20201654 Ver 1_Response to Army Corps of Engineers_20210719

_n
Staff Review Form
NORFH CA.,i0:INA
En vironmenfrr!QvoGry
Updated September 4,2020
Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
6* Yes r No
ID#* Version* 1
2020-1654
Is this project a public transportation project?* C Yes
r No
Reviewer List:* Andrew Moore:eads\awmoore3
Select Reviewing Office:* Asheville Regional Office-[phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
r
Yes
No

Project Submittal Form
Please note:fields marked with a red asterisk *below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type:* r For the Record Only(Courtesy Copy)
r New Project
✓ Modification/New Project with Existing ID
✓ More Information Response
r Other Agency Comments
✓ Pre-Application Submittal
✓ Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
✓ Stream or Buffer Appeal
Is this supplemental information that needs to be sent to the Corps?*
c Yes No
Please choose the commenting agency.*
✓ DCM Comments DCM Permit
✓ DFM Comments USFWS Comments
✓ WRC Comments ' Other
Hrruy l..orps of CrigineerS
Project Contact Information
Name: R. Clement Riddle
Who is submitting the inforrration?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID#: Existing Version:
2020-1654
20170001(no dashes) 1
Project Name: Mulberry Gap Farms, LLC
Is this a public transportation project?
C Yes
✓ No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
✓ Yes (' No C Unknown
County(ies)
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
aick the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach docurrent
ALL response to USACE May 11 letter 7.19.21.pdf 78.03MB
Only pdf or krrz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments
or comments:

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

DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DF5076-622D-4D61-9CB6-53ED3AEF5289
CLearWaber
ClearWater Environmental Consultants,Inc.
www.cwenv.com
July 19, 2021
Ms. Brandee Boggs
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave, Room 209
Asheville,NC 28801
RE: USACE Request for Additional Information
Mulberry Farm —Madison LLC
Madison County,North Carolina
Action ID SAW-2020-00632; DWQ Project#2020-1654
Dear Ms. Boggs,
Please reference the letter dated May 11, 2021 (Attachment A) sent by the US Army Corps of
Engineers(USACE)in response to the permit application submitted by ClearWater Environmental
Consultants, Inc. (CEC) on behalf of the Mulberry Farm (Applicant) represented by Mr. Richard
Kelly. The permit application requested written authorization for impacts associated with the
School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SoWE). Comments provided by the USACE are
discussed below.
In response to these concerns, the Applicant has engaged a further review of the planning for the
development with its various consultants to determine what, if any,further modifications might be
undertaken to enlarge the avoidance envelope or further minimize impacts to wetland/stream
resources. Based on that review and our desire to be as responsive as possible to the regulatory
concerns for permitting this project, the Applicant proposes the following adjustments:
• The Applicant has reduced stream and wetland impacts for the entrance road by
acquiring an additional 2.5-acre tract and relocating the entrance road on U.S.Highway
25. This additional tract allowed the applicant to eliminate proposed impact S1 (10
linear feet of stream) and proposed impacts W2, W3, and W4 (0.026 acre of wetland).
The additional property has an existing stream culvert that will be used for the entrance
road crossing. A revised impact plan Figure 5A(Attachment B)reflects these changes.
The additional tract was delineated on April 29, 2021. A request for preliminary
determination is included as Attachment C.
• The proposed culvert identified as Stream Impact S1 (Figure 5) has been modified
based on further design and NC DOT requirements. The cul-de-sac is on a DOT road
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B
Hendersonville,NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DF5076-622D-4D61-9CB6-53ED3AEF5289
Mr.Brandee Boggs
July 19,2021
Page 2 of 4
and any improvements must meet DOT standards. The new additional impact length
associated with the culvert replacement is 41 lf. This change is reflected on Figure 5.0.
A cross-section detail by Mercer Design is also included in Attachment B.
In all events,the Applicant is confident that its continuing commitment to site planning, which is
designed to maximize stream-wetland complex restoration within the proposed development,
provide reasonable and adequate assurances for the construction and operation of the proposed
activities for which authorization is sought will not result in significant, adverse impacts to the
natural environment. Additional information regarding various impact issues is presented below.
USACE Comment#1 - The Corps believes the project may be reasonably achieved, including the
development of SOWE and ecological enhancements, without the need to convert existing streams
and wetlands to open water through the construction of beaver dam analogs (BDA) structures.
The BDA design elevations, lining of upper pond are with impermeable clay/sand, and the
installation of an agri-drain" appear to primarily focus on allowing the maximum level of
inundation to protect adjacent development infrastructure opposed to focusing on ecosystem
enhancements. There is a broad field of practice dedicated to stream and wetland restoration that
would provide ecosystem enhancement without converting existing streams and wetlands to open
water.
The applicant has provided significant additional information to address these comments
in Attachment D, Project Justification & Design Narrative for Proposed Beaver Dam
Analogs.
Specifically, Section 3 (Project Justification) and section 4.1.2 (Restoration Techniques).
See section 4.3.1 (Beaver Pool Design) for a broad discussion of the pool habitats, and
section 4.3.2 (TB4) for a discussion about additional measures for the area proposed to be
augmented with clay—the pool upstream of TB4. See Section 4.3.4 for discussion about
the Agri-drain. It is important to note that the Agri-drain does not operate as outflow under
normal conditions. The purpose is NOT so that the pools maintain a minimum elevation.
Instead, this device is anticipating potential flooding problems. As initially designed, the
stream-wetland complex will not flow through the Agri-drain nor will it inundate roads or
walking paths. However, in the event that natural processes cause flooding, this flow
diversion device will already be installed to allow for vehicular and pedestrian
ingress/egress around the complex.Natural processes that could cause this type of flooding
include beaver activity that increases the elevation of the BDAs, or sediment and wood
recruitment from large storm events.
USACE Comment #2 —As this plan involves the conversion of streams and wetlands to open
waters, the Corps believes the impacts and resultant inundation constitute a loss of streams and
wetlands. The applicant has not submitted practicable alternative or any documents outlying how
impacts have been avoided and or minimized. If it is determined that there is not practicable
alternative and impacts have been avoided and minimized, compensatory mitigation would be
required for the impacts associated with conversion for all flooded streams and wetlands.

DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DF5076-622D-4D61-9CB6-53ED3AEF5289
Mr.Brandee Boggs
July 19,2021
Page 3 of 4
The alternative analysis information is included in Attachment E. The applicant continues
to believe that the proposed project is ecological restoration and will provide significantly
more Waters of the US,than currently exists on site. The applicant believes that this project
will serve as an example of successful restoration and may look to expand BDA's and
ecological stream-wetland restoration on-site in the future.
USACE Comment#3—All agencies previously noted the monitoring plan is insufficient to prove
ecological uplift, rather is states will help determine "no deleterious downstream ecological
effects. " The Corps recommends development of a more robust monitoring plan to document the
changes within the impact areas and add success criteria or provide a measure of ecological
uplift the current plan does not identify any measurable success criteria. As discussed with
you in pre-application meetings, a more robust monitoring plan is needed to document ecological
uplift, including elements such as reference reach metrics, groundwater data, herbaceous/woody
stem density, qualitative/quantitative vegetation surveys, water depth measurements, stream flows,
monitoring well measurements, and wildlife surveys, etc. The current monitoring plan notes that
BDA's will be inspected after large storms (i.e. 3-inch rain in a 24-hour period) and seasonally.
The Corps recommends quarterly inspections and after large storm events (i.e. 10-year storm
events or 2-inch rain events in a 24-hour period) at a minimum. Frequent inspections will be
necessary to ensure BDA stability as well as properly assess and implement corrective actions
when the BDA's do blow out.
Please see the Operation&Maintenance Manual for Beaver Dam Analog Stream-Wetland
Complex (Attachment F).
USACE Comment#4— The administration building is designed to span across Thomas Branch.
The Corps believes the disturbance associated with construction, maintenance, and operation of
this building could compromise the ecological function of Thomas Branch. We believe positioning
of a building in close proximity to a BDA structure will compromise the BDA's ability to properly
enhance the ecosystem and will prioritize the building infrastructure over the ecosystem's natural
functions.
We have corresponded with the architect and structural engineer to ensure that the
foundation piles and low-chord elevations will avoid Waters of the US and will not affect
the BDA structure. The BDA complex will result in net increases in aquatic resources
functions and services.
USACE Comment#5 - The Corps request a plan view be submitted noting the location of each
structure and bank stabilization features, including elevation profiles.
See Attachment G for the stream enhancement plans prepared by RDE.
USACE Comment #6 — On April 14, 2021, the Corps sent a letter notifying the Applicant that
undertaking activities in area outsides of the Corps jurisdiction associated with the proposed
development project does not imply that out office will necessarily approve the proposed impacts
to Waters of the United States (WoUS) currently under review or any future proposal to impact
WoUS on this property. The ongoing clearing, grading, and construction activities will not affect

