatory programs via the restoration and enhancement of 3,455 If of
perennial stream.
III. SITE CONDITIONS
A. Community Types
A majority of the Anderson Farm tract has been clear -cut for timber and pasture preparation within the last
50 years. Only isolated areas of mature tree canopy were observed during the site investigations. Stands
of white pine located within the southern section of the tract were cut within the past two years, and a small
number of saplings were observed in the disturbed area (Appendix A). As a result of these disturbances,
no definitive natural community classification can be assigned to the site. Planting plans for this project
have been designed to restore the appropriate community types for this area, low mountain alluvial forest
and mountain bottomland forest.
B. Vegetation
The predominant land uses of the Anderson Farm tract are silvicultural production and livestock
management. Dominant vegetation within the riparian corridor includes species such as black cherry
(Prunus serotina), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). These
individuals are typically located within a 10 -15 -ft wide corridor adjacent to the eroded streambank and form
a sporadic canopy along the upper sections of the reach. Nuisance and /or invasive species were observed
throughout the vine and herbaceous layers within the riparian area and include kudzu (Pueraria lobata),
multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Chinese privet (Ligust►um sinense).
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 7
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

C. Soil Characteristics
The Anderson Farm tract (located within the headwaters of Newfound Creek) exhibits steeply to moderately
sloping topography. The site and surrounding area are primarily comprised of Tate loam and Clifton clay
loam soil units. These soils are well drained and found on slopes ranging from 2 to 15 percent and
characterized by a high clay content to a depth of 80 inches.
D. Hydrology /Hydraulic Characteristics
For the purposes of the restoration plan development, the streams have been divided into additional
sections to facilitate the design. UT -1 (unnamed tributary) is defined as the upstream section of the
western tributary. UT -2 is defined as the upstream section of the eastern tributary. UT -3 is defined as the
section below the confluence of UT -1 and UT -2 which flows into Newfound Creek. The subbasins of UT -1
and UT -2, whose watershed, spring heads, associated wetlands, and riparian buffers will make up the
proposed mitigation bank, have a combined watershed area of 96 ac. which is completely contained within
the subject parcel. Both tributaries emerge from springheads at an elevation of approximately 2,010 feet,
based on the United States Geologic Survey Topographic Map and four -foot interval LIDAR data sourced
from the North Carolina Department of Transportation. The stream channel slopes in both tributaries above
the confluence are approximately six percent. The slope becomes less pronounced downstream of the
confluence and is estimated to be two percent. Both tributaries exist in well defined drainages that steepen
significantly up- valley. The elevation of UT -1 as it leaves the property boundary is approximately 1,950
feet.
A majority of the tract is located within a headwater area that has been historically managed for timber
production and livestock management. As a result, a majority of the riparian buffer vegetation has been
removed for many years, and cattle grazing has been largely unrestricted. These activities can be
correlated to accelerated runoff /drainage velocities and increased peak flows within the two subbasins. As
these velocities overwhelmed the in- stream structures, stream channels, and riparian vegetation, the
system became de- stabilized, leading to extensive down - cutting and lateral cutting within the floodplain of
UT -1. This down - cutting continues to lower the invert elevation of the channel to a depth of six to seven
feet below the natural floodplain.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 8
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

The headwaters of UT -2 have a narrow, sparsely vegetated riparian buffer system that has protected this
section of the reach and remains relatively stable. Several sediment plums and animal feces within the
stream system indicate that the existing buffer is insufficient to filter runoff from the adjacent pasture land.
In addition, flow interception for both human and livestock consumption has resulted in extensive
sedimentation along the downstream section. As a result, the natural channel has infilled, reducing cross -
sectional area and forcing subterranean flow in several sections. This infill has buried a majority of the
natural in- stream structures, shifting the habitat to a Ientic environment that is unsuitable for macro -
invertebrate communities. Additional habitat degradation has also occurred near the confluence of UT -1
and UT -2 due to the installation of livestock feeding and watering infrastructure.
Degraded stream habitat was also observed south of the confluence. This section is characterized by
seven -to eight -foot vertical stream banks and minimal occurrence of in- stream habitat. These conditions
are likely a result of land disturbance upstream and have been exacerbated by recent logging activities
along the western section of the property.
Appendix B documents existing conditions throughout each of the main reaches targeted for restoration.
E. Stream Classification
Following the submittal of the prospectus, additional investigations were conducted at several points along
UT -1 and UT -2. Data from these visits resulted in the removal of the upstream portion of UT -2 from the
proposed bank boundary, as it was classified as an intermittent channel. All remaining areas within the
project were considered perennial streams by Headwaters Restoration, LLC and Altamont Environmental,
Inc. staff. This field determination was confirmed on January 30th, 2012 by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers ( USACE) staff. See Appendix B for updated stream data forms.
F. Jurisdictional Determination
The existing wetland located on the eastern side of UT -1 has been delineated and approved by USACE
staff. This wetland occupies a small section of natural floodplain that has been incorporated into the design
of the restored stream. Several small wetlands were also delineated along the upstream portion of UT -2.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 9
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Stream enhancement activities are proposed for this area and will be limited to exotic /invasive removal.
See Appendix C for additional information on the existing jurisdictional wetlands within the proposed bank
site.
G. Cultural Resources
Blue Ridge Archeological Consultants conducted a review of the mitigation bank property in March 2012.
This review included extensive on -site investigations and available historic records. These investigations
revealed remnants of an early 20th century farmhouse and outbuilding near the confluence of UT -1 and
UT -2. This site was assigned a permanent site number (31 BN974), but was judged to be ineligible for any
long -term protective designation. The State Historic Preservation Office concurred with these findings and
has not requested any additional investigations to be conducted at the site. A copy of this correspondence
and a report summary are provided in Appendix D.
IV. STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
A. Introduction
Due to hydrologic, morphologic, and geographic differences in the streams within the project area, the
streams have been divided into four reaches: UT -1 a, UT-1b, UT -2, and UT -3. The existing and proposed
channel conditions for this project are represented in figures, plan and profile sheets, cross - sections, and
details and specifications included with this report. The project area contains the headwaters and the entire
watersheds for the streams and riparian zones that will be restored by this project and exist within the
property area and project area boundary. UT -1 a and UT -1 b are approximately 229 linear feet and 1,217
linear feet in length, respectively. UT -2 is approximately 1,033 linear feet in length. UT -1 and UT -2
converge to form UT -3, which contains 976 linear feet of channel. UT -3 ultimately flows into Newfound
Creek, approximately 900 linear feet downstream from the project and property boundary. Newfound
Creek flows approximately 6,000 linear feet before joining the French Broad River.
Both streams within the Anderson Farm site have become impaired as a result of agricultural management
and cattle grazing practices that have been implemented since the 1950s. These practices have
accelerated runoff velocities and increased sheer stress throughout UT -1, causing bank erosion and
channelization. This channelization has also separated the stream from its natural floodplain which
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 10
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

reduces nutrient delivery to the riparian system. Clear- cutting and installation of cattle watering
infrastructure within the UT -2 watershed has reduced the system's ability to transport sediment
downstream, resulting in excessive siltation in sections. This siltation has buried natural channel features,
eliminating niche habitat for macro - invertebrates.
Proposed activities will employ both Priority II stream restoration and Enhancement Level I techniques
throughout each of the tributaries. Functional uplift within the system will be achieved through bank
stabilization efforts along a majority of the two reaches. These stabilization measures will include the
construction of a vegetated floodplain bench that will reduce sheer - stress - driven bank erosion by allowing
overbank flooding to dissipate flow velocities within the channel. Riparian vegetation will also provide a
source of valuable organic material which will support the re- establishment of a characteristic macro -
invertebrate community. Shade provided by the vegetative cover will also lower ambient water
temperatures during summer months and improve dissolved oxygen levels in the streams. Figure 7
provides information regarding the areas targeted for restoration and /or enhancement. Appendix E
includes information pertaining to the specific design elements, feature locations, and engineering
calculations for the restoration and enhancement sections. Table 1 provides a summary of the proposed
activity and length of section that is targeted for restoration or enhancement.
Table 1. Projected Restoration Totals by Stream Reach (linear feet)
Reach Name Restoration (Priority II) Enhancement (Level 1)
UT -1 1,296 150
UT -2 658 375
UT -3 976 0
TOTAL (If) 2
525
Additional benefits will be realized through the establishment of a contiguous forested buffer adjacent to the
entire length of the mitigation project. This buffer will extend 151 feet on both sides of the reach and will be
comprised of a mixture of native hardwood species. Once established, the forest will sequester nutrient
and sediment pollution, provide diffuse flow during peak rain events, and serve as refuge habitat for
migratory and resident fauna.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Cattle grazing within the site will be limited to areas outside of the 151 -ft buffer using standard exclusionary
fencing. Watering facilities will be re- established outside of the buffer and will be fed using groundwater
well(s) and /or rainwater harvesting techniques. Repositioning of the wells outside of the stream channels
and riparian zones will eliminate the existing impoundments and restore the natural flow regimes within the
headwaters of each reach. Livestock crossings will also be moved to downstream areas that are less
susceptible to bank erosion, and direct access to the creek will be prohibited. As a result, nutrient and fecal
coliform bacteria delivery to each reach will be substantially reduced.
B. Hydrologic Modeling
The USACE Hydrologic Engineering Centers River Analysis System (HEC -RAS) was used to model current
and design conditions of the stream. HEC -RAS is a one - dimensional modeling tool used to describe
steady flow conditions throughout the defined reach. Representative cross - sections located throughout
reaches UT -1 a, UT -1 b, UT -2, and UT -3 were entered into HEC -RAS. Manning's equation (Equation 1) was
applied to each reach individually to obtain four distinct potential bankfull discharges.
Existing cross - sections and design cross - sections were entered into HEC -RAS, and the same bankfull
flows (calculated from Equation 1) were modeled in both existing and design analyses to determine bankfull
velocity, shear stress, and bankfull depth. Bankfull depth was calculated as the difference between the
water surface elevation and the channel bed elevation. The values described below are the average
parameters mentioned previously for each reach and are outlined and bolded in Table 1 of Appendix E.
UT-1a
Based on the model output from HEC -RAS, reach UT -1a has an existing bankfull cross - sectional area of
2.82 square feet and a bankfull velocity of 4.33 feet/second. For the design condition the bankfull cross -
sectional area increases to 4.54 square feet, and the velocity decreases to 3.31 feet/second. Existing
condition channel shear stress is 0.82 pound /square feet, and under design conditions the average shear
stress decreased significantly to of 0.46 pound /square foot. Modeled existing bankfull depth is 1.11 feet,
and the bankfull depth with design conditions decreased to 0.75 feet. HEC -RAS is a conservative model
that is known to consistently over - predict water surface elevation and flow. HEC -RAS was initially
developed by the USACE as a flood mapping and modeling tool; and therefore, in that application it is
advantageous to err on the conservative side and predict conservatively high water surface elevations/
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 12
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

flows. While the design average bankfull depth predicted by HEC -RAS is higher than the selected design
bankfull depth of 0.43 feet determined by comparing existing bankfull features, NC Regional Curves
(Harmen et al., 2000), and reference reach data and regional curves obtained from Zink et al., 2012, the
actual water surface elevation at this discharge rate is likely lower than predicted, and the bankfull depth is
likely closer to the design depth in reality. When designing stable channel morphology, it is advantageous
to be conservatively low with respect to the elevation of the bankfull bench. Lowering the bankfull depth
increases the ability for smaller flows to frequently overtop the banks, interact with a primary floodplain,
deposit sediment, and self- adjust depth. Therefore, the HEC -RAS modeled bankfull depth for the design
condition tends to agree with the morphologically stable design bankfull depth of 0.43 feet.
UT -1 b
Based on the model output from HEC -RAS, reach UT -1b has an existing bankfull cross - sectional area of
2.23 square feet and a bankfull velocity of 3.63 feet/second. Under design conditions the bankfull cross -
sectional area increases to 2.42 square feet, and the velocity decreased to 3.27 feet/second. Modeled
existing channel shear stress is 0.47 pound /square foot, and under design conditions it was virtually the
same at 0.51 pound /square foot. Modeled existing bankfull depth is 0.71 feet, and the design bankfull
depth modeled under design conditions decreases to 0.53 feet. The average bankfull depth closely
matches the design bankfull depth of 0.57 feet which indicates the design will allow for frequent flooding of
the bankfull bench and support a stable channel dimension.
UT -2
Based on the model output of HEC -RAS, reach UT -2 has an existing bankfull cross - sectional area of 2.93
square feet and a bankfull velocity of 3.33 feet/second. Under design conditions the bankfull cross -
sectional area increases to 3.31 square feet and the velocity increases to 3.36 feet/second. Existing
channel shear stress was 0.57 pound /square foot, and under design conditions it decreases to 0.51 pound/
square foot. Modeled existing bankfull depth is 0.77 feet, and the bankfull depth modeled under design
conditions decreases to 0.59 feet. The average bankfull depth closely matches the design bankfull depth of
0.50 feet which indicates the design will allow frequent flooding of the bankfull bench and stable channel
dimensions.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 13
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

UT -3
Based on the model output of HEC -RAS, reach UT -3 has an existing bankfull cross - sectional area of 2.47
square feet and bankfull velocity 3.40 feet/second. Under design conditions the bankfull cross - sectional
area increases to 2.58 square feet, and the velocity remains almost constant at 3.41 feet/second. Existing
channel shear stress was predicted to be 0.50 pound /square foot, and under design conditions the average
shear stress was predicted to increase slightly to 0.53 pound /square foot. HEC -RAS modeled existing
bankfull depth as 0.98 feet, and the bankfull depth modeled under design conditions decreases to 0.63 feet.
The average bankfull depth closely matches the design bankfull depth of 0.71 feet which indicates the
design will allow frequent flooding of the bankfull bench and stable channel dimensions.
Modeling of existing and design conditions for the streams in the project area provides confidence in the
design channel morphologies. Modeling also demonstrates that shear stress levels produced by the
predicted bankfull discharges do not exceed the allowable shear stresses for channel stabilization
materials, such as coir fabric, and proposed in- stream structures, such as wood cross -vanes and geolifts
with woody toes.
C. Bankfull Verification
Bankfull stage or discharge can be defined as a peak flow occurring approximately every one to two years
whose stage represents the incipient point of flooding of a stream. This flow is expressed as the
momentary maximum of instantaneous peak flow rather than the mean daily discharge and is considered to
be the channel forming discharge. Bankfull discharge is an important stream restoration design parameter
that dictates stable channel morphology necessary to convey the bankfull discharge without aggrading or
degrading the channel over time. A combination of analytical, empirical, and analog methods were used for
the determination of the design bankfull discharge and channel dimensions used throughout this project.
Several consistent bankfull features were observed and measured along the project reaches of the
Anderson Farm site that indicated the approximate depth of the bankfull stage for each reach within the
project area. These features were predominantly low depositional benches found at consistent elevations
above the channel thalweg. Other features included high scour lines located at similar elevations to other
bankfull depositional features including high depositional surfaces on active point bars. The channel
dimensions resulting from a survey at the location of the bankfull indicators were compared to data
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 14
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

collected from the Joyce Kilmer National Forest (Zink et al., 2012) and the North Carolina Mountain Rural
Regional Curve ( NCMRC) (Harman et al., 1999) to assist with development of the targeted design channel
dimensions. No gauge data is available for the streams in this project area; therefore, gauge data was not
used to help estimate bankfull flows, bankfull depths, or target channel dimensions.
All of the tributaries within the project area have a drainage area of less than one square mile. The data set
used to develop the NCMRC does not include any data points for drainage areas this small. Therefore,
high confidence was not placed on data extrapolated from the NCMRC when compared to field- identified
bankfull indicators.
The study mentioned above, conducted in the Joyce Kilmer National Forest (Zink et al., 2012) was utilized
by the project team to aid in establishing reference conditions for the Anderson Farm project. The study
includes streams with drainage areas similar in size to the tributaries within the Anderson Farm project
area. Therefore, bankfull depths measured in tributaries at the Anderson Farm site were compared to
depths predicted on a regional curve produced from the Joyce Kilmer study. Design bankfull depth was
then tested and verified through the analysis of Manning's Equation (Equation 1), the Rational Method
utilizing USGS data recurrence intervals (Equation 2), and the NCMRC (Equation 3, Harmen et al., 2000).
Field identified bankfull features and their associated geometric dimensions (Appendix E, Table 2) helped to
determine the parameter values used in Equation 1.
Bankfull Discharge by Manning's Equation (Equation 1)
Q = (1.49 *A *R ^(2 /3) S ^(1/2)) / n
Q = Discharge (cubic feet per second)
A = Cross - sectional area at a rifle (square feet)
R = Hydraulic radius of riffle cross section (feet)
S = Average water surface slope (foot/foot)
n = Manning's roughness coefficient (dimensionless value)
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 15
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Bankfull Discharge by Rational Method and USGS Recurrence Intervals (Equation 2)
Q = C *I *A
Q = Discharge (cubic feet per second)
C = Dimensionless runoff coefficient
I = Rainfall intensity (inch /hour) from USGS 1 -2 year storms
A = Drainage area (acres)
Bankfull Discharge by NCMRC (Equation 3)
Q = 100.64 *DA ^0.76
Q = Discharge (cubic feet per second)
DA= Drainage area (square miles)
The results of applying data collected for this project to Equations 1 through 3 are found in Table 3 of
Appendix E. The Rational Method (Equation 2) resulted in the highest bankfull discharge values. The
bankfull flows from the NCMRC (Equation 3) and Manning's Equation (Equation 1) were comparable.
Bankfull discharge as calculated by Manning's Equation was higher than the NCMRC for UT -1 a and UT -1 b,
and lower than the NCMRC predictions for reaches UT -2 and UT -3. If the Rational Method bankfull
discharges were used for the design, it is likely that the bankfull discharge flow would overestimate the
discharge within the reaches. With a higher bankfull discharge, the subsequent channel design dimensions
required to convey the larger discharge flow would likely be oversized, which would translate to less
frequent flooding on the floodplain and higher shear stresses on streambanks before flooding onto the
bankfull bench occurred. Over time this could lead to channel instability. Consequently, Manning's
Equation bankfull discharge, which closely matches the NCMRC, was used for the project channel design.
The bankfull discharge values for reaches UT -1 a, UT -1 b, UT -2, and UT -3 as determined by using Equation
1 are 11.92, 7.79, 9.26, and 8.23 cubic foot per second (cfs), respectively.
Bankfull depth was verified through analysis of existing bankfull features, NCMRC (Harmen et al., 1999),
and reference reach and regional curve data obtained from Zink et al., 2012. Riffles with bankfull features
were identified throughout the project reaches and were surveyed to determine existing bankfull depth,
width, and area. The bankfull dimensions resulting from the use of each methodology and the design
dimensions are found in Table 4 of Appendix E. The existing bankfull depth is slightly larger than the
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 16
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

NCMRC and values from Zink et al., 2012. The existing bankfull width is slightly less than the NCMRC,
and values from Zink et al., 2012, which indicates that the existing channel may be incised. Additionally,
the existing bankfull area is slightly smaller than the NCMRC and values from Zink et al., 2012. The design
bankfull depth and width were calculated utilizing all three methods: as an average of existing bankfull
dimensions, the NCMRC, and the regional curves from Zink et al., 2012. Design bankfull depth and width
were then used to calculate bankfull area, which was calculated as a trapezoid with stable channel side
slopes.
D. Sediment Transport Analysis
Sediment transport analysis is a key component of stream design and restoration. The designed stream
should transport the expected sediment load without aggrading or degrading. Aggrading channels will
deposit sediment along the channel and decrease cross - sectional area. Conversely, degrading channels
will scour the channel bed, destabilize the channel, and transport excess sediment downstream. Currently,
the streams within the project reach are not considered stable, and erosion of the banks and sediment
derived from other erosion in the watershed is contributing to the sediment load in the streams. Sediment
load from eroding banks and the project area, which includes 151 -ft wide riparian buffers on either side of
the stream, will be reduced once the design channel and overall project is constructed, and the
streambanks and wide riparian corridor are stabilized and vegetated. Stabilization of the streambanks and
watershed should return sediment loads within and immediately downstream of the project to more natural
proportions and support a state of equilibrium. Adequate sediment supply should remain available, which is
important because sediment free water (hungry water) has greater stream power and energy, and a lack of
sediment supply could result in the ability of channel flows to scour and erode the channel bottom. A
channel is considered stable when the stream flows transport sediment loads that do not produce long -term
aggradation or degradation of the stream channel.
Channel shear stress is a function of hydraulic radius and channel slope. Critical shear stress (Equation 4)
is the force required to mobilize a specific diameter particle within the channel, i.e. a larger critical shear
stress will move larger particles. For the purpose of this analysis the critical shear stress is assumed equal
to the bankfull channel shear stress measured in the thalweg, and the largest particle mobilized was
determined by comparing the critical shear stress value to the particle size diameter mobilized using
Shields relationships (NRCS, 2007). A comparison of existing and designed critical shear stress values to
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 17
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

the size of substrate material identified in Wolman pebble counts, conducted as part of the assessment for
the project, was used in this analysis to determine channel stability. Critical sheer stress was also
compared to allowable shear stresses for materials that will be used to temporarily stabilize soils on the
stream channel banks and stabilize the stream channel itself, e.g. coir fabric. The following equation was
used to predict critical shear stress:
Critical Shear Stress (Equation 4)
T= Y *R *S
T = Bankfull critical shear stress (pound /square foot)
Y = Specific weight of water = 62.4 pound /cubic foot
R = Hydraulic radius (feet)
S = Average water surface slope (foot/foot)
Table 4 lists the calculated shear stress values (Equation 4) as well as the range of values predicted by
HEC -RAS for each reach. The HEC -RAS analysis calculated the channel shear stress in the thalweg,
which is the maximum channel shear stress, based on the Manning's bankfull discharge. Additionally, the
largest particle mobilized in millimeters (mm) at the given shear stress value for each reach is listed in
Table 6. The existing substrate material was determined from a Wolman pebble count. Currently, the D50
of UT-1a and UT-1b is 0.15 mm, the D50 of UT -2 is 0.36, and the D50 of UT -3 is 0.50 mm. While the D50
generally describes a channel's average substrate, this stream has been heavily impacted by
sedimentation derived from upland areas. The silty /sandy -sized substrate is not likely indicative of the
more natural channel substrate that will evolve post- construction when sediment loads to the stream have
been reduced, and channel flow has had a chance to transport fines out of the system. For this reason, the
D84 particle size was used in this sediment transport analysis. Currently, the D84 of UT -1 a and UT -1 b is 1.0
mm, the D84 of UT -2 is 1.2 mm, and the D84 of UT -3 is 20 mm. The critical shear stress that mobilizes the
D84 size particles in UT -1a and UT -1b is 0.015 pound /square foot. In UT -2 and UT -3 the critical shear
stress that mobilizes the D84 size particles is 0.02 pound /square foot and 0.30 pound /square foot,
respectively.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 18
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

UT-1a
Equation 4 predicts that bankfull flows within the existing UT -1 a reach have the ability to mobilize 200 mm
particles, and according to the HEC -RAS bankfull model output, UT -1a is able to mobilize 47 -75 mm
particles. Following Equation 4, the design condition for UT -1 a has the ability to mobilize 170 mm particles,
and according to the HEC -RAS model output for the design condition, UT -1 a is able to mobilize 47 -76 mm
particles. Due to site topography, and the desire not to start this restoration project from an ecological
"clean slate ", an entirely new channel alignment was not proposed (Priority I Restoration). Restoration of
the project reach will consist of Priority 11 restoration and Enhancement, and the design generally
incorporates the existing channel pattern down slope through the valley. Consequently, the overall channel
slopes throughout the reaches will change very little; and therefore, shear stress is not expected to
decrease dramatically.
While the alignment or pattern of UT -1 a will not be altered, the existing headcut will be graded to a more
stable slope (See Plan and Profile Sheet P1) and will be further stabilized through the installation of cross
vane -like drop structures made of wood recycled during grading streambanks to stable slopes (See Detail
Sheet D1). The headcut, which is the steepest section of UT -1 a, currently has a slope of 0.23 ft/ft. The
designed reach will reduce the slope of the headcut to a more stable slope of 0.10 ft/ft. Despite the
reduction of slope in the headcut area, the average channel slope of this reach will remain relatively
unchanged at 0.11 ft/ft. Equation 4 predicts that the existing UT-1a reach has the ability to mobilize 200
mm particles, and according to HEC -RAS UT-1a is able to mobilize 48 -75 mm particles. Following to
Equation 2, the design condition for the UT-1b reach has the ability to mobilize 85 mm particles, and
according to HEC -RAS UT -1 b is able to mobilize 0.32 -0.60 mm particles. The designed reach is predicted
to decrease the channel shear stress slightly; however the predicted shear stress is greater than the critical
shear stress necessary to mobilize the existing D84 substrate with a diameter of 1.0 mm. This may indicate
the channel is at risk of degradation; however, the design morphology is considered stable based on
reference data gathered from the study conducted in Joyce Kilmer Forest and agrees with the regional
curves produced therein (Zink et al., 2012) and with Rosgen methodology. Once the streambanks are
graded to a stable slope, in- stream grade control structures are installed, and the rifle -pool sequencing is
constructed, it is projected that the reach will quickly reach a stable state of equilibrium.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 19
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

UT -1 b
Equation 4 predicts that the existing UT -1 b reach has the ability to mobilize 80 mm particles, and according
to HEC -RAS, UT-1b is able to mobilize 20 -41 mm particles. Following Equation 2, the design condition for
the UT -1 b reach has the ability to mobilize 85 mm particles, and according to HEC -RAS, UT -1 b is able to
mobilize 21 -47 mm particles. Following the same methodology as discussed for UT -1 a, the alignment of
UT-lb will not be altered significantly. Consequently, while the shear stress decreased only slightly
between UT -1 a and UT -1 b, the design channel shear stress is predicted to exceed the critical shear stress
necessary to mobilize the D84 1.0 mm particles in UT -1 b. This may indicate that the channel is at risk of
degradation; however the design morphology is considered stable and agrees with the NCMRC, Zink et al.,
2012 regional curves, and Rosgen methodology. Once the streambanks are graded to a stable slope, in-
stream structures are installed, and riffle -pool sequencing is constructed throughout the reach, it is
proposed that the reach will quickly reach a stable state of equilibrium and not degrade.
UT -2
Equation 4 predicts that the existing UT -2 reach has the ability to mobilize 85 mm particles, and according
to HEC -RAS, UT -2 is able to mobilize 20 -75 mm particles. Following Equation 2, the design UT -2 reach
has the ability to mobilize 90 mm particles, and according to HEC -RAS, UT -2 is able to mobilize 28 mm
particles. Following the same methodology as discussed for UT -1 a, the alignment of UT -2 was not altered
significantly. Consequently, while the shear stress decreased slightly, it did not decrease dramatically. The
design channel shear stress is still above the critical shear stress necessary to mobilize the 1.2 mm
particles in UT -2. This may indicate the channel is at risk for degradation; however, the new design
morphology is considered stable and agrees with the NCMRC, Zink et al. 2012 regional curves, and
Rosgen methodology. Existing conditions indicate the stream is highly unstable and excessive
sedimentation has buried the stream. Following construction of the design stream, the stream will be
restored and reconnected to a floodplain by grading the stream morphology to a stable condition.
Consequently, it is likely that the stream will quickly reach a stable state of equilibrium.
UT -3
Equation 4 predicts that the existing UT -3 reach has the ability to mobilize 30 mm particles, and according
to HEC -RAS, UT -3 is able to mobilize 20 -46 mm particles. Following to Equation 2, the design UT -3 reach
has the ability to mobilize 39 mm particles, and according to HEC -RAS, UT -3 is able to mobilize 25 -49 mm
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 20
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

particles. Following the same methodology as discussed for UT -1 a, the alignment of UT -3 will not be
altered significantly. Consequently, while the shear stress decreased slightly, it did not decrease
dramatically. The design channel shear stress is still above the critical shear stress necessary to mobilize
the 30 mm particles in UT -3. This may indicate the channel is at risk for degradation; however, the design
morphology is considered stable and agrees with the NCMRC, Zink et al. 2012 regional curves, and
Rosgen methodology. Once the banks are graded to a stable slope, in- stream structures are installed, and
the riffle -pool sequencing is constructed throughout the reach, it is likely that the stream will quickly reach a
stable state of equilibrium.
The channel slope, which largely dictates channel shear stress, was not heavily adjusted in this design.
Consequently, the design channel shear stress did not significantly decrease from existing conditions.
However, the design of the stream in this project area is based on experience gathered from designing and
building numerous stream restoration projects, Rosgen methodology, and regional curve guidance (Zink et
al. 2012) to produce a stable stream for each reach. It is likely that the D84 value for each reach obtained
by conducting the Wolman pebble counts in the project reaches may be grossly underestimating the D50 for
these streams in their natural condition. If this is the case, it is likely that the shear stresses created by the
designed conditions for this project would not be able to mobilize a true D50 size particle for these streams if
they were in a more natural condition. f these streams were designed to produce channel shear stress
values below the critical shear stress value necessary to avoid mobilizing channel substrate the UT -1a,
UT -1 b, UT -2, and UT -3 stream lengths would need to be increased dramatically. Changing the alignment of
the streams by this magnitude was not feasible due to local valley topography. The design dimensions
should adequately convey sediment loads through these reaches trending the streams toward a stable
state of equilibrium and resulting in a more diverse channel bed and coarser channel substrate.
The design condition calculated bankfull shear stress values based on Equation 4, for UT-1b, UT -2, and
UT -3 (0.56 -1.18 pound/ square ft, Table 4) are below the allowable shear stress value for coir matting (2.25
pound /square ft; Fischenich, 2001). UT -1a has a higher predicted shear stress value of 2.26 pound /square
foot, due to the steep slope (0.11 ft/ft) which is slightly greater than the allowable shear stress for coir
matting. However, HEC -RAS predicts the design conditions of UT -1 a to exert a smaller shear stress of
0.32 -0.60 pound /square foot, which is below the allowable shear stress value for coir matting. Coir matting
will be used throughout the construction of this project and will remain on the banks as vegetation is
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 21
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

established. Vegetated coir fabric has a higher allowable shear stress of 4 -8 pound /square ft; NCDENR,
2009). Therefore, during construction when vegetation is not fully established the coir matting will have a
small window of time when it may not withstand the channel shear stress produced by a bankfull flow.
Once the channels are vegetated the predicted shear stress will be well below the allowable shear stress
for fully vegetated coir matting (4 -8 pound /square foot; NCDENR, 2009), and the design stream should
withstand bankfull flows without eroding.
A full suspended sediment bedload analysis was beyond the scope of this assessment; however, if
conducted, could provide additional useful information in determining overall channel stability.
E. Priority II Stream Restoration - UT -1 a
The western upstream limit of the project reach begins at the headwaters of UT -1 a at station 10+00, where
stream flow is being depleted by its diversion to livestock watering infrastructure. UT -1 a is classified by the
Rosgen method as ranging from an "A6a +" stream type, which is defined as a steep and entrenched
stream to an "F5b" stream which is classified as a moderately steep, entrenched stream, with a moderate
to high width / depth ratio.
UT -1 a has the steepest channel slope (0.11 ft/ft), and largest headcut existing within the project area (see
Appendix E, Plan and Profile Sheet P1, Table 5). The existing headcut is likely to deepen and migrate
upslope if action is not taken to stabilize the banks and the profile of reach UT -1 a. Additionally, exotic
invasive plant species dominate the vegetation within this reach, and provide little habitat diversity or
stability to eroding soils, particularly during leaf off periods of the year. The BEHI rating for UT -1 a was high
due to extremely high bank height ratios which indicate stream incision and streambank instability
(Appendix E, Table 6). There is little to no flow in the UT -1a channel above a significant headcut located at
station 11+60. Additionally, a historic livestock crossing is located just upstream of the headcut at station
11 +50. The existing crossing will be removed, redesigned, and relocated to a more stable location further
downstream on reach UT -1 b. The existing crossing is a major source of nutrient, bacteria, sediment, and
unmitigated stormwater input to the stream. The new multi -use crossing will be constructed as a wooden
bridge and will be designed to Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) standards and
specifications.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 22
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

The headcut discussed above will be stabilized through the removal of the crossing and by reducing the
slope of the channel profile through grading and installation of wooden drop structures throughout the
reach. The channel slope in the area of the headcut will be reduced from 0.32 ft/ft to 0.11 ft/ft, and the fall
over individual structures will not exceed 0.5 foot (Detail Sheet D1, Detail V -Notch Log Vane). Priority II
type restoration in conjunction with installation of the aforementioned drop structures, is proposed
throughout the UT -1 a reach from station 10+00 to 12 +29. Adjustment to the pattern of the stream channel
in UT -1 a is not proposed because of the steep channel slope and valley side slopes. Reach UT -1 a will be
restored to a stable `A' stream type based on reference data collected for the project. The dimension and
profile will be stabilized through the installation of drop structures and Priority II type restoration that will
involve establishing a bankfull bench at a designed depth and the creation of stable streambank slopes.
Implementation of this plan will increase stream connectivity with the floodplain and flood prone areas.
Throughout UT-1a, streambanks on either side of the channel are very steep and unstable and will be
graded to a more stable slope not to exceed 2 Horizontal (H):1 Vertical (V) (Cross Section Sheet X1). Non-
native invasive plant species will be removed from the project area where large communities exist that have
entirely out competed native vegetation (e.g. kudzu, privet, and multiflora rose thickets), and by hand in
areas where exotic invasive plants are less dense using hand "cut and spray" techniques. Topsoil in the
areas where grading will occur will be removed and stockpiled in a nearby location and stabilized. Upon
completion of rough grading stockpiled topsoil will be spread over graded and disturbed areas,
streambanks, and the stream buffer to re- incorporate nutrient rich topsoil back into the project and to
achieve final grade. The entire conservation easement area (including streambanks) will be re- vegetated
using a riparian seed mix, bare root plants, and container plants. Additional information regarding plant
species and densities is provided in Section K. Areas below 1.5 times bankfull elevation will be mulched
with straw and stabilized through the installation of 600 gram /square meter coir fabric as shown on Detail
Sheet D3. Disturbed areas above 1.5 times bankfull elevation with slopes greater than 3H:1V will be
stabilized with coconut fiber jute matting. Disturbed areas within the conservation easement area with
slopes that are less than 3H:1V will be seeded and planted with native vegetation and mulched with straw.
F. Priority II Stream Restoration - UT -1b
There is a significant morphologic change in the stream channel at the UT -1 a /UT -1 b boundary. UT -1 b is
classified as ranging from a Rosgen "135a" stream type, with the exception of a lower sinuosity than that of
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 23
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers, to a "G5" type stream type. Type "B" and "G" streams are
defined as moderately steep and slightly entrenched, however "G" streams have a lower width /depth ratio.
UT -1 b has a gentler channel slope (0.035 ft/ft), is also incised (based on the measured width /depth ratios),
exhibits failing banks, and is experiencing erosion signifying a condition that is not in equilibrium and
unstable. Similar to UT -1 a, this reach is dominated by exotic invasive vegetation that offers little protection
to actively eroding banks. Fine sediments that make up the majority of the channel substrate found within
the channel bed indicate active erosion throughout and upstream of this reach. The BEHI ratings for UT -1 b
range from moderately to highly unstable due to high bank height ratios, which indicate stream incision and
eroding streambanks (Appendix E, Table 6).
Priority II restoration is proposed along UT -1b from station 12 +29 to 20 +20 and from station 21 +70 to
24+46. Enhancement Level I is proposed along UT -1 b between the areas station 20 +20 to 21 +70 adjacent
to and within Wetland Area 1 (Plan and Profile Sheet P3). Reach UT -1 b will be designed and restored as a
stable `E' type stream per the Rosgen classification system, with a lower sinuosity than that defined per the
Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers for `E' type channels. Minor adjustments to the channel pattern will
be achieved by stabilization of actively eroding streambanks within the reach through installation of small
geolifts (Detail Sheet D4) constructed on the outside of over -tight meander bends and by grading, which
will create design channel dimensions, the bankfull bench, and stable streambank slopes.
The stream channel bed profile lacks diversity within this reach. Appropriate pool /riffle spacing will be
enhanced by installing pools in stabilized meander bends and riffles between pools where appropriate.
Clean coarse channel material found within the system during grading and pool excavation may be
relocated to riffle sections to enhance channel bed diversity and substrate size. A similar bankfull bench
(compared to UT -1 a) will be created through grading and structure installation along UT -1 b and will provide
greater connectivity with a stabilized and natively vegetated flood prone area. The bankfull bench and
streambanks above the bench will be stabilized at a 2H:1V slope maximum and will be planted as
described above for UT -1 a. Additional livestock watering infrastructure will be removed from UT -1 b as well
as a small impoundment at station 23+80. The impoundment area will be stabilized after the removal if
necessary.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 24
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

The property owner has requested that a stable multi -use crossing be constructed (as mentioned above)
within UT -1 b that will replace the existing crossing in UT -1 a. The relocated crossing will be constructed per
NRCS specifications and guidelines at station 14 +50, above the confluence with UT -2.
G. Priority II Stream Restoration - UT -2
UT -2 is classified as ranging from a Rosgen "C5V stream type, with the exception of a lower sinuosity than
the Rosgen Classification to a "G5c" type stream. Type "C" streams have well - developed floodplains and
are not considered highly entrenched. Type "G" streams are defined as a low slope, entrenched system
with a low width /depth ratio.
Priority II restoration will occur from station 13 +75 to 20 +33 on this reach. The design channel will be
restored as a stable type `C' stream per the Rosgen classification system, similar to the area targeted for
Enhancement Level I activities. The areas targeted for Priority II restoration will stabilize the dimension,
pattern, and profile of the stream channel and streambanks. Notably, from station 13 +75 to 17+40 the
stream has been historically filled with sediment, potentially from past logging activities, pasture creation,
and livestock impacts. These types of historic unsustainable land uses have apparently introduced more
sediment into the stream's system than could be transported by the channel flow. The stream is currently
buried and flows underground from where it enters the ground at station 13 +75 and emerges at a headcut
located at station 17+40. Priority 11 restoration within this area will include removal of the accumulated
sediment in the relic channel to the extent necessary to daylight the stream and mimic the stable
morphology found in other areas of the reach. The design condition for this reach has taken into
consideration reference reach data gathered for the project. As described for reach UT -1 b the stream
channel and banks will be restored to a stable dimension, pattern, and profile to be achieved through the
installation of a bankfull bench at the designed elevation and by creating stable 3H:1V streambank slopes
above the bankfull bench. Pools will be established in meanders, and riffles will be established between
the pools in appropriate locations. The rifles will be enhanced with clean coarse bed material if found
within the system during pools excavation and grading. The bankfull bench and streambanks above the
bench will be planted as described above.
A large red maple tree exists near the downstream end of the reach at station 18 +70. Per IRT request, this
tree and its roots will be preserved as part of the project and will be avoided during construction. A shallow
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 25
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

non - potable well and pump house are located within 10 feet of the stream at station 10+60. It is likely that
this well is dewatering the stream system. The well and pump house will be abandoned and removed as
part of the project.
A stable multi -use crossing for UT -2 will be constructed at station 14 +50 (Plan and Profile Sheet P4). This
crossing will replace the existing structure at station 19 +25. The relocated crossing will be constructed per
NRCS specifications and guidelines.
H. Priority II Stream Restoration - UT -3
Reach UT -3 is formed by the confluence of UT -1 and UT -2. UT -3 is classified as ranging from a Rosgen
"E5" type stream to an "G4c" type stream. However, UT -3 does not meet the sinuosity requirement of an E
channel. Type "E" channels have a low width /depth ratio, moderate slope, and are slightly entrenched.
Type "G" channels are entrenched, have moderate sinuosity, and a low width /depth ration. The low
sinuosity of reach UT -3 may be attributed to historic straightening or relocation of the stream. Erosion,
failing streambanks, and high bank heights are evident throughout UT -3, but are fewer than in other
reaches. UT -3 has the lowest channel slope (0.016 ft/ft) of any stream in the project area. BEHI ratings of
UT -3 range from moderate to very highly unstable due to high bank height ratios.
Priority II restoration will occur on this entire reach from station 10+00 to station 19 +76. The designed
channel will restore the UT -3 reach to a stable `E' channel with a lower sinuosity than specified per the
Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. The Priority II restoration will be used to stabilize the dimension,
pattern, and profile of the stream. The stream's meander pattern will be modified at over -tight bends by
increasing the radius of curvature through installation of geolifts on the outside of meander bends and
bankfull benches. Installation of these structures will bring the sinuosity of the reach closer to the sinuosity
specified in the reference information gathered for the project. The bankfull bench will be installed at the
designed elevation, and stable streambank slopes will be installed above the bench with maximum slopes
of 3HAV. Similar to the other reaches within the project area, the existing channel bed and stream profile
lack diversity. Appropriate sinuosity and riffle /pool spacing will be established by installing pools in
meander bends and riffles between pools at appropriate locations. Clean coarse bed material found within
the system during excavation of pools may be used to enhance the channel substrate in riffles.
Streambanks and the riparian conservation easement area will be planted according to Section K. All
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 26
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

existing and design conditions for UT -3 may be found on Plan and Profile Sheets P6 and P7, Cross Section
Sheet X2, and Details Sheet D2.
I. Stream Enhancement (Level 1) - UT -1b
Enhancement Level I activities are proposed for approximately 150 If of UT -1 b between station 20 +20 and
21 +70 which is adjacent to and within Wetland Area 1 (Plan and Profile Sheet P3). Post construction
contours will be configured to blend with the existing floodplain areas that comprise this wetland.
Functional uplift in this section will be derived through the removal of exotic and /or invasive species, and
the revegetation efforts which will utilize a mixture of native hardwood trees and shrubs. Existing native,
hardwood species will not be disturbed during these activities. Priority 11 design construction techniques will
be applied to the areas directly upstream and downstream of this section, but no earthwork is proposed
within the existing wetland boundary.
J. Stream Enhancement (Level 1) - UT -2
The eastern upstream limit of the project reach begins at the headwaters of UT -2 at station 10+00.
Enhancement Level I activities are proposed for approximately 375 If of UT -2 between stations 10+00 and
13 +75. This area is located directly upstream of the Priority 11 restoration area. Functional uplift will be
achieved in this section through the removal of non - native invasive plants, removal of livestock watering
infrastructure, and vegetation enhancement. Note that all work will avoid any impacts to Wetland Areas 2
and 3 located at stations 12 +50 and 13 +25.
K. Riparian Buffer Restoration
The planting plan associated with this project has been designed to encompass a minimum of 151 -ft wide
buffers along UT -1 and UT -2. These buffers total approximately 25 acres and were designed in accordance
with the Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and Buffer Mitigation Credit for Buffer Widths
Different From Standard Minimum Widths (Version 4.5) (DWQ, 2010b). This guidance allocates additional
credits for a given project based on the removal of nitrogen and other pollutants that increases with riparian
buffer width. Based on these guidelines, a project that implements a 151 -ft (or greater) wide buffer along
restored sections of streams in the mountain region will remove 77.6% of available nitrogen and qualify for
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 27
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

a Stream Buffer Correction Factor (SCF) of 18.5 %. See Appendix F for SCF totals associated with the
restored sections of UT -1, UT -2, and UT -3.
The target vegetative communities for this project are low mountain alluvial forest and mountain bottomland
forest (Shafale and Weakley, 1990). Hardwood species associated with these communities will be divided
into three planting zones: streambank, floodplain, and mountain slope, which correspond to expected
flooding frequency and duration levels. Tree seedlings and shrub species will be planted on eight foot
spacings (equivalent to a density of 680 stems /acre) throughout the three zones. Other characteristic
shrub species (e.g. dog hobble, rhododendron sp., and witch hazel) will continue to volunteer aggressively
into the restored streambank, floodplain, and mountain slope areas. Table 2 provides additional information
about the proposed planting plan.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 28
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Table 2. Proposed Planting Plan
Zone 1 - Streambank
Common Name
Elderberry
Ninebark
Black Willow
Zone 2 - Floodplain
Common Name
River Birch
Green Ash
Swamp Chestnut Oak
American Elm
Ironwood
Zone 3 - Mountain Slope
Common Name
Tulip Poplar
American Sycamore
Yellow Birch
Sugar Maple
Bitternut Hickory
American Holly
3.455 linear feet
Scientific Name
Sambucus canadensis
Physocarpus opulifolius
Salix nigra
2 acres
Scientific Name
Betula nigra
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Quercus michauxii
Ulmus americana
Carpinus caroliniana
23 acres
Scientific Name
Liriodendron tulipifera
Platanus occidentalis
Betula lutea
Acer floridanum
Carya cordiformis
Ilex opaca
% Composition
33
33
33
TOTAL
% Composition
20
20
20
20
20
TOTAL
% Composition
20
20
20
20
10
10
TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
# Planted
2,500
2,500
2,000
7,000
# Planted
300
300
300
300
300
1,500
# Planted
3,000
3,000
3,000
3,000
1,500
1,500
15,000
23,500
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 29
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