DocuSign Envelope ID: E6DF5076-622D-4D61-9CB6-53ED3AEF5289
Mr.Brandee Boggs
July 19,2021
Page 4 of 4
the Corps current review of any future proposed impacts to WoUS. These activities within the
development project area will not be adequate justification for authorization of the proposed
impacts currently under review or authorization of future impacts.
The applicant understands the Corps comment.
The Applicant believes the information submitted in this package addresses all issues set forth by
the Corps in their letter dated June 26, 2018. Should you have any questions or comments
concerning this project please do not hesitate to contact me at 828-698-9800.
Sincerely,
DocuSigned by:
2. Ut 2,a6t1c.
"-0A79F7DC85EE4F7..
R. Clement Riddle,P.W.S.
Principal
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Corps Comments and Request for Additional Information (June 28, 2018)
Attachment B —Revised Impact Figure 5.0 and Stream Impact S1 culvert detail
Attachment C—Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination—Frisby Tract
Attachment D—Project Justification& Design Narrative for Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs
Attachment E—Alternative Analysis
Attachment F — Operation& Maintenance Manual for Beaver Dam Analog Stream-Wetland
Complex
Attachment G— Stream Enhancement plans

Attachment A
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Letter
May 11, 2021

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
Ate' WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
f a� 151 PATTON AVENUE
ROOM 208
.L` ASHEVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA 28801-5006
'STAY f'.S t
May 11, 2021
Regulatory Division
Subject: Public Notice Comments and Request for Additional Information for Action ID
Number SAW-2020-00632 Mulberry Gap Farms in Madison County
Mr. Richard Kelly
Mulberry Farm — Madison LLC
1126 Upper Thomas Branch Road
Marshall, North Carolina 28753
Dear Mr. Kelly:
The Corps of Engineers (Corps) is reviewing your application for the School of
Wholeness and Enlightenment (SOWE). The project involves the development of a 448-
acre site including the development of 76 cabins, two school buildings, horticultural
building, event center, dining hall, gym, wholeness center, four staff houses,
administrative building, roadways, and seven beaver dam analogue (BDA) structures.
The project proposes to fill 0.108 acre of wetland, temporarily impact 268 ft (0.67 acres)
of unnamed tributaries (UTs) to Thomas Branch, and permanently impact 1,695 ft of
Hopewell Branch, Thomas Branch, and UTs to Thomas Branch. The proposed School
of Wholeness and Enlightenment is a residential education center located near the
Town of Marshall, Madison County, North Carolina.
In response to your application and the ensuing Public Notice, the Corps submits the
following comments for your review and response. Your response and supporting
information are necessary in order to complete review of your proposal.
1. The applicant states its purpose and need as "Ecosystem enhancements support
the overall mission of SOWE, which is to provide a supportive environment
where individuals can work on self-improvement based on an enlightened and
harmonious relationship with the Earth."The Corps believes the project may be
reasonably achieved, including the development of SOWE and ecological
enhancements, without the need to convert existing streams and wetlands to
open water through the construction of beaver dam analogs (BDA) structures.
The BDA design elevations, lining of upper pond area with impermeable
clay/sand, and the installation of an "agri-drain" appear to primarily focus on
allowing the maximum level of inundation to protect adjacent development
infrastructure opposed to focusing on ecosystem enhancements. There is a

-2-
broad field of practice dedicated to stream and wetland restoration that would
provide ecosystem enhancements without converting existing streams and
wetlands to open water.
2. As this project involves the conversion of streams and wetlands to open water,
the Corps believes the impacts and resultant inundation constitute a loss of
streams and wetlands. The applicant has not submitted a practicable alternative
or any documents outlying how impacts have been avoided and/or minimized. If
it is determined that there is no practicable alternative and impacts have been
avoided and minimized, compensatory mitigation would be required for the
impacts associated with conversion for all flooded streams and wetlands.
3. All agencies previously noted the monitoring plan is insufficient to prove
ecological uplift, rather it states it will help determine "no deleterious downstream
ecological effects."The Corps recommends the development of a more robust
monitoring plan to document the changes within the impact areas and add
success criteria to provide a measure of ecological uplift. The current application
only proposes to measure air temperature, water temperature and precipitation
and document site changes through photographs seasonally for three years. In
addition, the current plan does not identify any measurable success criteria. As
discussed with you in multiple pre-application meetings, a more robust
monitoring plan is needed to document ecological uplift, including elements such
as: reference reach metrics, groundwater data, herbaceous/woody stem density
quantitative/qualitative vegetation surveys, water depth measurements, stream
flows, monitoring well measurements, and wildlife surveys. etc. The current
monitoring plan notes that BDAs will be inspected after large storms (i.e.. 3-inch
rain in a 24-hour period) and seasonally. The Corps recommends quarterly
inspections and after large storm events (i.e. 10-year storm events or 2-inch rain
events in a 24-hour period) at a minimum. Frequent inspections will be necessary
to ensure BDA stability as well as properly assess and implement corrective
actions when the BDAs do blow out.
4. The Administration Building is designed to span across Thomas Branch. The
Corps believes the disturbances associated with the construction, maintenance,
and operation of this building could compromise the ecological function of
Thomas Branch. We believe the positioning of a building in close proximity to a
BDA structure will compromise the BDA's ability to properly enhance the
ecosystem and will prioritize the building infrastructure over the ecosystem's
natural functions.
5. The Corps requests a plan view be submitted noting the location of each
structure and bank stabilization features, including elevation profiles.