V. POST- CONSTRUCTION MONITORING PLAN
A. Success Criteria
The stream and riparian buffer restoration effort will be evaluated based upon performance criteria related
to vegetative density and stream stability. A total of five (5) monitoring events will occur following
completion of the proposed work. Additional monitoring maybe required if subsequent plantings are
deemed necessary to meet the success criteria listed below. Note that non - planted individuals of
characteristic species may volunteer into the restored site. Suitable volunteers are an important
component to the riparian area as they serve as indicators for appropriate hydrologic regimes and provide
increased diversity. The presence of suitable volunteers also demonstrates trending of the site toward
vegetative success.
The primary success criteria for the restored stream systems will be:
(1) Documentation of 2 bankfull events using techniques discussed below within a normal rainfall year
during the initial 5 years of monitoring. These events must occur in separate years. Additional monitoring
may be necessary in the event of abnormal climatic conditions.
(2) Demonstrated density of planted species to meet or exceed 260 trees per acre at the end of 5 years
(post- planting).
Level I Monitoring will be required for the Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank as detailed in the Stream
Mitigation Guidelines (USACE, 2003). Monitoring will occur five times in the years following completion of
construction. Monitoring reports will be prepared each monitoring year and will include completed Channel
Mitigation Monitoring Sheets with current data, a discussion of any deviations, and whether they are
indicative of a stabilizing or destabilizing situation.
Level I Monitoring includes Sections 1, 2, and 3 listed below:
(1) Photo - Documentation
Extensive photo documentation is proposed for the stream monitoring phase of this project. Photos will be
taken at all permanent cross - sections on a bi- annual basis (winter and summer) in addition to any problem
areas that may develop after construction is completed. Photos will be georeferenced to the corresponding
cross - section and /or problem area as part of the submitted report. Photo documentation will also be used
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 30
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

to document the health of the riparian area plantings and the effectiveness of any erosion control
measures.
(2) Ecological Function
The health of the riparian vegetation will be documented as part of the stream monitoring efforts. Multiple
0.10 -ac. permanent monitoring plots will be established throughout the riparian buffer restoration including
areas directly adjacent to the restored channel. Both planted and volunteer species will be enumerated
separately and data regarding tree height and vigor will be included in the annual monitoring report.
Success criteria for riparian restoration will be evaluated using the aforementioned metrics.
(3) Channel Stability /Survey Procedures
a. Cross - Sections
The Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank will restore 2,930 If of perennial stream. The restoration will
mimic moderate - gradient stream reaches characteristic of the Broad Basin ecoregion (Griffith, 2002).
Where appropriate, hardened materials (i.e. rock structures) will be used to control grade throughout the
project. However, natural materials (e.g. root wads and log vanes) will assist with channel stabilization and
grade control throughout a majority of the project. Given the size, uniform design, and moderate slope
(2 %) of the proposed project area, cross - sections will be established every 500 feet of stream length
(totaling 5 permanent stations). Placement of these stations will be designed to assess the performance of
potential problem areas (e.g. severe erosion, structural failure, etc.) within the restoration areas. These
stations will also be evenly distributed between riffles and pools throughout the project.
B. Vegetation Monitoring
The vegetation monitoring protocol is adapted from the accepted methods used for stream and wetland
restoration sites within North Carolina. Given the size of the project, 2% of the planted riparian areas will
be monitored via the establishment of permanent 0.10 -ac. plots. These areas include approximately 25
acres in two different habitat types. Given the proposed acreage, a total of five (5) plots will be established.
GPS coordinates for the centers of each sampling plot will be recorded and included with the "as- built"
survey and subsequent annual monitoring reports. During monitoring, surviving planted individuals and
volunteers will be identified, measured, and enumerated within each plot.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 31
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

C. Hydrologic Monitoring
Documentation of stream flow within the project will also be conducted. Following stream construction
activities, three (3) pressure transducers (one in each restored reach) will be installed. One additional
gauge will also be installed within the area targeted for enhancement. These gauges will measure the
elevation of water in the channel throughout the duration of the project and will be used to determine if the
project is meeting the applicable success criteria related to the total number of bankfull events.
VI. BANK OPERATION
A. Project Team
The project team consists of licensed wetland scientists, geologists, and professional engineers with
extensive experience in water resource and riparian restoration projects. The Southern Appalachian
Highlands Conservancy (SAHC) owns the subject property. AFFP, LLC, is a single member Limited Liability
Company, with SAHC as the single member. AFFP will serve as the legal entity and Bank Sponsor of this
project. Through an agreement with SAHC, the Sponsor has control of all streams and livestock- watering
infrastructure affecting the hydrology of the site. The Sponsor employs several staff members with
advanced degrees in ecology, forestry, and natural resource management. Together, these entities possess
the necessary credentials to execute the proposed project.
B. Credit Totals
Upon acceptance of the final mitigation plan by the IRT, the Bank Sponsor will initiate proposed
construction activities for the development of the Bank site. Mitigation bank credits will be calculated using
the following standard:
Mitigation Type Ratio
Stream Restoration 1:1
Stream Enhancement (Level 1) 1.5:1
Use of credits from the Bank to offset stream impacts authorized by federal permits or state water quality
certifications must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines and other
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 32
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

applicable federal and state legislation, regulations, and policies. Prior to release of bank credits, the
following requirements will be met: (1) approval of the final mitigation plan and execution of the Mitigation
Banking Instrument (MBI); (2) securing of the bank site, and (3) establishment of appropriate financial
assurances.
Given the aforementioned ratios for stream restoration and associated SCF adjustments, it is estimated
that 3,822 stream credits will be derived from the establishment of the Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation
Bank (Table 3). The tentative schedule for establishment of the bank site is outlined in Table 4.
Table 3. Restoration Totals and Credit Yields by Stream Reach (linear feet)
Reach Name
Restoration (Priority II)
Enhancement (Li)
SCF (18.5 %)
UT -1
1,296
150
240
UT -2
658
375
122
UT -3
976
0
181
TOTAL (If)
2,930
525
CREDITS
2,930
350
542
TOTAL CREDITS
3,822
Performance monitoring will be conducted for a 5 -year period subsequent to project construction. Annual
monitoring will evaluate the development of stream function and document site performance relative to
established success criteria. In addition, monitoring activities will identify any site deficiencies that may
warrant remedial action. Monitoring reports documenting site success and /or failure will be submitted to
the IRT each year. Upon submittal of annual monitoring reports demonstrating the fulfillment of site
success criteria, stream credits will be released according the approved credit release schedule. See Table
4 for more information on the project timeline and credit release schedule.
The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of debits made from
the Bank that is acceptable to the IRT. Such procedures shall include the generation of a debit report by
the sponsor documenting all credits used at the time they are debited from the bank. Debit reports shall be
provided to each member of the IRT within 30 days of the date of credit sale. In addition, the Sponsor shall
prepare an Annual Report to be provided to each IRT member within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of
the date of execution of the MBI, showing all credits used and the balance of credits remaining. The
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 33
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Sponsor's reporting obligations shall end upon the sale of all credits or termination of the MBI, whichever
event occurs first.
Table 4. Project Milestone Schedule
Task
Percentage of Credits Released (%
cumulative
Date of Completion
Execution of MBI; Approval of Final
Mitigation Plan; Recordation of
Conservation Easement
15 (15)
April 2013
Completion of all Restoration Activities
15 (30)
July 2013
Monitoring Plan
---
Year 1 Monitoring (post- construction)
10 (40)
September 2013
Year 2 Monitoring (post- construction)
15 (55)
September 2014
Year 3 Monitoring (post- construction)
15 (70)
September 2015
Year 4 Monitoring (post- construction)
10 (80)
September 2016
Year 5 Monitoring (post- construction)
20 (100)
September 2017
TOTAL
100
C. Financial Assurances
The Bank Sponsor has established two (2) separate escrow accounts that will serve as the appropriate
financial assurances designed to cover contingency measures in the event of Bank default or failure. One
account has been funded up to $100,000.00 to cover 30% of the projected construction budget. The other
account has been funded up to $5,000.00 to cover 10% of the monitoring budget. These accounts have
been established with Asheville Savings Bank. Correspondence from this institution will be included in
Appendix D of the MBI.
D. Long -Tenn Management Plan
Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District (BCSWD) will serve as the long -term conservation
easement holder for the Bank. BCSWD is a governmental agency established pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat.
§ 139 -1 et seq., and its purposes include, among other things, the protection and conservation of natural
resources, including soil and water resources. BCSWD is authorized by the laws of the State of North
Carolina to accept, hold, and administer conservation easements; it possesses the authority to accept and
is willing to accept the Conservation Easement for the Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank; and it is
qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35. BCSWD
currently holds, monitors, and enforces perpetual conservation easements on several properties throughout
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 34
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

Buncombe County, including several in the Newfound Creek watershed where the Subject Property for this
project is located. Following the final year of biological monitoring, BCSWD will begin conducted annual
reviews of the property to ensure that all aspects of the conservation easement are enforced.
The Bank Sponsor and Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy (SAHC) (the landowner of the bank
site) will be responsible for the long -term management and stewardship of the bank, as well as the
surrounding 78 acres of the Anderson Farm tract. SAHC is a nationally accredited land trust with over 30
years of conservation easement and fee -land management experience in western North Carolina. In order
to carry out the long -term stewardship responsibilities (e.g. fence repairs, bridge repairs, etc.) at the site,
the Bank Sponsor will establish a long -term stewardship account. This account will be funded
incrementally based on the sale of available credits. As credits are released and sold, two (2) percent of
the proceeds will be deposited into this account.
As discussed in Part I, Section C, the remaining 78 acres of the Anderson Farm tract will serve as an
educational, demonstration farm that will be managed by SAHC staff. A diversity of educational programs
based on agriculture and conservation practices is currently planned for the site, including specialty fruit
and vegetable production and low impact grazing techniques. SAHC has completed a Conservation Plan
and a Grazing Plan with USDA NRCS for the Anderson Farm tract. These plans guide agricultural practices
on the property to ensure that the natural resources are preserved and that Best Management Practices for
water quality are implemented. This section of the property will also be held under a separate conservation
easement to ensure that the property is not developed and remains a working farm in perpetuity. Based on
the stated goals for the future uses of the property, the potential for easement violations is substantially less
than a high density subdivision and no additional long -term stewardship measures will be necessary to
maintain the biological integrity of the site.
VII. CONCLUSION
The proposed restoration and enhancement activities will provide tangible benefits to both water quality and
habitat within a watershed that has been degraded by several decades of livestock and silvicultural
management. These benefits will be realized through the stabilization of the streambank and restoration of
the riparian corridors within the watershed. Long -term stewardship of the land will be provided by a joint
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 35
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

partnership between BCSWD (bank site) and SAHC (remaining acreage), both of whom have a proven
track record of protecting and managing projects throughout Western North Carolina.
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 36
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

VIII. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Fischenich, C. 2001. Stability Thresholds for Stream Restoration Materials. United States Army Corps of
Engineers. USAE Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory. Vicksburg, MS.
Griffith, et al., 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Harman, W.A., Wise, D.E., Walker, M.A., Morris, R., Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton,
D., Patterson, J. 2000. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. Proc.
AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments Conference. Anchorage, AK.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010a. NC 2010 Integrated Report (Final 303(4) List). Raleigh,
N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010b. Regulatory Guidance for the Calculation of Stream and
Buffer Mitigation Credit for Buffer Widths Different From Standard Minimum Widths (Version 4.5).
Raleigh, N.C.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality Plan 2011.
Raleigh, N.C.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakely. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, N.C.
Zink, J. M., Jennings, G. D. and Alexander Price, G. 2012. Morphology Characteristics of Southern
Appalachian Wilderness Streams. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association.
doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.2012.00647.x
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 37
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

FIGURES
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 38
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

c r 1721
y
Site Location
72t�
rl16
1624 I � I �' � 21 c
� 11B
krpllnyr. 1624 Sa 2084
wk
V � Qlrr >lf,rr °7rrtrl FjW ,
j
` 1839
1622
Ili
1 G23
rr4glla N {l ti ! •S� _
1042 i
old ofr8 ti5 S1rallold "q
U
a r "r H
5yy 16a'J
I
� t1I
4v.,51p, a h
1302 `a
1304 a 1 .97 z
t4,�
d 1843 109
1349
rr° 1847 ,� # r . • "�
1310 1848 1 °i
• � l �' 135 3
135$ 1 Y
135p
1357 134a/
13aA �
1141,
1 d-�r 1319 1318 {� 1341 1344 fo
1354 a 1332 f
7 319 Haul RT111 ti .__ : -•,.�' ,.
Nu ,ti F(IlhaldAv
1334 f
1268 6 / �___.— - �- -'' -•""
LEGEND
FWPo5ED M111oArioN BANK :m 1J*AvarvI*w td f 7� H h e Vi 11
/f/ u
SOURCE: 125$ Yr
PARCEL DATA BUNCOMBE CODNTy GIS 140)
WORLD STREET MAP - ARCGIS Mars
I li,;tlltl:
[^EN-9 1NVCaIN0 —& HroROGCOLOOV VICINITY MAP
231 HA9W000 871111Y, 8IxlvVLLr, NU 25001
Y ¢L,SYB.Y 01.8850 ■A[.5Y 0.201.9951
vlw W.aiTA ra NT ■Rr /Oa.+X RXrw r -ear
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK
DRAWN BY: ANNA SAYLOR1 SCALE BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
L
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL ENM MiILE9
CLIENT' AFP, LLC
DATE; 7rar2o 0 0.25 9/a/2011

�,_ - � �r� � � ✓-ter -�� � } iti> _ I � r ���,� � �� ■ i ''�
JI
TN
� � r
i, , � ■ j L
to
LEGEND
PROPOSED MITIGATION BANK
SOURCE:
PARCEL DATA - BUNCOMBE COUNTY GI
US GS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP - LEICESTER
QUADRANGLE, REVISED 1990
v
4
r
�-
F
r
{ 1
ZY4
,.� 14
ff
1 i;��� • 1J�`y ill � ��
E NG1N E ERING & H Y -]F 0 G E 0 L0G V
�31 H.e••r:[! - 5 .LF A. —F- IF VC p88C�1
r[[.828 281 3350 r c.82B 281.3351
W W W.ALTAN*NTCN V IR*NNZNTw L -00N
DRAWN By ANNA SAYLOR
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFF, LLC
DATE: 8/15/2012
SCALE
FEET
0 250 500 1,000
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FIGURE
2
+I

N
r-
0
4' 1
k
f
i
kqf
t�
LEGEND
ONSITE HYDROLOGY
PROPOSED MITIGATION BANK
SOURCE:
PARCEL DATA AND 2010 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY - BUNCOMBE COUNTY GIS -
HYDROLOGY - NC ONEMAP
* FIGURE
E NGcNE9. RINC. $ H Y- R0GE0L0rV 2010 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY
a31 H.e•v: cilu 5 .Ll A -F- F Nc P88el
r[[.828 281 33 FO r -.828 281.3351
WWW.ALTAN*NTCNVIRQNNZNTAL•C0N 7
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK J
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN By ANNA SAYLOR SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFF, LLC FEET
DATE: 8/15/2012 0 100 200 400

N
r
ice•
r
�a
H
rf
•
LEGEND
ONSITE HYDROLOGY
SOIL SURVEY DATA
PROPOSED MITIGATION BANK
f
SOURCE:
PARCEL DATA AND 2010 AERIAL
PHOTOGRAPHY - BUNCOMBE COUNTY GIS
SOIL SURVEY DATA - NRCS
HYDROLOGY - NC ONEMAP t
! ' ! FIGURE
E NG•NEE.irNG H V7R0GEOLOGv NRCS SOIL SURVEY MAP
F
rr. 826 28' 3350 -..r. 828 2,3t 335k
W W W.A- m n r E m rweN N e nrn L.c OM
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWN By ANNA SAYLOR SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFF, LLC FEET
DATE: 8/15/2012 0 100 200 400

IN\i;OU
w
10
Waynesville
tti CreeK
mac' Sco
°' Iva
9e
Webs e'Q�re
0 10203
JACKS COUNTY
LEGEND
SITE LOCATION
MAJOR HYDROLOGY
PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA
NC 8 -DIGIT HUC RIVER BASINS
ONORTH CAROLINA COUNTY BOUNDARIES
S
NTY
41,9 v
�a
&X9 9 Laurel Creek
DISON COUNTY
lLA , \�y Site Location
E IBiltre
OUNTYS
rest
01v t
E NG1N E ERINC. & H Y -]F O G E O LO r
�31 H. —V. -- 5 .. L F Ati =t -. I I F NC peae:
r[[.828 281 3350 r c.82B 281.3351
W W W.ALTAN*NTCN V 1RQNNZNTw L -00N
DRAWN By ANNA SAYLOR SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFF, LLC MILES
DATE: 8/15/2012 0 2.5 5 10
N
G ~ �
e Riv MI HELL COUNT
)rsville
U
06010111#11
Burnsville Spru i
YA COUNTY
�Stron9 Creed
�r
�o
03050101
MCDOWELL C TY
Mont at Old Fort, et
fetcher e�
to
RAJ M e
NDERSO COLIN
Henders nville
Laurel Par
at Roc
green R�- !� C2
. n ck Vill ge
'T3� RFORD COUNTY
Lake ego
030501
POLK COUNTY
a Columbus
orth;ti R/ver
SOURCE:
MAJOR HYDROLOGY, COUNTY BOUNDARIES
- NC ONE MAP
8 -DIGIT HUC RIVER BASINS - USACE
FIGURE
PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC
SERVICE AREA
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK
6
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

APPENDIX A - SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 39
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

1) View of existing site topography along western branch
.10K
2) View of existing invasive vegetation within riparian area
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan
October 2012

3) View of existing hardwoods within riparian area
_ :sYiy.17
t '
Y,
4) View of cattle watering infrastructure near the confluence of the two streams
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan
October 2012

5) View of existing cattle crossing on the eastern branch
6) View of existing impoundment in the western branch
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank
Mitigation Plan
October 2012

APPENDIX B - USACE STREAM DATA FORMS
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 40
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.1
Date: 2�
Project(Site: � y�
Latitude:
Evaluator: C
County: OV% (_O{µ\N
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent , S
termination (circle one)
Ephemera termittent Perennial
Other U
e.g. Quad Name: `"a ���
if? 19 or perennial if? 34"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Q t CA�
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal �)
Absent
We
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3 In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodpiain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
777
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discus i .n manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =)
12. Presence of Base #low
3
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
0
14. Leaf litter
5
1
05
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
N)_=
Yes = 3
C. Blalo (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22 Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: e ev t!
Np Gt 2G r•+ Cho f h
Sketch: �+�t�r►. CjeG T +�1� ��,,.ac�� C'�('e Y� ,. G ~ll
C� q w-
�- rzeA l LA- $�'r_4� ^-' 3� b chow Z
�5

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
ProjectlSite: �F
Latitude:
�-
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Evaluator: 1. t
Count
Longitude:
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
StrewPoints-, lea
Stream is at least intermittent � `�
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other t
if? 19 or perennial if? 30` f°'
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad !~lame:, pe
C.R OPE25 tNfr
A. Ueomorphology (Subtotal _ _ }
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
Absent
0
Weak
1
Moderate
2
Strong
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
1
�,. - -_.,
(�
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1�
;' 2'_ j
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
D
1.
2
3
7 Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
B. eadcuts
0
1 - --
.2
3
9. Grade control
0
0:5 '
1.,
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
t. _1- - "
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No= 0 '
Yes = 3
41111l1.IQi LI III "eS are FICA JaMU, twe UISGUSSfons In manuw
B. Hydrology Subtotal = '`
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
��
2 �
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
=:
2
3
F14 Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
5. Sediment on plants or debris
p
2
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
_p_5
1
1 5
17. Sail -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0 '� : )
Yes = 3
C. Biology {Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streafnbed
3
:. 2,
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
D
70
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
O.i
1
2
3
22. Fish
(i_✓
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
J_,
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
Q
0.5
1
1 5
25. Algae
0. 1
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland piants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
�Jf7
r\ V7
j �, G;f• a
e l

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Project/Site: Latitude:
------- Ila I Evaluator: _ County: \ Longitude:
vi C.Od
Total Points: O T2-
Stream is at least intermittent Stream Determination (cir Other
if? 1g or perenniaj if >_ 30% Ephemeral Intermittent erenni e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =�'
Weak
Abs
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
3. In- channel structure: ex. rifle -pool, step -paol,
ripple-pool sequence
0
4. Particie size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
6. [depositional bars or benches
0
7_ Recent alluvial deposits
8. Headcuts
0
9 Grade control
0
10. Natural valley
0
11. Second or greater order channel
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B_ Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
14. Leaf litter
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles 0
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
C. Blola (Subtotal = I }
18. Fibrous roots in streambed 3
19. Routed upland plants in streambed 3
1
1
0,5
0.5
No =0
2 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1
22. Fish 0 0 5
23. Crayfish 0, 0 5
24. Amphibians 0 5
25. Algae 0 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual.
Notes:
1
Sketch: yea �e��t�
?e
-� c�r
G
EJ
0
G t°
n
T
0
a
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
Weak
Moderate
St
1
2
1
22
3
3
3
3
&No=OfiYeS=3
3
3
1.5
1
1
0,5
0.5
No =0
2 2
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1
22. Fish 0 0 5
23. Crayfish 0, 0 5
24. Amphibians 0 5
25. Algae 0 5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See P. 35 of manual.
Notes:
1
Sketch: yea �e��t�
?e
-� c�r
G
EJ
0
G t°
n
T
0
a
3
3
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5

NC DWQ Stream [identification Form Version 4.11
Date: '2- Project/Site:
Evaluator: Count��
Total Points: I S S
Stream is at least intermittent t E
if? 19 or perennial if? 30*
p Latitude:
f �_ Longitude:
in (circle one) Other U T
ent Perennial e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= .,)
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1' Continuity of channel bed and bank
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
7Absent
1
2 .
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
3
ri le- ooI se uence
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
%No-=O
3
8. Headcuts
0
3
9. Grade control
3
1.5
10. natural valley
0
1.5
11 Second or greater order channel
a
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
13. Iran oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.
3
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris #fines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
1
20. Macrobenthas {note diversity and abundance)
2
0
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
JW2
1
3
1.5
23. Crayfish
1
15
24. Amphibians
1
1 5
25. Algae
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other =
.perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: p6,('�(Y
�? OcAk6's

APPENDIX C - JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 41
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

nn WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont
/"1
Project/Site: d4 yo h �oA-s City /County: Z V V1 Lo V"4>C. Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: So of v vl AP,2 j t aM AiqWW45 600!1 V V 0.NtGy State: N C Sampling Point: W A I - A �)
Investigator(s): (f M AS Section, Township, Range: A lax 0.Vt 1
Z tl
Landform (hillslope; terrace, etc.): r��oo d b� 0. I Y� Local relief,(concave, convex, none): 16 jQ t& r Slope (° /a): `� �b
q • �L -4+q U Datum: NAt) g3
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): _(�0 Lat: S15. :FO5 b Long:
Soil Map Unit Name: T&-(- NWI classification: Nflv%&..
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances' present? Yes ✓ No
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic?
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ✓ No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes y_ No within a Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes __ / No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required• check all that apply)
Surface Water (Al)
— True Aquatic Plants (1314)
—
_ High Water Table (A2)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots�C3
Saturation (A3)
_
Water Marks (131)
— Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
— Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
— Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Water- Stained Leaves (139)
_ Aquatic Fauna (1313)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No v/ Depth (inches):
Yes ✓ No
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ Drainage Patterns (6.l 0)
_ Dry- Season Water Table (C2)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
✓ Geomorphic Position (132)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
FAC- Neutral Test (D5)
Water Table Present? Yes ✓ No Depth (mchesy
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos,
Atl►Vt - -1004 14 h 04� V-
w A vwl c.b tk- Spines
Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Interim Version
US Army Corps of Engineers

VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status Number of Dominant Species
1.
NA That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: �_ (A)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
=Total Cover
Saplino /Shrub Stratum (Plot size: `(d % 100' )
I. wosli* -b ood- orvw� 1;6r1,«.0 40 Y Fell- W
2.. • ivt+ - 04uS%r uwt i�� 1yi GJwt 70 -
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9._
10.
40 = Total Cover
Herb Stratum (Plot size
1.��ela raalithc 20 y_ oat_
Cal naAysf�YS Zv Y 08L
3. far�x 'ZO �/ FAC yo
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
60 v = Total Cover
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1. 1.0 C. pO 'ONt G(l
2. f5AGV
3.
4.
5.
6.
10 = Total Cover
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species u
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: • l e (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
Multiply bv:
OBL species
_LIt _
x 1 = _ y0_
FACW species
-9 ®_
x2 = _I S0_
FAC species
_?P _
x 3 =
FACU species
q0 _
x4=
UPL species
_
x 5 = ! _
Column Totals:
Z140
(A) ( (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
✓ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_✓ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_✓ 3 - Prevalence Index is :53.01
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
ns of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling /Shrub - Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.
Herb -All herbaceous (non- woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall. -
Woody vine - All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes ✓ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Interim Version

SOIL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirr
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color moist % Color (moist) % Type Loc
-1 Z 4.rn Vp _ q �1 5 Y2 g l is 3o rz &4
4 5 R u ;oo
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
✓Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
_ Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox (S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Masked Sand Grains.
Sampling Point:
absence of indicators.)
Texture
SI J
s� ua{j
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
_ Iron - Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Remarks
>n: PL =Pore Lining, M= Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric So
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_✓ Red Parent Material (TF2)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes V/ No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Interim Version

APPENDIX D - STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE - SUMMARY LETTER
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 42
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑
❑❑EEI ELI❑ ❑ ❑ ❑HE ❑EEI❑FM ❑m❑EII❑ ❑III❑EII❑❑II11=❑III] EII❑ ❑m❑❑
1111❑ ❑FM❑EII❑ELI IIIIFM❑❑ EII =❑FM❑EII❑❑❑FM
1111❑❑❑❑ ❑ ❑111❑❑❑ELIFM ❑FM EII❑ELIFM ❑❑
❑ 1111❑❑❑❑ [][IF-M❑❑ ❑ []Ell[]
❑e ❑ CttmCtuEE]
[I ❑F$uSEEI❑DEEI
1111❑ ❑❑ID❑❑❑
111110 ❑=tEE]e ® ❑EEI❑❑EE]
❑i ❑❑d❑FM❑ID ❑ EEI❑❑❑❑❑
❑e ❑ Ctt [I❑ =o=
❑❑utt = ❑e ❑tm
1116 ❑EEI EEI❑❑MriE] ❑❑ulti❑❑ MMuSi e It❑Sti ❑
❑nYES ❑ID urt❑= ❑rmi❑S ❑EEI❑❑❑❑❑
❑bra ❑❑ID ❑ ❑ ❑❑

An Archaeological Resources Survey of the Proposed
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank,
Buncombe County, North Carolina
Management Summary
In March of 2012 Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants (BRAC) was
contracted by AFFP, LLC of Asheville, North Carolina to undertake a Phase I
archaeological survey of an approximately 28 -acre portion of a tract known as
Anderson Farm located in the northwestern portion of Buncombe County. More
specifically, the Anderson Farm Tract is located immediately south of Mag Sluder
Road (SR 1625), west of the intersection of this road with Jenkins Valley Road (SR
1641) approximately 3.2 linear miles northeast of Leicester, North Carolina, and
nearly 10 miles northwest of Asheville (Figure 1). The limits of the approximately
107 -acre Anderson Farm Tract are formed in part by Mag Sluder Road to the north
and east, while Jenkins Valley Road forms a small portion of the eastern boundary
and in other areas lies approximate to the tract's eastern boundary. The western
limits of the tract follow the central spine of a south to southeast trending ridge line
and the southern boundary of the tract includes a portion of this ridge and an
adjacent ridge to the east. This southern boundary of the tract is located at
distances ranging from approximately 550 feet (167 meters) to 945 feet (288 meters)
north of Newfound Creek. Two unnamed tributaries of Newfound Creek, which
originate near the northern end of the tract and which have their confluence near
its center, continue as one stream through the south - central portion of the tract
before joining with Newfound Creek. The latter creek has its confluence with the
French Broad River at approximately 1.1 river miles east of its confluence with the
unnamed tributary that forms the subject of the stream mitigation bank. Tract
vegetation currently consists of pasture grass with mixed hardwoods and pines
along most of the reaches of the project area creeks. Portions of the tract slope
significantly from north to south along the direction of most ridge lines and ridge
toes and even more dramatically from east to west within project area drainages
and on these ridge side slopes, with changes in elevation ranging from 2136 feet
along the northern tract boundary to 1944 feet AMSL in the southeast corner of the
tract.
Along the unnamed tributary of Newfound Creek and its pronged headwaters
in the Anderson Farm Tract interior, project managers affiliated with AFFP, LLC
propose to establish, design, construct, and operate a stream compensatory
mitigation bank composed of approximately 3,814 linear feet of stream channel.
Along this reach and at distances of approximately 150 feet (45 meters) to either
side of the stream channel(s), managers propose to conduct stream stabilization
efforts through the construction of a vegetated floodplain bench. This
approximately 28 -acre riparian buffer will be planted in mixed hardwoods and will
be protected by exclusionary fencing.
Consultations with the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
(North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office - -NC SHPO) indicate that no
-2-

Cd
a�
Cd
o Cd
o :~
cd cd
U �+
U
� O
N �
O
�U
� Z
U
Cd
O 4"
C
�jp O
4
O �
Cd
Cd
S.U., O r.
dl
Z
O
N
N
VUj O
O cd
S� U
N �
+� N
4, Z;
O +;
� N
O �
� N
N �
H
N
S�
UA

previously identified archaeological or historical sites have been documented within
the limits of the Anderson Farm Tract. However, there are at least 19
archaeological sites documented on adjacent landforms located within one mile of
the Anderson Farm project area. These previously identified archaeological
resources are located for the most part along Jenkins Branch and Parker Branch —
both tributaries of Newfound Creek. For this reason, representatives of the NC
SHPO called for an intensive archaeological survey of the area of project effect
(A.P.E.) within the Anderson Farm Tract —i.e. the 28 -acre riparian buffer of the
proposed stream compensatory mitigation bank.
The recent archaeological survey of the mitigation bank area on the Anderson
Farm Tract for AFFP, LLC included surface reconnaissance combined with the
excavation of 70 shovel tests (Figure 2). For the most part these tests were
excavated on 20 -meter ( -66 -foot) intervals. However, in a few instances where
landforms slanted significantly down to the very edges of the subject creek, shovel
test intervals were widened to avoid such slopes. Shovel test depth ranged from
approximately zero cm (with subsoil at ground surface) to 45 cm from surface to
sterile subsoil. The average depth of these 70 tests measured approximately 12.2
cm. In each case, these shovel tests revealed only a single organic/ potentially
artifact - bearing stratum above subsoil. Twenty -three of these 70 shovel tests (or
-33 %) were excavated to the east and west of the main stem of the mitigation bank.
The northwest tributary was subjected to 19 shovel tests ( -27% of the total) while
another 14 tests ( -20 %) were excavated on either side of the northeast tributary.
Within the interior portion of the confluence of these two streams another 14 shovel
tests ( -20 %) were excavated.
The excavation of these 70 shovel tests resulted in the identification of one
previously undocumented archaeological site within the limits of the proposed
stream mitigation bank (see Figures 1 -3). Given the permanent site number of
31BN974, this archaeological resource was identified within the central portion of
the Anderson Farm Tract and within the interior portion of the confluence of the
northwest and northeast tributaries of the mitigation bank area. On this mostly
level landform, nine out of twelve shovel tests were positive for a total of eight
prehistoric lithic artifacts and nine historic period ceramic, glass, iron, and brass
artifacts. One other prehistoric lithic artifact was collected as a surface find, while
pedestrian reconnaissance within this site area recorded another 13 historic period
artifacts. The prehistoric lithic artifacts recovered from this site remain non -
diagnostic of any particular period or phase of the prehistoric era. However, in the
absence of any prehistoric pottery, these few lithic artifacts may point to a pre -
ceramic Archaic period occupation or site use. Most of the historic artifacts
collected from or otherwise recorded at site 31BN974 indicate an early to mid
twentieth - century occupation. However, in a few instances some of these artifacts
may have been manufactured as early as the late nineteenth - century, if not slightly
earlier. While there are currently no intact above ground architectural remains
associated with the former dwelling which these historic period artifacts indicate
once stood in this portion of the Anderson Farm Tract, a number of large stones
and two brick bats likely constitute structural elements of this former residence.
Interestingly, what appears to represent a former lightening grounding rod was
discovered in one of the cow paths in the same area as these stones and brick and
-4-

V igure2. A recent aerial pnotograpn of the Anderson r arm l ract illustrating the limits
of the proposed mitigation bank and the locations of recent shovel test pits
and archaeological site 31BN974.
likely points to the southwest corner location of the former dwelling. Other artifacts
recovered from a single shovel test located at approximately 60 meters to the
northeast of the former house seat likely point to the location of one or more former
outbuildings situated in the narrow cove adjacent to the northeast tributary (see
Figure 3). Though photo- revised in 1990, the Leicester, North Carolina topographic
quadrangle of the general project area dates from 1942, at which point a structure
-5-

0 10 ` 20 30 40 ��
74
-- /
KEY p�J-
\ :. \` ��p.
POSITIVE SHOVEL TEST \\ \\ _�� / ; %1 /
O NEGATIVE SHOVEL TEST
X SURFACE FIND \\ \ `0..
APPROX. ARCHAEO. SITE
V LIMITS ♦ \\ \\\� / / 4 / !
/94
02 ^yip•• P
so
g70 •- 51
17
`\ �'`•. ` Lightening ♦, � \� 145 0,00 X :J�
\ _ Rod
ABN 3 974 IR V ,
+I .• \ `, okv . o is - 01
l
J
Q 34 _-,—_---
\
jo
o33
',, \ \
igure o. rian view arawing of arcnaeoiogicai size o itslvy t,+ inusiraung approximate size limns an
the locations of recent shovel tests within the central portion of the Anderson Farm project area.
-6-

was illustrated in the same area as the brick, stone, and other historic period
artifacts recovered near the central portion of site 31BN974.
In summary, no previously identified archaeological sites were documented
within the 107 -acre Anderson Farm Tract or within the 28 -acre proposed stream
mitigation bank area located within this larger surrounding parcel. A single
previously undocumented archaeological site (31BN974) was identified during the
recent BRAC survey of the proposed mitigation bank area. The investigation of this
site documented a low to moderate density prehistoric lithic scatter of
indeterminate cultural/ temporal affiliation. This site also includes artifacts
associated with an early to mid -twentieth century farmstead consisting of a former
house seat and at least one former outbuilding. Site stratigraphy exhibited largely
deflated contexts averaging 15.7 cm from surface to subsoil. Located solidly within
the limits of the proposed stream mitigation bank area, restoration efforts will likely
have an adverse effect upon this resource. However, as neither the prehistoric or
historic components of this site include those qualities that would recommend site
31BN974 as a resource eligible for nomination to the National Register of Historic
Places, we recommend no additional archaeological investigations within the limits
of 31BN974 or the larger mitigation bank area. We therefore find no objection to
the proposed undertaking.
-7-

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Beverly Eaves Perdue, Governor
Linda A. Carlisle, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 28, 2012
Scott Shumate
Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants
65 Appian Way
Arden, NC 28704
Re: Anderson Farm Mitigation Bank, Buncombe County, ER 11-2273
Dear Mr. Shumate:
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Thank you for your letter of June 1, 2012, transmitting the archaeological survey report for the above project.
The report meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior.
During the course of the survey, one archaeological site, 31BN974, was located within the project area. For
purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that 31BN974
is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. This site does not retain sufficient
subsurface integrity or artifact density to yield information important to history or prehistory.
Blue Ridge Archaeological Consultants has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since the project will not
involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
,&p%rRamona M. Bartos
cc: Allison Kiehl, AFFP, LLC
Location: 109 East Jones Street Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

APPENDIX E - STREAM DESIGN/ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 43
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

ANDERSON FARM
STREAM RESTORATION PLAN
180 MAG SLUDER ROAD
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
DRAWING SET CONTENT
SHEET
SHEET TITLE SUBMITTAL FOR MBI REVISION DATE
Cl
COVER SHEET
C2
DRAINAGE AREA MAP
PO
PLAN -PROFILE & CROSS SECTION SHEET INDEX
PI
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET I
P2
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 2
P3
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 3
P4
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 4
P5
PLAN AND PROFILE SHETT 5
P6
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 6
P7
PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET 7
X1
CROSS SECTION SHEET I
X2
CROSS SECTION SHEET 2
D1
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS I
D2
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 2
D3
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 3
D4
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 4
DATA BLOCK
PROPERTY OWNER:
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
34 WALL ST. STE 502
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
CONTACT PERSON: ALLISON KIEHL
PROJECT NAME: ANDERSON FARMS STREAM RESTORATION
AND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
PROJECT LOCATION:
108 MAG SLUDER RD.
LEICESTER, NC 28701
PIN #:9711-98-7999
ZONING DISTRICT: OU (OPEN USE)
CONSERVATION AREA: YES
CURRENT LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL
PROPERTY SIZE:103.69 ACRES
AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE: 21.82%
REACH UTIA LENGTH: 229 LF
REACH UTIB LENGTH: 1217 LF
REACH UT2 LENGTH: 1,033 LF
REACH UT3 LENGTH: 976 LF
TOTAL STREAM LENGTH: 3,455 LF
TOTAL WETLAND AREA: 0.087 AC
TREATMENT CATEGORIES
'A' - EXOTIC INVASIVE PLANT MATERIAL REMOVAL
'B' - GRADING TO THE BANK FULL BENCH
C' - IN STREAM STRUCTURE PLACEMENT
'D' - STREAM ENHANCEMENT
'E' - GRADING TO DAYLIGHT BURIED STREAM
STREAM REACHES AND AREAS WHERE TREATMENT(S)OCCUR
UT -IA (STATION)
10+00 TO 12+29
A,B,C
UT -IB (STATION)
12+29 TO 20+20
A,B,C
20+20 TO 21+70
A,D
21+70 T021+46 (END)
A,B,C
UT -2 (STATION)
0+00 TO 13+75
A,D
3+75 TO 17+40
A, B,C,E
17+40 TO 20+30 (END)
A,B,C
UT -3 (STATION)
A,B
0+00 TO 19+76 (END)
A,B
VICINITY MAP
I.. I
Site Location
16.25 ins
- 4a
+)839
G22
I; t
err.. rr,
hid Lorce; �' I
li
4L'm.eY Rd 1177 1359
07 TO ASHEVILLE
1104
dna 1 s03
130$ c
aa°
107
1456
1:10 eM ('n+lyd iaBB
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
IBEFORE YOU DIG
CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE CALL CENTER
K wwheCebelow. gS hIE IAWI
C.11 before you dig,
�o
Lur-
a
0
LU ' N
LL Q 126
zjz
n w
W LLj F
Lu
0 a U
Lu
so U soJ
DO
Z E
Z
a0Y1

RIFFLE WIDTH
3.10'
LOG VANE JOINT 8" MINIMUM DIA
SEE NOTE I W LOG VANE
W
MAXIMUM POOL
DEPTH 1.1'
W
�. 30 -
SHALLOW POOL W LOG VANE BURIED
DEPTH 0.43' BENEATH BANK
L:]4914mm TZ"D I71w•lffili
EDGE OF
BANKFULL BENCH
0.41' ABOVE
CHANNEL BOTTOM
TOP OF BANKFULL
BENCH 0.43' ABOVE
CHANNEL BOTTOM
8" MEAN DIA RIVERSTONE
SLOPE LOG VANE DOWNWARD
TOWARD CENTER OF
CHANNEL AT 7:1, BOTH SIDES
tF
FILTER FABRIC TACKED WITH 2"
ROOFING NAILS TO LOG VANE
BANKFULL BENCH
W ELEVATION 0.43' ABOVE
W CHANNEL BOTTOM AT
W RIFFLE
RIFFLE 13.34'
HORIZONTAL LENGTH
AT 9:1 SLOPE
W POOL LENGTH
4.76'
W
POOL WIDTH
5.15'
0.5' MAX
L DEEP POOL SLOPE
2':I'
POOL LENGTH 4.76'
GEOTEX NW -801 NONWOVEN
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC OR
APPROVED EQUAL
PROFILE VIEW
PLAN VIEW NOTES:
I) USE I, 16" #4 BAR TO CONNECT LOG VANE. PRE -DRILL HOLE.
2 BURY LOG VANE 2' MIN. INTO BANK, COMPACT BACKFILL.
3 POOL AND RIFFLE LENGTHS AND WIDTHS ARE SPECIFIC TO REACH UT -IA.
4) SINGLE LONG CROSS VANS TO BE INSTALLED FOR REACHES UT -IB, UT -2 AND
UT -3 SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME MANNER AS INDICATED ON THIS
DETAIL. REFER TO DETAIL D3 FOR EACH SPECIFIC POOL AND RIFFLE DIMENSION.
V—NOTCH LOG VANE
8" DIA OR
GREATER
LOG VANE
RIFFLE LONGITUDINAL
LENGTH 13.42' AT
9':1' SLOPE
NOT TO SCALE
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
Knoww ds below. gShIEIAWI
Lell before you dig,
o
Lu a o
o co
W N
= a cr
C/)Z00 LU z
J 0 w
Q o Q N
a z: L)
Lu o w
00 J
0
w
J
Q
U�
Y
Z
W U fV
J J
J J n
W E —
m O LL ao
Z -) Q o