-3-
6. On April 14,2021, the Corps sent a letter notifying the Applicant that undertaking
activities in areas outside of the Corps jurisdiction associated with the proposed
development project does not imply that our office will necessarily approve the
proposed impacts to Water of the United States (WoUS) currently under review
or any future proposal to impact WoUS on this property. The ongoing clearing,
grading, and construction activities will not affect the Corps' current review or any
future proposed impacts to WoUS. These activities within the development
project area will not be an adequate justification for authorization of the proposed
impacts currently under review or authorization of future impacts.
Agency comments received in response to the PN are attached for your review and
response. Please copy the Corps on all responses to these comments.
Until the requested information is provided, we will not be issuing a permit for this
project. This information needs to be submitted to the Corps on or before June 14,
2021. Failure to respond to this request for information will result in administrative
withdrawal of your application.
Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated. Please do not hesitate to
contact me at [phone], ext. 4224, or via email at
brandee.c.boggsAusace.armv.mil should you have additional questions.
Sincerely,
Brandee Boggs
Regulatory Specialist
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
cc w/enclosures:
Mr. Byron Hamstead
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Mr. Andrew Moore
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
2090 U.S. Highway 70
Swannanoa, North Carolina 28778

-4-
Ms. Sue Homewood
North Carolina Division of Water Resources
450 W. Hanes Mill Road
Suite 300
Winston Salem, North Carolina 27105
Ms. Andrea Leslie
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, North Carolina 28752
Mr. Todd Bowers
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 4
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Or. Clement Riddle
ClearWater Environmental Consultants. Inc.
145 71' Avenue West
Suite B
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28792