BANK SIDESLOPE 2:1 MAX.
BANKFULL BENCH WIDTH
DEEP POOL SIDE SLOPE 2:1
BANK SIDESLOPE 2:1 MAX
BANKFULL BENCH WIDTH
THALWEG OF CHANNEL
I
i
POOL WIDTH
�BANKFULL
_� MAXIMUM BENCH HEIGH
�_i
_ POOL DEPTH;
-i i VIII I
BANKFULL BENCH WIDTH
'\-POOL SIDE SLOPE 3:1
i
POOL
I
RIFFLEI WIDTH BANKFULL BENCH WIDTH -
BNKFULLI
BtNCH HEIGHT „ SII
RIFFLE
CHANNEL SIDESLOPE 2:1
TYPICALL RIFFLE AND POOL CROSS SECTION
BANKFULL BENCH
POOL LENGTH
DEEP POOL SLOPE T POOL SLOPE
RIFFLE LONGITUDINAL LENGTH
RIFFLE SLOPE
H
=V 1
T
BANKFULL BENCH HEIGHT
SHALLOW POOL DEPTH
MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH
TYP I CALL RIFFLE AND POOL PROFILE
FLOW
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
Typical Riffle and Pool Cross Section
NOTES:
I. MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH SHALL OCCUR ON THE OUTSIDE OF A
CHANNEL BEND.
2. PROPOSED BANK SIDE SLOPES FOR UT -IB SHALL VARY WHERE
EXISTING TERRAIN PERMITS. STATION 12+29 TO 18+60 SHALL BE
2:1. STATION 18+60 TO 12+20 AND 21+70 TO 24+46 SHALL BE 3:1.
NOT TO SCALE
Typical Riffle and Pool Profile
UT -1b
UT -2
UT -3
Bankfull Bench Height
0.57
0.50
0.71
Bankfull Bench Width
3.00
3.50
4.00
Riffle Width
5.51
1 5.76
5.78
Pool Width
8.27
8.63
8.67
Maximum Pool Depth
1.44
1.25
1.50
Channel Side Slope
2:1
2:1
2:1
Deep Pool Slope
2:1
2:1
2:1
Pool Slope
3:1
3:1
3:1
Bank Side Slope (H:V)
Varies*
3:1
3:1
NOTES:
I. MAXIMUM POOL DEPTH SHALL OCCUR ON THE OUTSIDE OF A
CHANNEL BEND.
2. PROPOSED BANK SIDE SLOPES FOR UT -IB SHALL VARY WHERE
EXISTING TERRAIN PERMITS. STATION 12+29 TO 18+60 SHALL BE
2:1. STATION 18+60 TO 12+20 AND 21+70 TO 24+46 SHALL BE 3:1.
NOT TO SCALE
Typical Riffle and Pool Profile
NOTES:
I. LONGITUDINAL LENGTH IS THE LENGTH OF THE FEATURE ALONG
CHANNEL BOTTOM FOLLOWING THE CHANNEL SLOPE.
2. RIFFLE AND POOL LENGTH LOCATION VARIES, REFER TO PLAN
SHEET FOR SPACING.
3. RIFFLE SHALL BEGIN AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING POOL ANC
CONTINUE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT POOL DOWNSTREAM.
4. POOLS LOCATED IN STREAM BENDS SHALL START AND STOP AT
THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF THE DESIGNED BEND.
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
NOT TO SCALE N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
C.11bd
Kee 6slow. eS hIE IAWI
C.11
before you dig,
(N
LU a o
o 00
W ()f Of N
= a cr
C/)Zjz
J 0 w
Q o Q N
a Z L)
LU o w
00 J
Y
z
w U fV
J J
J J
m0LLn
�0-
z -)<o
DO
Z
a
z 0Y
UT -1b
UT -2
UT -3
Pool Length
varies
varies
varies
Riffle Logitudinal Length
varies
varies
varies
Maximum Pool Depth
1.44
1.25
1.5
Deep Pool Slope (H:V)
2:1
2:1
2:1
Pool Slope
3:1
3:1
3:1
Riffle Slope
<0.05
<0.06
<0.03
Bankfull Bench Height
0.57
0.5
0.71
NOTES:
I. LONGITUDINAL LENGTH IS THE LENGTH OF THE FEATURE ALONG
CHANNEL BOTTOM FOLLOWING THE CHANNEL SLOPE.
2. RIFFLE AND POOL LENGTH LOCATION VARIES, REFER TO PLAN
SHEET FOR SPACING.
3. RIFFLE SHALL BEGIN AT THE END OF THE PRECEDING POOL ANC
CONTINUE TO THE BEGINNING OF THE NEXT POOL DOWNSTREAM.
4. POOLS LOCATED IN STREAM BENDS SHALL START AND STOP AT
THE POINT OF CURVATURE OF THE DESIGNED BEND.
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
NOT TO SCALE N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
C.11bd
Kee 6slow. eS hIE IAWI
C.11
before you dig,
(N
LU a o
o 00
W ()f Of N
= a cr
C/)Zjz
J 0 w
Q o Q N
a Z L)
LU o w
00 J
Y
z
w U fV
J J
J J
m0LLn
�0-
z -)<o
DO
Z
a
z 0Y

PLAN AND PROFILE SHEET INDEX
REACH UT -IA
SHEETS: PI
REACH UT -IB
SHEETS: PI, P2, & P3
REACH UT -2
SHEETS: P4 & P5
REACH UT -3
SHEETS: P6 & P7
CROSS SECTION SHEET INDEX
CROSS SECTIONS A, B & C
SHEET: XI /
CROSS SECTIONS D, E, & F
SHEET: X2 �
♦ PROPERTY BOUNDARY
N CROSS SECTION C CROSS SECTION E CROSS SECTION F
UT -2, STA 11+16.52 UT -3, STA 12+39.22 UT -3, STA 16+82.63
` SyFFT p4 REACH UT -2
I
� S
CROSS SECTION D
♦ UT -2, STA 16+08.94 Q II
CROSS SECTION B
UT -IB, STA 18+85.69
� v
CROSS SECTION A /r ^
UT -IA, STA 12+09.69
SHEET P6
i vrlV�
�r-
REACH UT -3
A,/� � ! REACH UT -IB PROPER =R� �
PRELIMINARY
\REACH UT -IA
I
I
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
aBEFORE YOU DIG
CALL 1-800-632-4949
NC ONECALL CBVTER
Kenx wW3 below. 115 THE IAWI
tall before you dig.
SHEET P7
A BLOCK
PROPERTY OWNER:
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
34 WALL ST. STE 502
ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
CONTACT PERSON: ALLISON KIEHL
PROJECT NAME: ANDERSON FARMS STREAM RESTORATION
AND MITIGATION BANK PLAN
PROJECT LOCATION:
108 MAG SLUDER RD.
LEICESTER, INC 28701
PIN #:9711-98-7999
ZONING DISTRICT: OU (OPEN USE)
CONSERVATION AREA: YES
CURRENT LAND USE: AGRICULTURAL
PROPERTY SIZE:103.69 ACRES
AVERAGE NATURAL SLOPE: 21.82%
REACH UTIA LENGTH: 229 LF
REACH UTIB LENGTH: 1217 LF
REACH UT2 LENGTH: 1,033 LF
REACH UT3 LENGTH: 976 LF
TOTAL STREAM LENGTH: 3,455 LF
TOTAL WETLAND AREA: 0.087 AC
F7
W
Z
W
W
U)
Z
a o
O 0
U fjf Of N
Q cr
Lu c/) ILL
� �
N W
O W (Dwo Q
Lu
Of Q U
O W
0o 00 J
Lu
J
LLO
Of
IL
I
Q
IL
N
o
>
Lo
N
N �-
0
O
o
W
O
a M e
Q O
c� Z
O N <
w z
(n
LY
J N w
J L
r
N�-
� a o
� n x
Z N —
N
ofo <
w o m
;m3
w
z x W 3
W Y Q
Z
J Z
Lu
Z NLu
J Z
w
Y_ W LLJ
o
F U O
r�
m�
Z E
aZ
oI'_'�

OVE EXISTING LIVESTOCK
CROSSING COMPU=TE k
EXISTING TREE TO_
BE REMOVED (T/YP.)
EXITING FENCE '`ol
CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY
STA 12+29:
A6�, END UT -IA DESIGN STREAM SECTION
;Q
\7\\��, BEGIN UT -IB DESIGN STREAM SECTION
PROPO,S€Q STREAM POOL.
_SEE�DETAIL FOR DIMENSIONS (TYP)
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
- V/ �"" 2�I-5-CIN1TS OF GRADING
154`-"FROK---
_ DESIGN BENCH
PROPOSED V-NaTCH _
LOG VA�(TYP�,1.
-SEE DETAIL Dr\
STA 0+00�pl
STREAM SECTION x\
Q�r4 `REMOV�EXISTING �� �\ �o
LIMITSbF-
N-X / -
_ �P---_-_--- SPRING BOA AND �\ �>j �\ _
CULVERT COMPLETE. ��\ of�Q GRADING ' _ �x �� ei=
EXISTING TREE TO PROPO IVESTOChF'FENC� 0'00' \` 20
htMAIN (TYiP.) LOOCCATED-2-OUTSIDE`\ `
STREAM BUFFER / CONSERVATION CONS��RVATION E EMENT
CONSERVATION AREA
EASEMENT BOUNDARY\
MULTI -USE ACCESS �
RTRFAM rRnSvIN(;

1995
1990
1985
1980
1975
1970
_ PRIORITY II RESTORATION (TYP.)
-- LIMIT,$'6F GRADING
--EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE TO BE, REMOVED-
_;Xd§ANG TREE TO BE _ \--
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.)
/( PROPOSED STREAM POOL (TYP.)
'_SEE DETAIL D2 FOR DIMENSIONS
REMOVED (TYP.) -%? ---__ ___�O� �9�n-
�� II /��------- _ `��_ �_ `X --- X 1 -ST4. 18+60
//_- END 2:1 BANK SIDE -SLOPES
BEGIN- IBWNK SIDE SLOPE
U C) �( �-
-G _ ! lig
Te
7♦ -elm / l "je�-`\ — -_-- — — i� =,
j�
781
PROPOSED STREP -BOOL (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL D2 FOR DIMENSIONSm� \---
2Q, PR­O`POSED -VJ♦IOTCH LOG VANE
SEE DETAIL DI ��� `� -' F=--4 JJO--
W
l - - `MULTI -USE ACCESS �\ f� �� -STREAM-BUFFER /
STREAM CROSSING _ o CONSERVATION-Af A_
PROPOSED LIVEStOCK FENCE �// / ' - u1
LOCATED 2' OUTSIDE J �'---------�
CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPOSED GEO-LIFT.
PROPOSED CONSERVATION SEE DETAIL D4
EASEMENT BOUNDARY LAY EXISTING SLOPE BACK TO 2:1 MAX.
GRADING LIMIT IS APPROXIMATE.
UT -IB
STA 14+50 TO 19+50
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATOR
STA 14+54.01
HEIGHT 0.80'
ELV 1990.40
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATOR
STA 15+16.19
HEIGHT 0.75'
CROSS SECTION ""
STA 18+85
--_—_— ELV 1989.15 EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATOR
PROPOSED THALWEi
CENTERLINI
10'
5'
0
0 25' 50'
J I H I0t0L.J4
HEIGHT 0.66'
ELV 1983.15
-------------_---_------>L
I
LEGEND
oos PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
°
V- V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATI
AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL I
BANKFULL BENCH
EXISTING TREE GREATER
40 THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
LIMITS OF GRADING
,-'EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
may' FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
'00000i EASEMENT BOUNDARY
Lij
J
LL
O
0
Z
Q
z
a
J
IL
N
'57-O
E cy
N
LL LLJ z
z
J
�
N w
w cD N
Q U
Lu
coo J
0
1995
0
}
� N
II
c)
o _
o
w
1990
m -
w a°
J
a o
U
C) U _
Z ro
O N <
i/%
1985
w�;
"
a
� pow
w in
in
1980
PRELIMINARY
o N a
NOT FOR
Z = W 3
w Y
1975 CONSTRUCTION
-
M ~
aw _ N
z N
w
�JJ�
Lu J n
Y W0-0 ILL _
BEFORE YOU DIG
1970 � CALL 1-800-632-4949
Q O
}
00
N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
Kn°ww dsbsl°w.
Z
� 7 w W
IR hIE IAWI
C.11 bd.. dig,
Q O — F—
STA14+50 STA15+00 STA15+50 STA16+00 STA16+50 STA17+00 STA17+50 STA18+00 STA18+50 STA19+00 STA19+50

1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
1955
EXISTING METAL DEBRIS, TRASH ETC. REACH HJT -2
SHALL BE REMOVED COMPLETE. i �•
PROPOSED V -NOTCH LOG VANE
SEE DETAIN DI �� i \ ; �`f �\ p4d4
EXISTING WOOD BRIDE TO _ _ _ _ _ �� } i ♦ \ ♦\ ���'o
BE REMOVED COMPLETE. p� ; o�`\� 19+00` ro j
EXISTING LIVEST6CK FENCE -- -
_ TO BE -REMOVED COMPLETE ---
REM2V-E- - \ �� �i i-----
IM�OtJNI MENT ,__------- -/—X—`�` __-- o -�C�� �\
X ---_
p _
O �� N � —
+ Q.......... N
A.
1N
T ,� _ -��, .• .. _ __ - � � � 1�` �� nom12
- -
S_TA 20+20
END UT -IB DESIGRF
STREAM SECTION, ' X
-- IJJOBEGIN STREAM ---�� -- j,/ -�\
ENHANCEMENT LEVELS ----__ -_ �� � �� .' ` // ��� ���, .�X--
_ �RO�-0SEQ STRAM POOL (TYP.) - - - -' � �' ��' � ` � � STA 24+46: �
SEE DETAIL D -2 -F -OR DIMENSIONS.,'ice/ PRIORITY II REST,ORATION�� END Ul`-lB DESJGf BECTIQN
_ i/ (TYP.)
------
EXISTING WETLAND AREA I. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ J� EXJSTING TkEE TO \`, LIMITS OF GRADING
DO NOT DISTURB BE REMOVED (TYP.) -'--
EXISTING TREE TO REAMIN (TYP.) REACH UT -3
STREAM BUFFER
STA 21+70 CONSERVATION AREA
END STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVEL I,
BEGIN UT -IB DESIGN STREAM SECTION
UT -IB
STA 19+50 TO 24+46
EXISTING THALWEG CENTERLINE
I
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATER
STA 24+16.36
HEIGHT 0.63'
lo. �,� ELV 1962.50
5'
0
0 25'
STA19+50
50'
STA20+00 STA20+50 STA21+00 STA21+50 STA22+00 STA22+50 STA23+00 STA23+50
STA24+00
LEGEND
U -081.
o PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
V- V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATI
AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
�
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL I
}
BANKFULL BENCH
EXISTING TREE GREATER
c)
O _
o
THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
1975
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
_
w a�
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
C) U _
Z ro
O N <
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
1970
THE ENGINEER.
— aD t
In
LIMITS OF GRADING
.-'EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
C)
z
Q
z
a
J
IL
9�
O
00
< N
LL LLJ z
z
J
�
C/) w
wcDN
Q U
Lu
00 J
0
1980
0
}
to N
II
c)
O _
o
w
1975
_
w a�
J
a o
U
C) U _
Z ro
O N <
in
1970
— aD t
In
a
� pow
w in
in
1965
PRELIMINARY
o N a
NOT FOR
Z= W 3
W Y
1960 CONSTRUCTION
-
M ~
aw�N
z N
� _J
w
Y W0- �
O0 co
BEFORE YOU DIG
1955 � CALL 1-800-632-4949
Q
}
00
N.C.ONECAILCENO?
KnOww ds be';:
Z
7 w W
IR hIE IAWI
Lell bd.. dig,
Q O — F-

STA 13+75 - - - -
PROPOSED CONSERVATION END STREAM ENHANCEMENT ao�
EASEMENT BOUNDARY LEVEL I, BEGIN DESIGN -CHANNEL
154' FROM DESIGN SECTION -UT -2
EXISTING TREE TO REMAIN (TYP.) BENCH (TYP.)------------ - '-
STA 0+00
BEGIN STREAM ENHANCEMENT LEVE -L -I--
--- -EXISTING WETLAND AREA 3
`------
_
�_NO
C'S _ _ -�o� I DO T DfiSTUF2B
�� o �- _ - - - - IE_C-I sTtN[G WETLAND AREA 2. _
DO -NOT DISTURB
o _ _ -PROPOSED STREAM POOL -
--------- (TYP.) SEE DET -ATL D2 FOR
o o DIMENSIONS
UM'IFS-OF GRADING
CD
-++_--�1 X-� --
7-,--- TB -ire
x x—� —, 2 _ -,a _ --qG
' PROPOSED V NOTCH LOG VANE"" -�
EXISTING WOOD -
BRIDGEfi@ BE, ���,� j _'�----------- --'�fE DET_A_IL DI
REMOVED COMPLETE \\ _EX1Si -j-
REE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.)
--� Z�----------
�`��--- PRIORITY II RESTORATION
+ --- FROP-0SED LIVESTOCK FENCE
STREAM BUFFE��`, EXISTING LIVESTOCK LOCATED 2' OUTSIDE
CONSERVATI_O_N AREA ciit; FENCE IO B_E REMOVED- - - - - - - - - - - - CONSERVATION EASEMENT
n-, ____----- MULTI -USE ACCESS STREAM
--------- CROSSING
2010
2005
•N,
2000
1995
10'
1990
5'
Reil 'i
UT -2
STA 10+00 TO 15+25
CROSS SECTION 'C'
STA 11+16.52
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATORS
STA 11+60.17
HEIGHT 0.40' EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATORS
,\ I ELV 1998.98 STA 12+49.92
HEIGHT 0.65'
��------�--- __ __ ELV 1996.54
0
0 25' 50'
1980
STA10+00 STA10+50 STAII+00 STAII+50
GRADE TO DAYLIGHT STREAM.
BEGIN AT STA 13+75 (APPROX) TO
STA 18+80 (APPROX)
EXISTING THALWEG
CENTERLINE
PROPOSED THALWEG
CENTERLINE
20�
LEGEND
s PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
- - - - V- V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
ZZ 1flz?- BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATIO
AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
-- STREAM ENHANCEMENT
- - ` LEVEL I
`` BANKFULL BENCH
EXISTING TREE GREATER
THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
LIMITS OF GRADING
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
M
I—
w
Lij
()
J Eco
< N
LL W W U
O ZZ
0JOf
N
chcn w
w N
Q Q v
z Lu
00 J
Q
z
a
IL
STA12+00 STA12+50 STA13+00 STA13+50 STA14+00 STA14+50 STA15+00
o_
1
"
2005
}
II
o_
o
w
-
w a�
J
U
2000
Z��
N <
NO
cl J N w
_ ro r
>- > V c
n
"
1995
a
� pow
w in
••,,,
PRELIMINARY
c)M e
Z N m F
1990
o N a
NOT FOR
;m3
3
CONSTRUCTION
z = W
— —�
wY
JZ
z N
0 J
JN
1985
w
r W EL;
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
F-)Qo
}
Z
N.C. ONE CENlEP
3 Z w
-
1980 C.11 bd..' ou dig, IR hIE IAWI
Q O w
STA12+00 STA12+50 STA13+00 STA13+50 STA14+00 STA14+50 STA15+00

1985
1980
1975
1970
1965
1960
STA 20+33 REACH UT -3
zola, END DESIGN CHANNEL SECTION UT -2 i
F-loPROPOSED V -NOTCH LOG VASE. \�s,3XISTING WOOD BRIDGE TO BE /
w ,+ DETAIL DI \ \ 7��- REMOVED COMPLETE
_ cel—
00
-000
3000 cl
O O' +i' J f' k X O
-- ---��_-- b _-------EO _-= _ to--- - aX / +
oo
--Atm
EXISTING LIVE -STOCK
FENCE TO BE REMOVED
6-t - _ _ _ _ 3ROPOSED STREAM POOL (TYP. )
SEE DETAIL D2 FOR DIMENSION
LIMITS OF GRADING
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED (TYP.)
MULTI -USE ACCESS STREAM CROSSING
PROPOSED LIVESTOCK FENCE
LOCATED 2' OUTSIDE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
UT -2
STA 15+25 TO 20+33
STREAM BUF�ER /
CONSERVATION AREA,'�I��
' i�
REACH U -I
Y \ �-
/
i
END OF GRADING TO DAYLIGHT STREAM
STA 18+80 (APPROX)
EXISTING THALWEG
4-46%---,
CENTERLINE
_
CROSS SECTION 'D' 6'/i �•
WE STA 16+08.94
PROPOSED THALWEG -J
CENTERLINE
5'
0
0 25' 50'
STA15+50 STA16+00 STA16+50 STA17+00 STA17+50 STA18+00 STA18+50
STA19+00 STA19+50
STA20+00
LEGEND
0
PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
V- V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATI
AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL I
BANKFULL BENCH
EXISTING TREE GREATER
THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
LIMITS OF GRADING
1985
m
1975
1970
1965
•e/
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
Knoww ds below. IR hlE IAWI
Lell before you dig,
ui
J
LL0
0
Z
Q
z
Q
IL
Ql)
o
00
< N
LL w z
z
0J 0
�
N w
w N
Q U
Lu
000 J
0
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
}
to N
II
c
o
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
o
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
oa —
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
W N M S
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
1985
m
1975
1970
1965
•e/
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
Knoww ds below. IR hlE IAWI
Lell before you dig,
ui
J
LL0
0
Z
Q
z
Q
IL
Ql)
o
00
< N
LL w z
z
0J 0
�
N w
w N
Q U
Lu
000 J
0
0
}
to N
II
c
o
—
o
w
oa —
J
W N M S
u
O U —
Z ro
O N <
in
J N w
— CO t
} >
w V c
In
N
= x Q rc
N�-
� pow
in
c) M e
N
ct o
om<
w ;m3
w� ;
Z = W 3
w Z
~
N
Z N
of J
J n
w
Lu
W EL —
Y
0 ILL
Q O
D
m�
zE�
Z
a olllF