Attachment B
Figure 5 Revised Impact Plan
And
Stream Impact Si Culvert Detail

LEGEND
Osgood
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE
_11_11_11_11_nm PROPERTY BOUNDARY
- _ JOEL OSGOOD, RLA
- — - - — _ _ 14 CHURCH STREET
WETLAND - NO DISTURBANCE .' - - — - - ASHEVILLE, NC 28801
.` 828.527.6466
/ •
LINEAR WETLAND / •
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND i
I i
NON-JURISDICTIONAL LINEAR WETLAND �•
/ - ` •
. i
' SEAL
/ \
EXISTING OPEN WATER •
i i 1 4 i I h t i i ii r
. � 1
STREAM I
•
s
CULVERT TO REMAIN ,
•
/ `
•
CULVERT TO REMOVE `-'
•
PROPOSED CULVERT •
1
PROPOSED WETLAND IMPACT ••
ISSUED
\ \
A
PROPOSED STREAM IMPACT •` • DATE ISSUED: 15-JULY-2021
\ - ,-..„‘
DRAWN BY: ZAC, KMD, RJB
PROPOSED STREAM RESTORATION • •
\ - - - - - APPROVED BY: JJO
IMPACT SUMMARY ` �
I ? ,
Project Area 450.53 AC EXISTING CULVERT TO I REVISIONS
Jurisdictional Waters of the US 1 1 ;
REMAIN, TYP.
Perennial & Intermittent Streams 19,514 LF 1
Wetlands 1.966 AC % :
Existing Open Waters 0.558 AC
I
\ (
- 1 .
NWP 39 Impacts '�
Culvert Crossing Stream Impacts 41 LF 0.004 AC
*BDA TB4 fill Stream Impacts 46 LF 0.003 AC SCHOOL OF BUSINESt.WISDOM ,F
TOTAL NWP 39 STREAM IMPACTS 87 LF 0.007 AC ` 17.4% �\
NON-JURISDICTIONAL WETLA D _ , 17.1/ GRADE
Wetland Fill Impacts 0.003 AC IMPACT N JW2 (0.00 I AC)• ,, � �� �� ,
BDA TB4 fill Wetland Impacts 0.002 AC \, ,y� •
S4: EXISTING 27 LF (0.00 I AC)
TOTAL NWP 39 WETLAND IMPACTS 0.005 AC S7: EXISTING 20 LF (0.00 I AC) =�` ' �7 CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/
CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/ I.
- .,
NWP 27 Impacts `, 'y �� RESTORED
RESTORED o — — I — •!• b ,
Culvert Removal Stream Impacts 269 LF 0.011 AC v � � /� �� V�000 ��; % ' BRIDGE PRELIMINARY
*Stream Enhancement Impacts 240 LF 0.0275 AC SCHOOL OF HEALING AND ENLIGHTENMENT t� . . . , ,.....01.-
DINING HALL
*BDA Restoration Stream Impacts 1,649 LF 0.1157 AC \ - A �� �`' ;Jill"1 EVENT CENTER IMPACT PLAN
1 'V\ MEETING HALL
TOTAL NWP 27 STREAM IMPACTS 2,158 LF 0.1542 AC S3: EXISTING 74 LF (0.003 AC) `' fill _►1�11 SHEET TITLE
CULVERT TO BE REMOVED/ I ' 47 I 1 ' REFER TO RDE DRAWINGS C 102
*BDA Restoration Wetland Impacts 0.077 AC 1 \ \ 1
RESTORED1
(� , FOR IMPACTS S I 0 S30 ( 1758 FT,
TOTAL NWP 27 WETLAND IMPACTS 0.077 AC \
I A \ 0• 134 AC) IMPACTS W7-W9 (0.05 AC)
1
*Refer to RDE Drawings C1o1 and C1o2 CULVERTS TO REMAIN � � /�-a
EXISTING 80 LF CULVERT TO BE
\ j� ,
WHOLENESS SANCTUARY _ ®�.-- �� ,' REPLACED WITH 12 I LF
- MULBERRY
BRIDGE '- / PROPOSED NEW IMPACT S I : 41 LF
FARM —
S6: EXISTING 118 LF (0.005 AC) CULVERT (0.004 AC) MAD I N LL SO C
TO BE REMOVED/ RESTORED \ , ' Up
eRgFRT
S5: EXISTING 29 LF (0.001 AC) CULVERT e Ncyyoy MARSHALL, NC
Ro qs
TO BE REMOVED/ RESTORED qp
_ PRELIMINARY
/ 1 ADMINISTRATION FOR REVIEW PURPOSES ONLY
BRIDGES e BUILDING NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
''II .II ..414A1 \
REFER TO RDE DRAWINGS CI01 FOR NON-JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND
IMPACTS S8-S9 ( 177 LF; 0.012 AC) ^� IMPACT NJWI (0.034 AC)1 Ne 0' 150' 300' 600
IMPACTS W5-W6 (0.029) \ ,
\, ` I 1 C SCALE: 1 " = 300' 0"
I
1
RECEPTION CENTER 1
WETLAND IMPACT WI (0.003 AC) 7"
/ '
_ � L- 1; EXISTING GRAVEL DRIVE TO REMAIN
1 ' NEW ENTRANCE ROAD SHEET 1 OF 1
` / I.
1 _— 1 THE DRAWINGS,SPECIFICATIONS AND OTHER
tilt .
4114
DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY OSGOOD LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECTURE INC.FOR THIS PROJECT ARE INSTRUMENTS
\____ DOCUMENTS
OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS SERVICE FOR USE
SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT.REPRODUCTION
— 1" _ . OR USE OF THESE DRAWINGS OTHER THAN FOR THIS
- �— PROJECT WITHOUT WRITTEN CONSENT FROM THE
US HIGHWAY 25/70 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IS PROHIBITED.UNAUTHORIZED
USE WILL BE SUBJECT TO LEGAL ACTION.
- - Copyright 2021 -Osgood Landscape Architecture,Inc.

w
1-
a
0
' '7 / i / / / / / / ' / / '
/ / / / / / / -/ / // / // 4 e16 / y l I // - / 4i. ib / / / // 1 / / / i ,
/ / , / / / / / / / / / / / / / /
/ / / /
i/ / / /
/ // // // // / // / //// // ` � /// / / // dirk
�O / / / / // / //// / // //
V / / / / / ._ 4410 e ,
i i / / / / / / / / / N / / / / / / / - X / / / / / / / / / / / o
/ / / / / / / ,7 / // / // / / / ,/ / it_./ _..1 i / //// / /
�y // // / // / / / / / / /////;/// // /ç/
r21 • / / co-
/ / / / V
/ / / / // / �4-1/ / / / // // / / G� ��% / /71b9/67/ 9. /25
/ / ,/ �LO
C)\ \
04 1111 / / / / , , , / 4,/ RE/PIiA EXIST. 81 LF 6,0/u /' • ciot y„ 'l / : . ,id'4., / / / �,P` \
/ / 7- / / / 0 '
/ / Yk / 1Z F 60 CMR ®' .9 %'/ / DWQ{LI� I 1
*i I /
------ / // / / \ 2 I / cn
.., / , , / 4/4ib
. . . , , ,, .. , / / / ,
. . . , \ \ 1 / / , 0
,.. . 7 . , , / _ .... \ \
........ . 7 , / , , , . 1.11, . Ao, , , , (7)
_..._ . , 7 , / . F7 \\ I cn
(// 9
44
0/1 -v., ok°1\ x , 1
., , 7
/ / / 1 D
• 65-.. ..---- v..... ' / / // / / / / / � �� // % 0 , cn/ i• • o /„,
//7 / / / / / � o // / / / / / / // / / / 0. � � / / z
/ PROPOD / � \ \ 2 / / / / / / o
- .rift ,
// / / / / / / R INCII ,/ ,//,/ / /
, / , /, / , / ,
/ / / / / / / w/ / /
7 y / / / / / / //// / / // / /
7 7 zy/ /// / . / /
ci
d / // /7 / / // 7- .7 /
411
// / / / / / / . 0g EXI •TI / �/ , / / / , / /
, / / ••; / /� 6 U / /
9,. . , i
z/ z/ //// / / I • / / V / / ,' /
/ / , / +
/ / / • Ifi A ' i_Fic
/, / ,
,‘,0- .-„,. . 0,,• :: .-‘:.,,,;
/ /\VQ/',/////// //
/ / . / / / /,, 'i'
I ;
i/ // / / / �z // / / N // / / / / Ally / / / / / / / / 1 I -
S
7 7 / / 4
...,, .
.. .,
, , ,
/ ,
, .
, , _,,_•A(.• ,.
. , / / O 7 .:.,:__
/ ..,
/ / l l
Sii-�/ // / / \ // / / p0 � .. ' S\• vir / / / / / /LT
.r RVI1▪ `j
/ / / `- / ,`� �. , / / / / /I IN C\\✓ (Y.-ISSUED FOR
/ / / / EXI ING �o h i� / / 1
� � . � NSTRUCTION
e. . . . OP QQ� �� / / / / / 1 / I Q 04.12.21// / / , ,�, 25' / / / // / / , I II GRAPHIC SCALE/ // / / / / / / / / / / I I 20 0 �0 20 �o so Designed: JMM
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / I I C5)
Graphics:
�/ / / /7 / / / R 35' (TYP.) / / / // / / / DMM
/ / / / / / / / / / / Checked:
/ / / / // / / // , ` / / /, /j //// // // , // /, I ( IN FEET ) O Reviewed: JMM
///// /,/ // // // / .� / PROPS ED / / / / / / / 1 inch = 20 ft. JMM
/ / i / / /� / ENDWA / / / / / / / // / / / I 1 I Scale:
�/ // / �/ // / / / ooi•� / INV: 1968.0 / / / / / / / / / , / / I I I I AS NOTED
/ / i / / / / /1 / / // / / / / / / / I I I Date:
/ / / Q P POSED r / / / / / / / I I 9/15/20
/ / 7� // / // ���_ i � /' 22 L 18 ' HDPE / / / / / // // , / / / /
/ I
/ / � \ / / �. , / / / / / / /
7
/ / / // / / / @ 0.50 / / / / / / / 1