1970
1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
o _ PROPOSED GEO-LIFT (TYP.) `
SEE DETAIL D4 -----�
'ROPOSEDfrTEAM POOL (TYP.)
��-\`-- SEE DETAIL b2 -FOR DIMENSIONS
2-A---- _EXISTING TREE/TO REMAIN Rer^\
EXISTING TREE T -O BE REMOVED,
� h
tQ
Lro �� / �' o00 0 00 _ o /— _ytw—_--��_--_ `C �• —�—� o X
_' '•''o o` i= %��� /�T9- -F�J�`Y� `__��./---- 4��—
X11 Z'N goo°o°
_ _ \�—__—_ LIMITS \OF G,R-ADM---
--_ _ ---
� 154' FROM DESIGN NN PRIORITY IV RESTORATIOt ,_--r�
0,, -BANK -F J�Q ��
y \
0c~n EXISTING LIVESTOCK FENCE TO BE REM /€D_\ --l/,
STA 0+00 1 v CONSERVATION EASEMENT BOUNDARY-------
BEGIN
OUNDARY----_-BEGIN DESIGN CHANNEL SECTION UT -3 STREAM BUFFER / PROPOSED LIVESTOCK FENCE
END UT -IB CONSERVATION AREA LOCATED 2' OUTSIDE
END UT -2 CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATORS
STA 12+01.66
HEIGHT 0.96'
ELV 1957.80
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICTER
STA 11+40.84
HEIGHT 0.76'
-----_ ELV 1958.81
5'
0
0 25' 50'
STA10+00 STA10+50 STAII+00 STAII+50
UT -3
STA 10+00 TO 15+00
CROSS SECTION 'E'
STA 12+39.22
i EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATORS
STA 13+94.51
HEIGHT 0.89'
--i— ELV 1953.52
-------------
EXISTING THALWEG
CENTERLINE
STA12+00 STA12+50 STA13+00 STA13+50 STA14+00 STA14+50
STA15+00
LEGEND
01-111 PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
V- V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATIO
F1 AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL I
BANKFULL BENCH
EXISTING TREE GREATER
THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
LIMITS OF GRADING
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
1965
m
1955
PRELIMINARY
1950 NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
1945
BEFORE YOU DIG
�
CALL 1-800-632-4949
Knoww ds below.
Lell before you dig,
N.C. ONE CALL CENO?
IR hlE IAWI
ire
I—
ui
ui2
U) o —
of cc)� N
L LL Lu Z
p z
Of 0NJOf
EL ch F__
LL1 CD N
Q Q v
z 0 Lu
J
Q
z
a
J
In
0
0
N
o -
o
w
oa —
J
W N M S
u
O U _
z ro
O N <
in
} >
04
N
N�-
� pow
w in
c) M e
F MI x
Z N —
O N
d' O
O m <
w 3m3
w ;
Z = W 3
w Z
~
N
Z N
of J
J n
w
Lu
W EL —
Y
0 ILL
Q O
DOm�
zE�
aZ
o'1' F

1965
1960
1955
1950
1945
1940
1935
STA 19+50
END DESIGN CHANNEL SECTION UT -3
PROPOSED STREAM POOL (TYP.)
SEE DETAIL D2 FOR DIMENSIONS
------f-9G-a EXISTING TREE TO
,�
`B REMOVED
Ax
7 71
le
-14`1
00
_��•.�+-=•-� _ --- � -yam\ � ;1'%
o I� I �/�
ra
ole
STREAM BUFFER /
N
1p CONSERVATION AREA --
�wl\o-- PROPOSED GEO-LIFT (TYP.)
_ _ _ _ SEE DETAIL D4
0/3 � -----Q
ow EXISTING LIVESTOCK Z
FENCE TO BE REMOVED o
CIO
LIMITS OF GRADING
EXISTING FENCE ALONG PROPERTY LINE TO REMAIN
a
PRIORITY II RESTORATION o
UT -3
STA 15+50 TO 19+50 (END)
CROSS SECTION 'F'
STA 16+82.63
EXISTING BANKFULL INDICATORS
i STA 17+64.02
HEIGHT 0.70'
------------ i ELV 1948.89
--------�—_— _ _ EXISTING THALWEG
lo'l-------------__ — —� CENTERLINE
i
5'
0
0 25' 50'
STA15+50 STA16+00 STA16+50 STA17+00 STA17+50 STA18+00 STA18+50 STA19+00 STA19+50
STA20+00
LEGEND
ss� PROPOSED STREAM POOL (NTS)
00
V_ V- NOTCH LOG VANE (NTS)
PROPOSED GEO-LIFT TO
BANKFULL ELEVATION (NTS)
F-1 STREAM BUFFER/CONSERVATIO
AREA, STREAM BUFFER
CORRECTION FACTOR 18.5%
PRIORITY II RESTORATION
STREAM ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL I
,-EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
.'ooej
•el,
1955
1950
PRELIMINARY
1945 NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
L014f,
BEFORE YOU DIG
5N.C.
CALL1-800-632-4949935 ONE CALL CENO?
Knoww ds below. IR hlE IAWI
Ul before you dig,
M
Z
Q
z
a
J
IL
a o
'57-O
E co
N
LL LLJ z
z
J
W N w
o cD U)
Q 2: U
Lu
a00 J
0
o_
}
BANKFULL BENCH
0
O
EXISTING TREE GREATER
o
THAN 1.5' DIAMETER AT
BREAST HEIGHT TO REMAIN
W N M
EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
O U —
z ro
O N <
AND RE -USED FOR STREAM
} >
w V c
STRUCTURE AS DIRECTED BY
THE ENGINEER.
� Wow
LIMITS OF GRADING
,-EXISTING TOP OF BANK
EXISTING LIVESTOCK
FENCE, TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
.'ooej
•el,
1955
1950
PRELIMINARY
1945 NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
L014f,
BEFORE YOU DIG
5N.C.
CALL1-800-632-4949935 ONE CALL CENO?
Knoww ds below. IR hlE IAWI
Ul before you dig,
M
Z
Q
z
a
J
IL
a o
'57-O
E co
N
LL LLJ z
z
J
W N w
o cD U)
Q 2: U
Lu
a00 J
0
o_
}
to N
II
0
O
—
o
w
W N M
U
O U —
z ro
O N <
in
} >
w V c
N
N�-
� Wow
Z N —
N
ct
W � m
N ;
Q
Z = W ;
w Z
~
Z N
of JN
n
w
Lu -i
W EL —
Y
0 ILL
Q O
DOm�
zE�
z
aowF

RIVER LEFT
2030
2020
CROSS SECTION A
REACH UT -IA
STA: I2+09.23
RIVER RIGHT
2030
2020
2010
N
}
N
II
0
0 _
�o
w
ao —
J
o ag�z
W N M
Q
U O
v _
Z ro
0 N <
(n
o' w ao z
0 J N w
— c
w U c
O
= x ¢ rc
w N
i
F MI x
O N
Of O
O m <
z = W ;
Y
2010
Z
LU U fV
N
m J J-
Z
Z J JT\
w
W 0--
0 1i ap
F�Qo
m
m�
ZEA
Z
0
0- J
0 0-0 U
2000
2000
1+20
1+10
1+00
0+90
0+80
0+70
0+60
0+50
0+40
0+30
0+20
0+10
0+00
0+10
0+20
0+30
0+40
0+50
0+60
0+70
0+80
0+90
1+00
1+10
1+20
CROSS SECTION B
REACH UT -IB
RIVER LEFT STA: 18+85.69 RIVER RIGHT
2010 PROPO DE 2010
THAI
2000 2000
1990 1990
1980 1980
1+20 1+10 1+00 0+90 0+80 0+70 0+60 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CROSSREACH LIT -2
C CONSTRUCTION
RIVER LEFT STA: 11+16.52 RIVER RIGHT
2030 2030
2020 2020
2010 2010
2000 2000
1+20 1+10 1+00 0+90 0+80 0+70 0+60 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20
BEFORE YOU DIG
� CALL 1-800-632-4949
N.C. ONE CALL CENTER
Know Wsbelow. I.—
IAWI
C.11 before you dig,
N
LLO
o 0
a
0
co
U) 10� Of N
Z Q ry
O z 0 z
n w
Of
U Lu (.9
o Q
W z L)
(� aow
�//�� 00 J
V /
�O
I.J.
U
N
}
N
II
0
0 _
�o
w
ao —
J
o ag�z
W N M
Q
U O
v _
Z ro
0 N <
(n
o' w ao z
0 J N w
— c
w U c
O
= x ¢ rc
w N
i
F MI x
O N
Of O
O m <
z = W ;
Y
o n ~
Z
LU U fV
N
m J J-
Z
Z J JT\
w
W 0--
0 1i ap
F�Qo
m
m�
ZEA
Z
0
0- J
0 0-0 U

RIVER LEFT
2020
2010
2000
1990
CROSS SECTION D
REACH UT -2
STA: 16+08.94
RIVER RIGHT
2020
2010
2000
1990
1+30 1+20 1+10 1+00 0+90 0+80 0+70 0+60 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10
CROSS SECTION E
REACH UT -3
RIVER LEFT STA: 12+39.22 RIVER RIGHT
1990 PROPMED GR 1990
1980 1980
1970 1970
1960 1960
1+20 1+10 1+00 0+90 0+80 0+70 0+60 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20
CROSS SECTION F
REACH UT -3
RIVER LEFT STA: 16+82.63 RIVER RIGHT
1980 1980
1970 1970
1960 1960
1950 1950
1+20 1+10 1+00 0+90 0+80 0+70 0+60 0+50 0+40 0+30 0+20 0+10 0+00 0+10 0+20 0+30 0+40 0+50 0+60 0+70 0+80 0+90 1+00 1+10 1+20
PRELIMINARY
BEFORE YOU DIG
NOT FOR CALL ONECAl CE47D? 49
N.C. ONECALL CENlEP
Kn whet a IR THE IAWI
CONSTRUCTION C.11
h-.hdlg
N
N
0
N
0
LL
N o
II
0
0 _
O
W
—
J
N
U o
v _
Z ro
0 N <
(n
0 J N w
w coo
a
o
o
r -
co
U)
Q
Of
N
Z
O
LLwL)
z
0
z
Z = W 3
�
~
w
U
o('N
Z N
J
W
Q
2:
c,
(�
¢o
o
00
w
J
``^^
V
ZEA
`//
V
Z
0
0- J Q
NO
0.
U
0
N
0
}
N o
II
0
0 _
O
W
—
J
O
W N M
U o
v _
Z ro
0 N <
(n
0 J N w
w coo
m W _
N
i
F M i
Z
O N �
W O aD
3
m
w > s
Z = W 3
Y
~
Z
c7 M
J JN
Z N
J
Z J n
w
W 0--
O IL ap
¢o
m
ZEA
Z
0
0- J Q

Table 1. HEC -RAS analysis of existing and design conditions. The Manning's bankfull flow was calculated
independently for each reach.
Existing
Design
Shear
Bankfull
Shear
Bankfull
Q
V
Area
Stress
Height
V
Area
Stress
Height
River
Reach
Station
Profile
(cfs)
(ft/s)
(sq ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(sq ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(ft)
Manning's
UT -1a
11+16
Bankfull
11.92
4.5
2.65
0.9
1.57
3.75
3.73
0.6
0.68
Manning's
UT -1a
12+09
Bankfull
11.92
4.16
2.99
0.74
0.65
2.86
5.34
0.32
0.81
Manning's
UT -1b
13+77
Bankfull
7.79
3.92
2.04
0.67
0.68
3.49
2.23
0.57
0.52
Manning's
UT -1b
14+02
Bankfull
7.79
3.22
2.42
0.39
0.6
3.45
2.14
0.63
0.5
Manning's
UT -1b
14+45
Bankfull
7.79
4.13
2.12
0.55
0.87
1.98
2.14
0.63
0.5
Manning's
UT -1b
15+15
Bankfull
7.79
3.48
2.33
0.42
0.81
3.44
3.34
0.3
0.64
Manning's
UT -1b
15+37
Bankfull
7.79
3.81
2.05
0.49
0.69
3.45
2.14
0.63
0.5
Manning's
UT -1b
16+51
Bankfull
7.79
3.35
2.6
0.38
0.8
3.16
3.39
0.29
0.65
Manning's
UT -1b
18+85
Bankfull
7.79
3.43
2.27
0.43
0.48
3.44
2.14
0.63
0.5
Manning's
UT -1b
23+07
Bankfull
7.79
3.5
2.23
0.43
0.53
3.52
2.14
0.46
0.5
Manning's
UT -1b
24+16
Bankfull
7.79
3.86
2.02
0.51
0.92
3.49
2.14
0.46
0.5
Averag
Manning's
UT -1a
a
Bankfull
11.92
4.33
2.82
0.82
1.11
3.31
4.54
0.46
0.75
Averag
Manning's
UT -1b
a
Bankfull
7.79
3.63
2.23
0.47
0.71
3.27
2.42
0.51
0.53
Manning's
UT -2
11+64
Bankfull
9.26
2.4
3.86
0.34
0.56
3.36
3.31
0.51
0.59
Manning's
UT -2
12+51
Bankfull
9.26
3.14
2.95
0.51
0.72
3.36
3.31
0.51
0.59
Manning's
UT -2
16+08
Bankfull
9.26
3.25
2.85
0.53
0.52
3.36
3.31
0.51
0.59

Notes:
River STA indicates station value of cross section.
Average indicates average throughout entire reach.
Q indicates bankfull discharge.
Vindicates bankfull velocity.
Flow Area indicates bankfull area.
sq ft. indicates square feet.
Ib/sq. ft. indicates pound per square foot.
Bold indicates average reach values.
See Table 2 for Manning's discharge parameters.
Existing
Design
Shear
Bankfull
Shear
Bankfull
Q
V
Area
Stress
Height
V
Area
Stress
Height
River
Reach
Station
Profile
(cfs)
(ft/s)
(sq ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(ft)
(ft/s)
(sq ft)
(Ib/sq ft)
(ft)
Manning's
UT -2
19+76
Bankfull
9.26
4.54
2.04
0.9
1.28
3.36
3.31
0.51
0.59
Averag
Manning's
UT -2
a
Bankfull
9.26
3.33
2.93
0.57
0.77
3.36
3.31
0.51
0.59
Manning's
UT -3
11+34
Bankfull
8.23
3.22
2.55
0.34
1.42
3.67
2.24
0.62
0.55
Manning's
UT -3
12+01
Bankfull
8.23
3.85
2.26
0.67
0.78
3.33
2.47
0.5
0.6
Manning's
UT -3
12+39
Bankfull
8.23
3.72
2.21
0.65
0.76
3.74
2.2
0.65
0.55
Manning's
UT -3
13+95
Bankfull
8.23
2.97
2.77
0.38
1.09
2.86
2.87
0.36
0.67
Manning's
UT -3
17+33
Bankfull
8.23
3.22
2.56
0.46
0.85
3.43
3.1
0.51
0.8
Averag
Manning's
UT -3
a
Bankfull
8.23
3.40
2.47
0.50
0.98
3.41
2.58
0.53
0.63
Notes:
River STA indicates station value of cross section.
Average indicates average throughout entire reach.
Q indicates bankfull discharge.
Vindicates bankfull velocity.
Flow Area indicates bankfull area.
sq ft. indicates square feet.
Ib/sq. ft. indicates pound per square foot.
Bold indicates average reach values.
See Table 2 for Manning's discharge parameters.

Table 2. Channel parameters and calculated discharge (Q) based on existing bankfull features.
Notes:
A indicates bankfull area in a riffle.
dd indicates bankfull depth in a riffle.
R indicated hydraulic radius.
S indicates water surface slope.
n indicates Manning's roughness coefficient.
I indicates rainfall intensity.
C indicates the dimensionless runoff coefficient.
D and DA indicate drainage area, in respective units.
Q Manning's indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by Manning's equation.
Q Rational indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by the Rational Method.
Q Regional Curve indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by the NC Regional Curve.
sq. ft indicates square feet.
ft indicates foot.
ft/ft indicates foot per foot.
cfs indicates cubic feet per second.
Q
Q
Q
Region
A
d
R
S
n
I
C
D
DA
Manning'
Rationa
al
s
I
Curve
(unitless
(unitless
Reach
(sq ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(ft/ft)
(in/hr)
(acre)
(sq mi)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(cfs)
UT -1 a
1.53
0.53
0.41
0.110
0.035
4.00
0.20
17
0.03
11.92
13.76
6.47
UT -1 b
1.68
0.71
0.45
0.035
0.035
4.00
0.20
23
0.04
7.79
18.40
8.05
UT -2
1.93
0.53
0.42
0.040
0.035
4.00
0.20
37
0.06
9.26
29.54
11.56
UT -3
2.35
0.83
0.52
0.016
0.035
4.00
0.20
97
0.15
8.23
77.46
23.80
Notes:
A indicates bankfull area in a riffle.
dd indicates bankfull depth in a riffle.
R indicated hydraulic radius.
S indicates water surface slope.
n indicates Manning's roughness coefficient.
I indicates rainfall intensity.
C indicates the dimensionless runoff coefficient.
D and DA indicate drainage area, in respective units.
Q Manning's indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by Manning's equation.
Q Rational indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by the Rational Method.
Q Regional Curve indicates bankfull discharge as calculated by the NC Regional Curve.
sq. ft indicates square feet.
ft indicates foot.
ft/ft indicates foot per foot.
cfs indicates cubic feet per second.

Table 3. Bankfull dimensions from field identified features, NC Mountain Regional Curves, Zink et al.,
regional curves, and design bankfull dimensions.
Notes:
W indicates bankfull width.
d indicates bankfull depth.
A indicates bankfull area.
sq ft indicates square foot.
Field Identified
NC Mountain Regional
Curves
Regional Curves
(Zink et al., 2012)
Design
W
d
A
W
d
A
W
d
A
W
d
A
Reach
(ft)
(ft)
(sq ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sq ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sq ft)
(ft)
(ft)
(sq ft)
UT -1a
2.68
0.53
1.53
5.11
0.36
1.84
5.25
0.42
2.13
4.35
0.43
1.84
UT -1b
2.35
0.71
1.68
7.00
0.47
3.29
7.19
0.52
3.67
5.51
0.57
2.88
UT -2
3.51
0.52
1.92
6.79
0.45
3.11
6.97
0.51
3.48
5.76
0.50
2.84
UT -3
2.82
0.83
2.35
8.91
0.57
5.12
9.15
0.62
5.57
5.78
0.71
3.40
Notes:
W indicates bankfull width.
d indicates bankfull depth.
A indicates bankfull area.
sq ft indicates square foot.

Table 4. Existing and design critical shear stress values and associated particle sizes mobilized within the
defined reach.
Notes:
R indicates hydraulic radius.
S indicates water surface slope.
T indicates critical shear stress.
Particle size mobilized is the maximum diameter particle mobilized at given T.
HEC -RAS T is the modeled T.
HEC -RAS particle size mobilized is the maximum diameter particle mobilized at the modeled HEC -RAS T.
ft/ft indicated foot per foot.
Ib. /sq ft indicates pound per square foot.
Permissible shear stress for proposed coir matting with net= 2.25 Ib/ sq. ft. (Fischenich, 2001).
Existing
Design
HEC-
HEC -
RAS
RAS
Particle
particle
Particle
particle
Bankfu
size
size
Bankfu
size
size
II
mobiliz
HEC-
mobiliz
II
mobiliz
HEC-
mobiliz
Height
R
S (ft/
T (lb/
ed
RAS T
ed
Height
R
S (ft/
T (lb/
ed
RAS T
ed
(ft)
(ft)
ft)
sq ft)
(mm)
(Ib/sq ft)
(mm)
(ft)
(ft)
ft)
sq ft)
(mm)
(Ib/sq ft)
(mm)
UT -1
0.74-
0.32-
a
0.53
0.41
0.11
2.81
200.0
0.90
48-75
0.43
0.38
0.11
2.64
200
0.60
20-45
UT -1
0.39-
0.30-
b
0.71
0.45
0.03
0.97
80.0
0.67
20-41
0.57
0.51
0.03
1.11
85
0.63
21 -47
0.34 -
UT -2
0.53
0.42
0.04
1.06
85.0
0.90
20-75
0.50
0.47
0.04
1.18
90
0.51
28
0.34-
0.36 -
UT -3
0.83
0.52
0.02
0.52
30.0
0.67
20-46
0.71
0.57
0.02
0.56
39
0.65
25-49
Notes:
R indicates hydraulic radius.
S indicates water surface slope.
T indicates critical shear stress.
Particle size mobilized is the maximum diameter particle mobilized at given T.
HEC -RAS T is the modeled T.
HEC -RAS particle size mobilized is the maximum diameter particle mobilized at the modeled HEC -RAS T.
ft/ft indicated foot per foot.
Ib. /sq ft indicates pound per square foot.
Permissible shear stress for proposed coir matting with net= 2.25 Ib/ sq. ft. (Fischenich, 2001).

Permissible shear stress for proposed coir matting on fully established streambank = 4-8 Ib/ sq. ft.
(Fischenich, 2001).
Permissible shear stress for live stakes on partially established streambank = 0.5 -2 Ib/ sq. ft. (NCDENR,
2009).
Permissible shear stress for live stakes on fully established streambank = 2-5 Ib/ sq. ft. (NCDENR, 2009).