// - 7
/ z// / �� //7,//7 / / , // / / / / / / / / / / / / /
z,„
/ //// / '�� // // / / / / / //// / / / // / // // �. / // //
ENGINEERING EXCELLENCE
C-2383
CIVIL ENGINEERING.STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE.CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
P.O.BOX 1516
WEAVERVILLE,NORTH CAROLINA 28787
P:828.645.7088
F:828.645.7714
[e-mail]
www.mdgeng.com
CCI
PROPOSED H EA D/EN DWALLS
(WIDTH VARIES) ROAD BASE PROPOSED ROAD WI CURB $GUTTER
BACKFILL CULVERT WITH O
PROPOSED TOP OF CCI
0
SELECT MATERIAL IN 12" U
ROAD ELEVATION HEADWALL= 1978.00 ROAD BASE PROPOSED ROAD W/CURB $GUTTER
LIFTS TO 98% MAX. DENSITY
VARIES PROPOSED TOP .6 ,/ / / /// // ///// /� ///� PROPOSED TOP OF O
ROAD BASE lig
ENDWALL = 1 974.63 la
/,</,< �/jam/�% / \/ / / / / \/ / /,v/�/�/�/v/,v//</�/,<\ /,v/�/�/ /�/�/,<• W,,\ \/ WALL = 1978.00 Z
PROPOSED \ \ \ \ \ \ HEADWALL WINGS CC
j/ // HEAD/ENDWALLS OMITTED FOR CLARITY.
(DESIGN(DESIGN BY OTHERS)
!!< 3/ 4 .
/ / / / / / / PROPOSED TOP OF \ \ \ /\ \ \ \ \�, \y� �\`�i\ � �`�`\``/``� ��� '
\ z w \ \ \� (DESIGN BYO HERS)
!� /. WALL = 1974.63 CREEK O O
\A \'�/ /'�/ / \\gym Q \/�\/'�/ /'�/ / \� \� ENDWALL WINGS
�\ � />\4%\ /iii ,\ /\ . 4%>\4/\e/��/ ' / / I STREAM BED MATERIAL
�\ • �, �,\- �,\ \ OMITTED FOR CLARITY.
/� •'r/� la
\'r/\ • \.n- • j\j \'r/\ /./1rj\�1 j\ (DESIGN BY OTHERS) DEPTH FOR SILT O
\ \r - (WITH 18" OF ADDITIONAL Nair
mi COLLE DTI ON)
ram\_a
= / // /\I� _
\� \ \ = CREEK - • • ..• • .• • •, .• • • -� • • v• • •c• • •V• • • � • •4 ��
EXISTING CREEK - •-- - d ,
1 - EXISTING = _ =:, : '�• a :, •.,.- •.,. :.• -
P OPOSED HEADWALL .•�..;.,•0! _ .- A .:. -'71' -•....., *Ii'.. - I •%:' : • _ • • : <•%o-• --- __:_•.�_ •.._.- •.._.. � I I =II III III II—II III i ii nii w s
GRADE R rc• • •. • •. • • :.._. - t..- _.� .-•.�_ �.•,:_,.- :.. .
I�IIII II I I�
N "` GRADE I INV.= I970.00 4 � !�-._ 04,4 �_• 4 am
„ 11111 �./ Z
N PROPOSED ENDWALL ICI �,
INV.= 1966.63 SMATERIAL INVROP�OSED
60"QS CULVERT STREAMBED UNDISTURBED CC 0
(TYP,) MATERIAL SOILS PROPOSED PROPOSED 115± LF OF PROPOSED 115± LF OF UNDISTURBED SOILS 00
STREAMBED (I'EMBEDMENT) ISI
INV.=1966.63 MATERIAL UNDISTURBED SOILS 60" CREEK CULVERT 60" CREEK CULVERT PI2 0
UPPER THOMAS BRANCH/ORION REACH ROADS (I'EMBEDMENT) INSTALLATION @ 2.9% INSTALLATION @ 2.9%
Hk
CULVERT INSTALLATION - TYP. CROSS SECTION a W
SCALE: 1" = 5'
2W
O CC
I
1 .
UPPER THOMAS BRANCH/ORION REACH ROADS
CULVERT INSTALLATION - SECTION 'D-D' NOTE: INSTALL CONSTRUCTED RIFFLES TO MATCH EXISTING BED SUBSTRATE. W Q
SCALE: 1"= 5'
° ~ 0a
U 0o z
2Q 40
0 cc
o
Sheet No.: OF 35
Sheet:
i \//\KE
North 8I 1 Project No:
Carolinia9. p' 1 9- 1 04