Table 5. Stream Survey Data Sheet.
UT -1a
UT -1 a
UT -1 b
UT -1 b
UT -2
UT -2
UT -3
UT -3
Paramater
Existing
Design
Existing
Design
Existing
Design
Existing
Desi n
Drainage
Area acre
17
17
23
23
37
37
97
97
Stream
Length (ft)
229
229
1217
1217
1033
1033
976
976
Valley Length
(ft)
215
215
1160
1160
969
969
843
843
Water
Surface
Slope (ft/ft)
0.110
0.110
0.035
0.035
0.040
0.040
0.016
0.016
Valley Slope
(ft/ft)
0.117
0.117
0.038
0.038
0.045
0.045
0.019
0.019
Channel
Sinuosity
1.07
1.07
1.05
1.05
1.07
1.07
1.16
1.16
Bankfull
Discharge
(cfs)
nneCha(Manning's
Equation)
11.92
11.92
7.79
7.79
9.26
9.26
8.23
8.23
Dim
Dim
Bankfull
ensi
Velocity (ft/s)
ons
(Continuity
Equation)
7.79
7.94
4.78
3.14
4.81
3.93
3.50
2.66
Bankfull
Velocity (ft/s)
(Avg. HEC -
RAS)
4.33
3.22
3.63
3.26
3.34
3.57
3.40
3.20
Channel
Materials
(Particle Size
Index D50)
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.28
0.36
0.36
0.28
0.28
Channel
Materials
(Particle Size
Index D84)
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.20
1.20
20.00
20.00
Rosgen
Stream Type
Aha+to F5b*
A
B5a* to G5*
Eb*
C5b* to G5c*
Cb*
E5* to G4c*
Eb*
Bankfull
Width (ft)
2.68 to 5.93
4.35
2.35 to 3.42
5.51
1.35 to 3.51
5.76
2.68 to 2.82
5.78
Bankfull
Depth (ft)
0.43 to 0.53
0.43
0.57 to 0.71
0.57
0.50 to 0.53
0.50
0.71 to 0.83
0.71

Notes:
Existing parameters were measured at relatively stable sections where bankfull indicators were identified
(more stable areas) and at cross-sections (less stable areas) and provided a range of stream type and
stability rating for each reach.
*indicates that the Rosgen Stream Type denoted does not match the definition of that stream in its entirety
according to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. For example, one parameter, e.g. sinuosity may
differ from the Rosgen Classification.
UT -1a
UT -1 a
UT -1 b
UT -1 b
UT -2
UT -2
UT -3
UT -3
Paramater
ExistingDesign
ExistingDesign
ExistingDesign
ExistingDesi
n
Bankfull X -
Section Area
Riffl
(sq ft)
1.53
1.50
1.63
2.48
1.93
2.36
2.35
3.10
e
Width/Depth
Dim
Ratio
5.06 to 13.70
10.11
3.31 to 6.00
9.67
2.76 to 6.69
11.51
3.40 to 3.80
8.14
ensi
Maximum
ons
Depth (Dmax)
0.53
0.43
0.71
0.57
0.53
0.50
0.83
0.71
Width of
Flood -Prone
Area (ft)
6.08 to 7.05
13.00
4.25 to 7.30
16.00
2.68 to 24.27
24.00
3.70 to 9.12
18.00
Entrenchmen
Ratio
1.02 to 2.47
2.99
1.25 to 3.11
2.90
1.90 to 6.91
4.17
1.30 to 3.23
3.12
Bench Width
N/A
3.00
N/A
3.00
N/A
3.50
N/A
4.00
Max Pool
Depth (ft)
N/A
1.12
N/A
1.44
N/A
1.25
N/A
1.50
Pool Area (sq
3.65
N/A
5.94
N/A
5.40
N/A
6.50
t)
N/A
Pool Width
6.52
N/A
8.27
N/A
8.63
N/A
8.67
(ft)
N/A
Average Pool
Poo
Depth (ft)
N/A
0.75
N/A
0.99
N/A
0.87
N/A
1.24
Pool Slope
Dim
(ft/ft)
N/A
0.00
N/A
0.00
N/A
0.00
N/A
0.00
ensi
Ratio of Pool
ons
Width to
Bankfull
Width
N/A
1.50
N/A
1.50
N/A
1.50
N/A
1.50
Pool to Pool
Spacing (ft)
N/A
13.40
N/A
15-165
N/A
25-160
N/A
20-100
Bench Width
R
N/A
3.00
N/A
3.00
N/A
3.50
N/A
4.00
Notes:
Existing parameters were measured at relatively stable sections where bankfull indicators were identified
(more stable areas) and at cross-sections (less stable areas) and provided a range of stream type and
stability rating for each reach.
*indicates that the Rosgen Stream Type denoted does not match the definition of that stream in its entirety
according to the Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. For example, one parameter, e.g. sinuosity may
differ from the Rosgen Classification.

Table 6. BEHI analyses of UT -1 a, UT -1 b, UT -2, and UT -3.
Notes: N/A indicates `not applicable'.
% indicates percentage.
Station
River
Bank
Bank
Height
Ratio
N
Root
Depth
Ratio
N
Root
Density
0 o
Bank
Angle
(degree
s)
Surface
Protectio
o
n o
Adjustments
Total
Index
Category
UT -1
12+00
Value
Right
17
10
60
45
40
Sand
a
Index
10
8.5
3
3.5
5
5
35
High
14+20
Value
Right
12
55
20
76
50
Sand
UT -1
Index
10
4
7
6
4
5
36
High
b
19+25
Value
Left
10
55
80
50
70
Sand
I ndex
10
4
2
3.5
3
5
27.5
Moderate
11+00
Value
Left
1
100
80
60
70
Sand
UT
Index
1
1
2
4
3
5
16
Low
-2
18+30
Value
Right
13
30
15
56
50
Sand
Index
10
6
8
4
4
5
37
High
10+70
Value
Right
13
70
15
62
10
N/A
Index
10
3
8
4
8.5
33.5
High
13+60
Value
Left
5
30
10
110
5
N/A
UT -3
Index
10
6
8.5
8.5
9
42
Very High
18+40
Value
Right
8
80
55
35
60
N/A
I ndex
10
2
4
2.5
3
21.5
Moderate
Notes: N/A indicates `not applicable'.
% indicates percentage.

APPENDIX F - STREAM BUFFER MAP
Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank 44
Mitigation Plan
December 2012

LEGEND:
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
AND BUFFER
BUFFER WIDTH LINES
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM
PRIORITY II
RESTORATION AREA
Priority I I Design 2,930
Length (ft)
Buffer Li ne
River Right Buffer
River Left Buffer
Identification
Section Length
Tributary
Width (fromtop
Width (fromtop
Credit Multiplier
Total Credits
Number
of bank)
of bank)
1
320
L!T-1a
162
158
1.185
/ I
2
310
L!T-1b
167
/
1.185
367
3
330
� I
161
158
1.185
391
4
�
L!T-1b
171
161
1.185
575
i l
i
210
L!T-2
184
186
1.185
249
6
450
L!T-2
186
171
1.185
533
7
300
L!T-3
186
189
1.185
356
8
1
�
211
178
1.185
I
I
160
L!T-3
176
�
I
190
�
3,472
\
2
\
\
\
\
\
3
5
6
4
I
\
I
1
�
1
1
�
i
1
8
L 9
/
LEGEND:
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
AND BUFFER
BUFFER WIDTH LINES
PROPERTY BOUNDARY
STREAM
PRIORITY II
RESTORATION AREA
Priority I I Design 2,930
Length (ft)
Buffer Li ne
River Right Buffer
River Left Buffer
Identification
Section Length
Tributary
Width (fromtop
Width (fromtop
Credit Multiplier
Total Credits
Number
of bank)
of bank)
1
320
L!T-1a
162
158
1.185
379
2
310
L!T-1b
167
163
1.185
367
3
330
L!T-1b
161
158
1.185
391
4
485
L!T-1b
171
161
1.185
575
5
210
L!T-2
184
186
1.185
249
6
450
L!T-2
186
171
1.185
533
7
300
L!T-3
186
189
1.185
356
8
365
L!T-3
211
178
1.185
433
9
160
L!T-3
176
228
1.185
190
3,472
E N G I N E E R I N G & H Y D R 0 G E 0 L 0 G Y
231 HAYWOOD STREET, ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
TEL.[phone] FAC.828.281.3351
WWW.ALTAMONTENVIRONMENTAL.COM
DRAWN BY: ANNA SAYLOR SCALE (FEET)
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFFP, LLC 150 0 150
DATE: 9/18/2012
STREAM BUFFER WIDTH AND CREDIT I APPENDIX
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK F
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
300
P:\SAHC\ANDERSON FARMS\FIGURES\CAD\APP F - STREAM BUFFER WIDTH.DWG

APPENDIX B - PROPERTY SURVEYAND LEGAL DESCRIPTION

.4-
Illlllll fffllllll lull �llllllll ll�l lll8 �l{I[lilllllll lll<Illlll lull �[I llll
Doc ID: 022893120003 Tvoe: CRP
Recorded: 06/24/2010 at 04:11:53 PM
Fee Amt: $25.00 Page i of 3
Revenue Tax: $0.00
Workflow# 0000032657-0001
Buncombe Countv. NC
Otto W. DeBruhl Reaister of Deeds
SK4794Po791-793
Excise Tax: $0.00 — Gift Deed
Prepared by and return to: Claxton Law Finn, P.A. by Douglas A. Claxton, Attorney
PIN 9711-98-7999-00000
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
NON - WARRANTY
DEED
THIS NON -WARRANTY DEED is made "/2 o Z 3 , 20/q_. by and between
MARIE C. ANDERSON, widow
333 Thompson Street, Apt. 349
Hendersonville, NC 28792
hereinafter referred to as "Grantor," and
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, a Tennessee non-profit corporation
34 Wall Street, Suite 502
Asheville, NC 28801
hereinafter referred to as "Grantee."
The terms grantor and grantee shall be used as neuter singular designations of the parties hereto, their personal
representatives, heirs, successors and assigns.
WITNESSETH:
THAT the Grantor, as a gift to the Grantee, has and by these presents does gift, grant and convey unto the
Grantee in fee simple, all of that certain lot or parcel of land situated in Buncombe County, North Carolina, and more
particularly described in EXHIBIT A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the above-described lands and premises, together with all privileges and
appurtenances thereto belonging to the Grantee, its heirs, successors, administrators and assigns in fee simple,
subject to the reservations, exceptions, and limitations contained herein.
All or a portion of the property herein conveyed includes or _X_ does not include the primary residence of a
Grantor.
Grantor makes no warranty, express or implied, as to title to the property hereinabove described.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantor has hereunto set its hand and seal and does adopt the printed word
"SEAL" beside its name as its lawful seal.
a,tip- Q 09--LaL7• � (SEAL)
MARIE C. ANDERSON
STATE OF 7y9ffh I i)4
COUNTY OF bUA0,' DMbe-,'
I, 'D. t wo) Lynx , a Notary Public of the County and State aforesaid, certify
that MARIE C. ANI6ETRSON personally appeared before me this day and acknowledged the due execution of the
foregoing instrument.
Y
Z'/S'�S
my h d and notarial seal this ZJ22day of
Notary Publ• ynn Cby
My Commission Expires: 8 - 3D `2016
r1(jn2 ,20�(�
Notarial Seal
Co
Puev
' �p14Es L
Om BE •G,,•,,,.
rrbrrnrr,.NH,
7 -

J
EXHIBIT A — Legal Description
Being all the property described in deeds recorded in Book 717, Page 497
and Book 759, Page 532, Buncombe County, North Carolina, Registry,
LESS and EXCEPTING the property described in deeds recorded in Book
965, Page 335, Book 981, Page 532, Book 1106, Page 40, Book 1190, Page
720, Book 1192, Page 168, Book 1741, Page 531 and Book 2004, Page 395,
Buncombe County, North Carolina, Registry.
Being commonly known as 180 Mag Sluder Rd, Alexander, NC 28701
Containing 103.70 acres, more or less.
Buncombe County Parcel Identification Number 9711-98-7999-00000

THIS MAP IS SUBJECT TO FUTURE REVISIONS PLAT BOOK: PAGE:
VICINITY MAP CERTIFICATE OF OWNERSHIP AND DEDICATION:
/ SURVEYORS NOTES:
I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I AM THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AS / INC GRID
(NOT TO SCALE) SUBJECT SHOWN AND DESCRIBED HEREON, WHICH WAS CONVEYED TO ME BY A 2 / ll �y 1. ALL DISTANCES ARE GROUND MEASUREMENTS IN
PROPERTY DEED RECORDED IN BOOK 4794_ PAGE _791 _ IN THE BUNCOMBE I��� NORTH US SURVEY FEET UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
Ro ➢ COUNTY REGISTRY. I ALSO HEREBY ACCEPT AND ADOPT THIS RECORD ` NAD 83 2. AREAS CALCULATED BY THE COORDINATE METHOD.
P ExA"DER m PLAT AND CONSERVATION EASEMENT WITH MY FREE CONSENT AND 3. PROPERTY SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF
a DEDICATED ALL
L EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS AND ACCESS ROADS TO G/ / / ` 1 WAYS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE RECORDED,
� PUBLIC AND/OR PRIVATE USE AS NOTED ON SAID PLAT. J
�a/ UNRECORDED, WRITTEN AND UNWRITTEN.
\ 4. BUNCOMBE COUNTY GIS WEBSITE USED TO IDENTIFY
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS.
NAME: DATE
c�F N z O " / / \ 5. THE PROFESSIONAL SURVEYOR HAS MADE NO
FE o r
INVESTIGATION OR INDEPENDENT SEARCH FOR
EASEMENTS, RIGHT OF WAYS, ENCUMBRANCES,
RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS, CORRECT OWNERSHIP
OR ANY OTHER FACTS THAT AN ACCURATE AND
CURRENT TITLE SEARCH MAY DISCLOSE. A NC
SL /�j / js KATHRYN N.DEM05 \ LICENSED ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED.
_ MAG ff 9722-00-3222 6. BY GRAPHIC DETERMINATION, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY
/'. DB: 4888 PG: 1976 APPEARS TO LIE IN AN AREA THAT IS DETERMINED
/ \ \ TO BE OUTSIDE OF THE 500 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
SHED (ZONE X) AS DETERMINED BY THE F.E.M.A.
MAP#(S)3700971100J, 3700971200J, 3100972100J,
3700972200J DATED JAN 6, 2010.
50' R/W PER/ 7. GRID COORDINATES AND BEARINGS WERE DERIVED
/ OB: 1984 PG: 34 DWELLING FROM GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM OBSERVATIONS
5/8 RBR • \ THAT WERE OBSERVED ON (03/28/12) AND WERE
BOUNDARY LINE PERFORMED TO THE GEOSPATIAL POSITIONING
q I ACCURACY STANDARDS (CLASS A HORIZONTAL AND
PROPOSED CONSERVATION I NOT SURVEYED CLASS C VERTICAL); AT THE 95% CONFIDENCE LEVEL
EASEMENT ACCESS ROAD USING GPS L1 STATIC OBSERVATIONS WITH MAGELLAN
(APPROX. LOCATION)
I I PROMARK3 RECEIVERS.
8. UTILITIES WERE LOCATED BASED ON VISIBLE ABOVE
N 61030'59" EBARN GROUND STRUCTURES, THEREFORE THE LOCATION OF
Ss° 5
(8) 9UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE APPROXIMATE OR MAY
142.30 z \ \ BE PRESENT AND NOT SHOWN HEREON. CALL
244 S20 I 1-800-632-4949 BEFORE DIGGING.
3 N/ 9. BOUNDARY LINES NOT SURVEYED ARE INDICATED AS
(7)
z \`\ DASHED LINES AND WERE TAKEN FROM EXISTING
N 17°56'11" E (9) DEEDS AND PLATS OF RECORD.
108.55' _ -�" - - SPRING - - - �' - - N 89°12'48" E �
5Px \ 10. ALL EXISTING FENCES WITHIN THE CONSERVATION
x X jxz - - - - 171.39 \ EASEMENT AREAS ARE TO BE REMOVED.
> - - \ - - - - - -
(G) S 40021'55" E
N 14°22'30"W HEADG` x��x\. . . . • • . • (14) / (I5) 179.16' � BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
118.31' `X 9�F- • - • p° 0 I, , REVIEW OFFICER FOR
,� p6'� \ BUNCOMBE COUNTY, CERTIFY THAT THE MAP OR PLAT TO
(5) - - - 5PRING + - - - � _ _ _ _ _ WHICH THIS CERTIFICATION IS AFFIXED, MEETS ALL
HEAD �� ;\ - - \ STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS FOR RECORDING.
+ 0004 \.
190-
° h' (I G)
°(4) �+ \ ryco00 /x
N 644l'40" W / WATER
5UPPLYWELL REVIEW OFFICER
148.26' yL'cP° + ��.. ` .. 4
VD,\+- \- - - - - -/� -HEAD G' JO i� BARN' ` REGISTERED THIS TF
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
/ / ° 0--- AT ------
W
(10) X cy N
\ _ PLAT BOOK
QUO
\ %
Os' - - - - - - \ - - - - N co - - - - - 0 (1 7)
(3) X _ _ wO ^ �I _ _ JOHN DAVID JOHNSON AND DEPUTY
O O N - �- - - - - - WIFE, HAZEL E. JOHNSON
\ - O PIN: 9721-09-7099
DB: 2004 PG: 395
YL
(I 2) -to
REGISTER OF DEEDS
o
�,..... �.j N -
JOHN DAVID JOHNSON
CIO
00 �N� I WIFE HAZEL L JOHN50N
°y , - I (18) PIN: 9721-08-8726
DATE
_ DAY OF
_ AND RECORDED IN
PAGE BY:
- - - - - - - N } - - - - - DB: 1307 PG: 297 REGISTER OF
� - - - - - -� - - - - - 2 - - - DEEDS STAMP
UNDARY LINE V'° - - - - - \ ! � �/ . . . . . . .
IT SURVEYED 6: . . . . . . k { I I )- - h
��-- . . . . Ory
f............O M ^.
/�- - - - 03 ry JOHN DAVID JOHN50N 4
} x CV rj BOUNDARY LINE WIFE HAZEL LJOHNSON
w t CO NOT SURVEYED PIN: 9721-08-8726
X- - _ DB: 1307 PG: 297
X_
RICHARD B. HOLCOM13E AND CONSERVATION . . S 40022'57" W JOHN DAVID JOHNSON
PIN: 971 1 88-57O700MBE EASEMENT AREA: x _\(20) 162.98' PIN:19 211-08-872GON /
DB: 1307 PG: 297
DB: 1882 PG: 608 25.44 ACRES x �" hoe
(2)
KEE GPS CONTROL Lw
- - - - - -� - - - MONUMENT
LINE
BEARING
DISTANCE
L1
S 78002'47" W
72.86'
L2
N 82°48'35" W
288.20'
L3
N 82°48'35" W
66.29'
L4
N 82°01'13" W
88.49'
L5
N 83034'52" W
270.29'
L6
N 84°20'02" W
115.89'
L7
N 83035'54" W
171.06'
L8
N 83030'38" W
197.81'
L9
S 29°26'47" W
200.01'
- - -
- - - - --I - 14�_ - - -
-
N: 712595.32'
E: 920128.41'
717660.82
/
919657.19
\ . .
.
Z: 2015.02'
919574.79
3
719052.35
919285.43
K112' IP
719381.61
SURVEYED; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS
919024.62
5
719444.97
•
918890.5
1O0
m
MARK TWEED AND WIFE,
#5 RBR W
N_
x X
O � m
BARBARA J. TWEED
PIN. 972 I -OS-618 1
918 5
8
O
^ DB: 1834 PG: 620
N
.72
9
10
11
2
13
COR #
NORTHING
EASTING
1
717660.82
919657.19
2
718379.75
INES OT
919574.79
3
719052.35
919285.43
4
719381.61
SURVEYED; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS
919024.62
5
719444.97
�a¢i
°
918890.5
6
719559.58
ANDERSON FARMS PROJECT
9188
7
719662.85
918 5
8
71 9730.71
\
.72
9
10
11
2
13
719646.1 6�i
719157.
7187
711k96 9
.46
248.96
79605.47
919765.77
919854.40
919885.92
4
489.51
9491.86
LEG E N D :
920024.35
920195.72
CURRENT OWNERS LISTED AS:
719355.35
OF THE
920311.76
17
719085.09
920206.31
18
718864.57
920162.40
19
718563.70
920034.28
20
718439.55
919928.69
21
717610.02
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 9711-98-7999
920079.19
22
717618.32
O
920013.42
23
717630.61
THE DEFINITION OF SUB V
919925.79
45 . . . . . . " k . . - - m C1 THIS PLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBDIVISION
cA OF PROPERTY IN BUNCOMBE COUNTY. THE
N 10°08'41" W �`' c') KEE GPS CONTROL W zo PURPOSE OF THIS SURVEY IS TO IDENTIFY THE
b Pi RFNF Coo CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS ONLY. NO
396.33' a) . . . . MONUMENT 4� �o N.• s� Coo k,%
N: 712595.32' d a. 2, K ow�F TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IS TAKING PLACE.
- - - - •� - X - - - - - n � I E: 920128.41' N 834 P, -Go F
N 81°01'27" w z Z* 2015.02' �a2 CONSERVATION EASEMENT ACCESS:
(TIE) 243.22' 24" WHITE OAK - - - ) o
@FENCE CNR f o CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREAS TO BE ACCESSED
o A 2
��' '� FROM EXISTING ROADS AS SHOWN ON PLAT.
5/8" RBC
x k o � I � DAVID LEE HARWOOD WIFE,
_ A
(L-3466) • w KAREN COOK HARWOOD
_ _ - _ _
PIN: 9721-07-5755 0' 180' 860' 540'
N 84°24'02" W � � L$ • - -
+ o l DB: 1696 PG: 90
ROBERT HARRISON DOVER • N c
PIN: 971 1-87-8441 (TIE) 249.04 NAIL IN / L7 L6 • • (2 I) _
DB: 2414 PG: 3 1 6 PAKTICK SCOTT WESTMORELAND # v / 1 0" CHERRY k L5 L4 • • I INCH = 180 FEET
PB: 78 PG: 102 JENNIFER WOOD WESTMORELAND
��� ti�ry # 4 RBR #5 RBR •
PIN: 971 I-97-2610 n' Cory (DISTURBED) (CC) (1) L3 L2
DB: 321 I PG: 158 #5 RBR °j o / STONE I#4 RBR\ �� Rac A PRELIMINARY MAP OF
PB: 95 PG: 64 0) @ 1 " IP (23) (22)
aj Pp 2( ,L 3/4" IF PION 972LA NT07-5RY �5 I O
ry I A CONSERVATION EASEMENT SURVEY FOR:
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY AND ACCURACY: �' 3 / 3 JOHN D. TEAGUE AND WIFE, DB: 1 190 PG: 720
O�¢j NOLA H. TEAGUE
2 2 u1 NAD 83(2007) SPC'S. DB: 892 PG: 537
Q m PIN: 971 1-97-8357 I NOS STATION. 'MACEOONA"
_ PHILLIP B. KEE______ CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAT S / a ��� DB: 1856 PG: 571 \
EPOCH DATE.,
E°9 0751.36'
DRAWN UNDER MY SUPERVISION FROM AN ACTUAL SU � �; N. JAMES CHANDLER, INEZ CHANDLER, ELEVATION zo97.o' NAVO aeAFFF I I re
MADE UNDER MY SUPERVISION (DEED DESCRIPTION^0 IN
I
/
�o °m
`_
O
KENNETH CHANDLER,
CYNTHIA MENDOZA
\ MICHAEL N. GILLOOLY AND
WIFE, CYNTHIA M. GILLOOLY
'
DB: 4794PG: _791 THAT DASHED LINES IND T
INES OT
w z
SURVEYED; THAT THE RATIO OF PRECISION AS
D
�a¢i
°
DB:38 11-96-9985
DB:3834 PG: 7
I
PIN: 1 34 4 7-4330
DB: 2134 PG: 382 (PARCEL I)
ANDERSON FARMS PROJECT
DOES NOT EXCEED --1:1_0,0_00__; AND T T
PLAT WAS
\
PREPARED IN ACCORDANCE WITH G.S. -3
NDED.
LEG E N D :
CURRENT OWNERS LISTED AS:
I ALSO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TH ONE
OF THE
SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY
FOLLOWING: GS 47-30 F(11) D H RVEY IS
OF
CALCULATED POINT (NOT SET)
BOUNDARY LINE
ANOTHER CATEGORY, SUCH AS E MBINATION
OF EXISTING
PARCEL IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: 9711-98-7999
PARCELS, A COURT-ORDE E OR OTHER EXCEPTION
TO
O
EXISTING IRON PIN (AS NOTED)
BOUNDARY LINE NOT SURVEYED
THE DEFINITION OF SUB V
KEE CONTROL MONUMENT
ADJOINING DEED LINES
DEED REFERENCES: DB: 4794 PG: 791
WITNESS MY ORI I SIG T E, REGISTRATION NUMBER, AND
0
#5 REBAR WITH CAP SET - -
RIGHT OF WAY (R/W)
LEICESTER TOWNSHIP, BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
SEAL THIS DA F XXXX A.D.
2012.
X
FENCE LINE
0 NGS MONUMENT SURVEY BY- NH, MM, DD, NC DRAWN BY.- NC CHECKED BY- PBK
NOT TO SCALE (NTS) � STREAM
(X) EASEMENT CORNER NUMBER 0
WETLAND SURVEY DATE: XX/XX/XX-XX/XX/XX JOB #120320
THIS DOCUMENT IS NOT VALID RBC REBAR WITH CAP (AS NOTED) 0 CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA SHEET SIZE: 18"X24" SHEET #: 1 OF 1 SCALE: 1 "=180'
UNLESS SIGNED AND SEALED RBR REBAR ASPHALT
CC CONTROL CORNER GRAVEL N P.O. Box 2566
CNR CORNER _ Asheville, NC 28802
DB: DEED BOOK NGS NATIONAL GEODETIC SURVEY �828� 645-8275
PHILLIP B. KEE, PLS NC -4647 PG: PAGE N.A.D. NORTH AMERICAN DATUM 1983
PB: PLAT BOOK SPC STATE PLANE COORDINATES www.keemap.com
IP IRON PIPE License # C-3039
NOT FOR CONVEYANCE, SALE OR RESALE -ALL AREAS ARE APPROXIMATE
PRELIMINARY DRAFT -FOR REVIEW ONLY (11/05/12
)

APPENDIX C - MAP OF GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA

IN\i;OU
10
Waynesville
tti CreeK
mac' Sco
°' Iva
9e
Webs e'Q�re
0 10203
JACKS COUNTY
LEGEND
SITE LOCATION
MAJOR HYDROLOGY
PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA
NC 8 -DIGIT HUC RIVER BASINS
ONORTH CAROLINA COUNTY BOUNDARIES
S
NTY
01v t
e1 v
�a
&X9 9 Laurel Creek
DISON COUNTY
lLA , \�y Site Location
EIBiltre
OUNTYS
rest
E NG1N E ERINC. & H Y -]F O G E O LG r
�31 H.—V.-- 5 ..L F Ati=t -. I I
FNC peae:
r[[.828281 3350 r c.82B 281.3351
W W W.ALTAN*NTCN V 1RQNNZNTw L -00N
DRAWN BY: ANNA SAYLOR SCALE
PROJECT MANAGER: JOEL LENK
CLIENT: AFF, LLC MILES
DATE: 8/15/2012 0 2.5 5 10
N
G ~ �
e Riv MI HELL COUNT
)rsville
U
06010111#11
Burnsville Spru i
YA COUNTY
�Stron9 Creed
�r
�o
03050101
MCDOWELL C TY
Mont at Old Fort, et
fetcher e�
to
RAJ Mi e
NDERSO COLIN
Henders nville
Laurel Par
at Roc
green R�- !� C2
. n ck Vill ge
'T3� RFORD COUNTY
Lake ego
030501
POLK COUNTY
a Columbus
orth;ti R/ver
SOURCE:
MAJOR HYDROLOGY, COUNTY BOUNDARIES
- NC ONE MAP
8 -DIGIT HUC RIVER BASINS - USACE
FIGURE
PROPOSED GEOGRAPHIC
SERVICE AREA
ANDERSON FARM MITIGATION BANK
6
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA

APPENDIX D - FORM OF FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

PAW09
ASHEVILLE
SAVINGS BANK
US Army Corps of Engineers
Attn: Amanda Jones, Regulatory Project Manager
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
RE: Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy Escrow Accounts
Dear Ms. Jones:
September 1, 2012
Asheville Savings Bank is working with the Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy to establish two escrow
accounts for the purpose of insuring that the current restoration and monitoring of a stream mitigation project at
Anderson Farm is completed successfully.
We will be establishing the two accounts as follows:
1. Escrow account in the amount of $100,000.00 for the purpose of Construction/Restoration of a stream
mitigation bank project at Anderson Farm.
2. Escrow account in the amount of $5,000.00 for the purpose of monitoring the project after completion.
Once the requisite approvals are obtained and the project is ready to begin we will be prepared to establish these
accounts in order to complete the required documentation. Please let me know if you require anything else from us at
the present time in order to confirm the status of these accounts.
Sincerely,
J. erry Hendrix
Senior Vice President/ Commercial Banking Manager
Asheville Savings Bank
11 Church Street
Asheville, NC 28801
tel [phone].222.3230
P,0. Bax 652 Asheville, NC 28802
AsheviileSavingsBank.com

APPENDIX E - FORM OF PRESERVATION MECHANISM

Prepared by and return to:
D. Lynn Cox, Attorney at Law, P.O. Box 1197, Asheville NC 28802
PERMANENT CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT ("Conservation Easement") made this day
of , 2012 by and between the Southern Appalachian Highlands
Conservancy, a Tennessee nonprofit corporation with an address of 34 Wall Street,
Suite 502, Asheville, North Carolina 28801 ("Grantor") and the Buncombe County Soil
and Water Conservation District, a body politic and corporate organized pursuant to
North Carolina General Statutes Chapter 139, with an address of 155 Hilliard Avenue,
Asheville, North Carolina 28801 ("Grantee").
The designation Grantor and Grantee as used herein shall include said parties, their
heirs, successors and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine or
neuter as required by context.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying and being
in Buncombe County, North Carolina, more particularly described in Exhibit A attached
hereto and incorporated herein and shown on the survey dated xxxxx (Job No. xxxxxx)
by Phillip B. Kee of Kee Mapping & Surveying, P.L.S. Registration Number C-3039
(hereinafter the "Kee Survey") and recorded at Plat Book xxx at Page xxx, Buncombe
County Register of Deeds (the "Property");
WHEREAS, Grantee is a governmental agency established pursuant to N.C. Gen.
Stat. § 139-1 et seq.; its purposes include, among other things, the protection and
conservation of natural resources, including soil and water resources; it is authorized
by the laws of the State of North Carolina to accept, hold, and administer
conservation easements; it possesses the authority to accept and is willing to accept
this Conservation Easement under the terms and conditions herein described; and it is
qualified to be the Grantee of a conservation easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §
121-35;
WHEREAS, Grantor and Grantee recognize the conservation, scenic, natural, or
aesthetic value of the property in its natural state once the approved mitigation
activities contemplated herein have been completed, which includes the restoration of

perennial streams throughout the Property and revegetation of riparian corridors.
These activities will restore the appropriate low mountain alluvial forest and mountain
bottomland forest ecosystems. The purpose of this Conservation Easement is to
maintain wetland and riparian resources and other natural values of the Property, and
to prevent the use or development of the Property for any purpose or in any manner
that would conflict with the maintenance of the Property in its natural condition once
the approved mitigation activities contemplated herein have been completed.
WHEREAS, the preservation of the Property is required by a Mitigation Banking
Instrument for the Anderson Farm Stream Mitigation Bank, Department of the Army
Action ID [Action ID number for the mitigation bank](the "Anderson Farm Mitigation
Bank"). The Anderson Farm Mitigation Bank is intended to be used to compensate for
unavoidable stream and/or wetland impacts authorized by permits issued by the
Department of the Army. Grantor and Grantee agree that third party rights of
enforcement shall be held by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
(Corps, to include any successor agencies), and that these rights are in addition to, and
do not limit, the rights of the parties to the Mitigation Banking Instrument.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and representations
contained herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and legal
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, Grantor hereby unconditionally and
irrevocably grants and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in
perpetuity a Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the extent
hereinafter set forth, over the Property described in Exhibit A together with the right to
preserve and protect the conservation values thereof, as follows:
ARTICLE I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. This Conservation Easement is an
easement in gross, runs with the land and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor,
Grantor's representatives, successors and assigns, lessees, agents and licensees.
ARTICLE II. PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITIES
Any activity on, or use of, the Property inconsistent with the purpose of this
Conservation Easement is prohibited. The Property shall be preserved in its natural
condition and restricted from any development that would impair or interfere with the
conservation values of the Property. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
the following activities and uses are expressly prohibited, restricted or reserved as
indicated hereunder:
A. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change disturbance, alteration or
impairment of the natural features of the Property or any introduction of non-
native plants and/or animal species is prohibited except for those rights reserved

herein.
B. Construction. There shall be no constructing or placing of any
building, mobile home, asphalt or concrete pavement, billboard or other
advertising display, antenna, utility pole, tower, conduit, line, pier, landing, dock
or any other temporary or permanent structure or facility on or above the Property
except for fences necessary for management of the Property and for signage
permitted in Paragraph G below.
C. Industrial, Commercial and Residential Use. Industrial, residential
and/or commercial activities, including any right of passage for such purposes are
prohibited.
D. Agricultural, Grazing and Horticultural Use. Agricultural, grazing,
animal husbandry, and horticultural use of the Property are prohibited.
E. Vegetation. There shall be no removal, burning, destruction, harming, cutting
or mowing of trees, shrubs, or other vegetation on the Property except for the purpose
of maintaining the fences and footpath permitted in this document. Removal,
destruction, harming, cutting, and mowing of exotic invasive species on the Property is
permitted. Selective removal of trees that present an existing or impending hazard to
human or animal safety or structures on the Property or surrounding property (including
fences) is permitted. Selective removal of trees to combat disease and infestation that
pose an impending threat to the overall health of the forest on the Property in
accordance with guidelines provided by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or North
Carolina Department of Forest Resources is permitted.
F. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails or
walkways on the property; nor enlargement or modification to existing roads, trails or
walkways except that Grantor reserves the right to construct and maintain one
unpaved, soil, single-track footpath set back at least 30 feet from the top of the bank
of any tributary stream located and designed in a manner to protect the Conservation
Values and restoration elements of the Property. Wet stream crossings along the trail
perpendicular to stream flows may occur within the 30 foot buffer.
G. Signage. No signs shall be permitted on or over the Property, except the
posting of no trespassing signs, signs identifying the conservation values of the Property
(including educational interpretive signs), signs giving directions or proscribing rules
and regulations for the use of the Property and/or signs identifying the Grantor as owner
of the property.
H. Dumping or Storage. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage,
waste, abandoned vehicles, appliances, machinery or hazardous substances, or toxic or
hazardous waste, or any placement of underground or aboveground storage tanks or
other materials on the Property is prohibited.
I. Excavation, Dredging or Mineral Use. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock,

peat, minerals or other materials, and no change in the topography of the land in any
manner on the Property, except to restore natural topography or drainage patterns.
J. Water Quality and Drainage Pattern. There shall be no diking, draining,
dredging, channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or related activities, or
altering or tampering with water control structures or devices, or disruption or
alteration of the restored, enhanced, or created drainage patterns. In addition,
diverting or causing or permitting the diversion of surface or underground water into,
within or out of the easement area by any means, removal of wetlands, polluting or
discharging into waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands is prohibited. Use of pesticide or
biocides is prohibited except for use in the removal of exotic invasive species in
accordance with all applicable laws and regulations.
K. Development Rights. No development rights that have been encumbered or
extinguished by this Conservation Easement shall be transferred pursuant to a
transferable development rights scheme or cluster development arrangement or
otherwise.
L. Vehicles. The operation of mechanized vehicles, including, but not limited
to, motorcycles, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles, cars and trucks is prohibited except for
the purpose of maintaining the fences permitted herein and performing other
management tasks permitted herein.
M. Other Prohibitions. Any other use of, or activity on, the Property which is or
may become inconsistent with the purposes of this grant, the preservation of the
Property substantially in its natural condition, or the protection of its environmental
systems, is prohibited.
ARTICLE III. GRANTOR'S RESERVED RIGHTS
The Grantor expressly reserves for itself, its representatives, successors or assigns, the
right to continue the use of the property for all purposes not inconsistent with this
Conservation Easement, including, but not limited to, the right to quiet enjoyment of the
Property, the rights of ingress and egress, the right to hunt, fish, and hike on the
Property, the right to sell, transfer, gift or otherwise convey the Property, in whole or in
part, provided such sale, transfer or gift conveyance is subject to the terms of, and shall
specifically reference, this Conservation Easement, the right to grant supervised
physical access on the Property to groups, organizations and individuals studying the
Conservation Values of the Property for educational purposes. Notwithstanding the
foregoing Restrictions, Grantor reserves for Grantor, its successors and assigns, the
right to construct wetland and stream mitigation including restoration, creation and
enhancement activities on the Property, in accordance with the detailed Mitigation Plan
approved in accordance with the Mitigation Banking Instrument for the Anderson Farm
Mitigation Bank.
ARTICLE IV. GRANTEE'S RIGHTS
The Grantee, its authorized representatives, successors and assigns, and the Corps shall

have the right to enter the Property at all reasonable times for the purpose of inspecting
said property to determine if the Grantor, or its representatives, successors, or assigns, is
complying with the terms, conditions, restrictions, and purposes of this Conservation
Easement. The easement rights granted herein do not include public access rights.
ARTICLE V. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. To accomplish the purposes of this Easement, Grantee is allowed to prevent
any activity on or use of the Property that is inconsistent with the purposes of this
Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the Property that
may be damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of the terms of this
Conservation Easement by Grantor that comes to the attention of the Grantee, the
Grantee shall notify the Grantor in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have 30
days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such breach. If
the breach remains uncured after 30 days, the Grantee may enforce this Conservation
Easement by appropriate legal proceedings including damages, injunctive and other
relief. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the immediate right,
without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or other appropriate
relief if the breach of the term of this Conservation Easement is or would irreversibly
or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this Conservation
Easement. The Grantor and Grantee acknowledge that under such circumstances
damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be inadequate.
The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in addition to, and
not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in connection with this
Conservation Easement. The costs of a breach, correction or restoration, including the
Grantee's expenses, court costs, and attorneys' fees, shall be paid by Grantor, provided
Grantor is determined to be responsible for the breach. The Corps shall have the same
right to enforce the terms and conditions of this easement as the Grantee.
B. No failure on the part of the Grantee to enforce any covenant or provision
hereof shall discharge or invalidate such covenant or any other covenant, condition, or
provision hereof or affect the right to Grantee to enforce the same in the event of a
subsequent breach or default.
C. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement shall be construed to
entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor for any injury or change in the
Property resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without
limitation, fire, flood, storm, war, acts of God or third parties, except Grantor's lessees
or invitees; or from any prudent action taken in good faith by Grantor under emergency
conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to life, damage to property or
harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
ARTICLE VI. MISCELLANEOUS
A. Warranty. Grantor warrants, covenants and represents that it owns the
Property in fee simple, and that Grantor either owns all interests in the Property which

may be impaired by the granting of this Conservation Easement or that there are no
outstanding mortgages, tax liens, encumbrances, or other interests in the Property
which have not been expressly subordinated to this Conservation Easement. Grantor
further warrants that Grantee shall have the use of and enjoy all the benefits derived
from and arising out of this Conservation Easement, and that Grantor will warrant and
defend title to the Property against the claims of all persons.
B. Subsequent Transfers. Grantor agrees to incorporate the terms of this
Conservation Easement in any deed or other legal instrument that transfers any interest
in all or a portion of the Property. Grantor agrees to provide written notice of such
transfer at least thirty (30) days prior to the date of the transfer. Grantor and Grantee
agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall survive any merger of the fee
and easement interests in the Property or any portion thereof and shall not be amended,
modified or terminated without the prior written consent and approval of the Corps.
C. Assignment. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this
Conservation Easement are in gross and assignable provided, however, that Grantee
hereby covenants and agrees that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation
Easement, the organization receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 121-34 et seq. and § 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee
further covenants and agrees that the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such
that the transferee or assignee will be required to continue in perpetuity the conservation
purposes described in this document.
D. Entire Agreement and Severability. This instrument sets forth the entire
agreement of the parties with respect to the Conservation Easement and supersedes all
prior discussions, negotiations, understandings or agreements relating to the
Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be void or unenforceable by a
court of competent jurisdiction, the remainder shall continue in full force and effect.
E. Obligations of Ownership. Grantor is responsible for any real estate taxes,
assessments, fees, or charges (if any) levied upon the Property. Grantor shall keep the
Property free of any liens or other encumbrances for obligations incurred by Grantor.
Grantee shall not be responsible for any costs or liability of any kind related to the
ownership, operation, insurance, upkeep, mitigation and restoration activities, or
maintenance of the Property, except as expressly provided herein. Nothing herein shall
relieve the Grantor of the obligation to comply with federal, state or local laws,
regulations and permits that may apply to the exercise of the Reserved Rights.
F. Extinguishment. In the event that changed conditions render impossible the
continued use of the Property for the conservation purposes, this Conservation
Easement may only be extinguished, in whole or in part, by judicial proceeding.
G. Eminent Domain. Whenever all or part of the Property is taken in the
exercise of eminent domain so as to substantially abrogate the Restrictions imposed by
this Conservation Easement, Grantor and Grantee shall join in appropriate actions at
the time of such taking to recover the full value of the taking, and all incidental and
direct damages due to the taking.

H. Proceeds. This Conservation Easement constitutes a real property interest
immediately vested in Grantee. In the event that all or a portion of this Property is
sold, exchanged, or involuntarily converted following an extinguishment or the
exercise of eminent domain, Grantee shall be entitled to the fair market value of this
Conservation Easement. The parties stipulate that the fair market value of this
Conservation Easement shall be determined by multiplying the fair market value of
the Property unencumbered by this Conservation Easement (minus any increase in
value after the date of this grant attributable to improvements) by the ratio of the value
of this easement at the time of this grant to the value of the Property (without
deduction for the value of this Conservation Easement) at the time of this grant. The
values at the time of this grant shall be the values used, or which would have been
used, to calculate a deduction for federal income tax purposes, pursuant to Section
170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (whether eligible or ineligible for such a
deduction). Grantee shall use its share of the proceeds in a manner consistent with the
purposes of this Conservation Easement.
I. Notification. Any notice, request for approval, or other communication
required under this Conservation Easement shall be sent by registered or certified
mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses (or such address as may be hereafter
specified by notice pursuant to this paragraph):
To Grantor: The Southern Appalachian Highlands Conservancy
34 Wall St., Suite 502
Asheville, NC 28801
Fax [phone]
To Grantee: Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation District
155 Hilliard Ave., Suite 204
Asheville, NC 28801
Fax (828) XXX-XXXX
To the Corps:
Todd Tugwell
Regulatory Division
Wilmington District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
11405 Falls of Neuse Road
Wake Forest, NC 27587
J. Failure of Grantee. If at any time Grantee is unable or fails to enforce this
Conservation Easement, or if Grantee ceases to be a qualified grantee, and if within a
reasonable period of time after the occurrence of one of these events Grantee fails to
make an assignment pursuant to this Conservation Easement, then the Grantee's interest
shall become vested in another qualified grantee in accordance with an appropriate
proceeding in a court of competent jurisdiction.

K. Amendment. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in
writing signed by all parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the
qualification of this Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any
applicable laws, and is consistent with the conservation purposes of this grant.
L. Present Condition of the Property. The wetlands, aquatic, scenic, resource,
environmental, and other natural characteristics of the Property, and its current use and
state of improvement, are described in Part 3, "Site Conditions" of the Mitigation Plan,
dated December 2012, prepared by Grantor and acknowledged by Grantor and Grantee
to be complete and accurate as of the date hereof. Both Grantor and Grantee have copies
of this report. It will be used by the parties to assure that any future changes in the use
of the Property will be consistent with the terms of this Conservation Easement.
However, this report is not intended to preclude the use of other evidence to establish
the present condition of the Property if there is a controversy over its use.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto Grantee
for the aforesaid purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have set their hands and seals and caused
these presents to be executed in their respective names by authority duly given, and
their corporate seal affixed, the day and year above written.
GRANTOR:
THE SOUTHERN APPALACHIAN
HIGHLANDS CONSERVANCY, INC.
an
Carl J. Silverstein
Executive Director
GRANTEE:
BUNCOMBE COUNTY SOIL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT,
A BODY POLITIC AND CORPORATE
By:
Gary Higgins

Director
[NOTARY ATTESTATIONS ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

NORTH CAROLINA
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public in and for said County and
State do hereby certify that Carl J. Silverstein personally appeared before me this day
and duly acknowledged that he is the Executive Director of the Southern Appalachian
Highlands Conservancy, a Tennessee corporation, and that by authority duly given and
as the act of the Company, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name.
WITNESS my hand and official stamp or seal, this day of April 2013.
Notary Public
My commission expires:
NORTH CAROLINA
BUNCOMBE COUNTY
I, , a Notary Public of the aforesaid county and state do
hereby certify that Gary Higgins, who is known personally to me, appeared before me
this day and acknowledged his due execution of the foregoing instrument on behalf of
the Buncombe County Soil and Water Conservation district, a body politic and
corporate organized pursuant to NCGS Chapter 139.
Witness my hand and official stamp or seal this day of April 2013.
Notary Public
Print Name:
Stamp/Seal
My commission expires:

EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY
In Buncombe County, North Carolina, all of that approximately XX- acre parcel as set
forth on a plat of survey prepared by Kee Mapping and Surveying, PLS and recorded in
Book , Page , Buncombe County Registry.