Attachment C
Frisby Tract
Request for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Preliminary Data Entry Fields for New Actions
SAW— -
1. Project Name: Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms
2. Work Type: Private n Institutional n Government n Commercial n
3. Project Description/ Purpose:
+/- 2.5 AC addition to Mulberry Gap Farm submitted for Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination.
4. Property Owner/Applicant:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
5. Agent/Consultant: ClearWater Environmental Consultants
6. Related Action ID Number(s): SAW-2020-00632
7. Project Location - Coordinates,Street Address, and/or Location Description:
The project is located at 11442 US 25-70 HWY, in Madison County, North Carolina.
35.862091 , -82.734196
8. Project Location -Tax Parcel ID: PIN: 8798-39-8531
9. Project Location—County: Madison County
10. Project Location—Nearest Municipality or Town : Marshall
11. Project Information—Nearest Waterbody: Hopewell Branch
12. Watershed/8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code: French Broad - 06010105
Authorization: Section 10 n Section 404 n Section 10&404 n
Regulatory Action Type:
Standard Permit _ Pre-Application Request
Nationwide Permit# Unauthorized Activity
n Regional General Permit# n Compliance
n Jurisdictional Determination Request n No Permit Required
Revised 20210513

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
CLear aker
Department of the Army
Wilmington District,Corps of Engineers
Attn: Scott McLendon.,Chief Regulatory Division
PO Box 1890
Wilmington.NC 28402-1890
-and-
NC DWR. Wehscape Unit
Attn: Karen Higgins
512 North Salisbury Street
Raleigh,North Carolina 27604
I, the current landowner/managing partner of the property identified below, hereby authorize
ClearVVater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) to act on my behalf as my agent during the
processing of jurisdictional determination requests and permits to impact Wetlands and Water of
the US subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899.CEC is authorized to provide supplemental information as
needed at the request of the USACE or DWR.
Additionally,1 authorize representatives of the Wilmington District,US Army Corps of Engineers
to enter upon the property herein described for the purposes of conducting onsite investigations and
issuing a determination associated with Wetlands and Waters of the US subject to Federal
jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act of 1899.
Property Owner of Record: W'M-8 Lai (AAit — flOtSLIA) 1"k-4--
Property Owner Address: tt,L4 ule(at 'Ncortia 64)TA.r..K 044.4:3) r
MAO-Wu_ A1XVo cow/ i Ac-
Phone Number: 4-Lk.le 2_0 Rls LT 'ig4:50
Email address: cle-aLk Ci-Li WV. t.cf.# _
Property Location: Serc 61:1>o)4-5S
Owner/Managing partner Signature: (tki CLIALluia4.1) d4f44 tILL— ( "kg" e)
litA
Owner Managing printed name: ii...ciitALD CU L -f
Date: cy Taut 2...q.,0
32 Clayton Street
Ashes illc.NC 2880 I
Phorto:828-698,9800
V,lt tA%I.:`,kenx.cOM

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Parcel Information

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF Print Property Info
Property Summary
Tax Year:2021
REID 6177 PIN 8798-39- Property Owner FRISBY, SHERRI LEE;FRISBY,
8531 GREGORY
Location 11442 US 25-70 Property Owner's Mailing 11442 US 25-70 HWY
Address HWY Description Address MARSHALL NC 28753
Administrative Data Transfer Information Property Value
Plat Book&Page Deed Date 2/28/2017 Total Appraised Land Value $27,354
Old Map# Deed Book 000625 Total Appraised Building Value $151,707
Market Area 2060 Deed Page 00648 Total Appraised Misc $12,290
Township WALNUT Revenue Stamps $408 Improvements Value
Total Cost Value $191,351
Planning MADISON Package Sale Date
Jurisdiction Total Appraised Value-valued $191,351
Package Sale Price
By Cost
City
Land Sale Date Other Exemptions
Fire District WALNUT
Land Sale Price Exemption Desc
Spec District
RURAL Use Value Deferred
Land Class Improvement Summary
IMPROVED Historic Value Deferred
Total Buildings 1
History REID 1 Total Deferred Value
Total Units 0
History REID 2 Total Taxable Value $191,351
Total Living Area 1,589
Acreage 2.51
Total Gross Leasable Area 0
Permit Date
Permit#
Building Summary
Card 1 11442 US 25-70 HWY
Building Details Building Description Building Total&Improvement Details
Bldg Type SINGLE Year Built 1986 Effective Year 1986 Grade C 100%
FAMILY
Additions 3 Remodeled 0 Percent Complete 100
Units 1
2 STORY PREFAB Total Adjusted Replacement $199,878
Living Area(SQFT) 1589 Interior Adj (1.00)FIREPLACE Cost New
Number of Stories 1.00 OPENING(1.00) Physical Depreciation(% A 34%
Style DWELLING Other Features Bad)
Depreciated Value $131,919
Foundation PermFoot
Economic Depreciation(% 0
Frame
Bad)
Exterior Wood Side Functional Depreciation(% 0
Const Type Bad)
Heating RadW Total Depreciated Value $131,919
Air Cond Market Area Factor 1.15
Baths(Full) 2 Building Value $151,707
Baths(Half) 0 Misc Improvements Value $12,290
Extra Fixtures 0 Total Improvement Value $163,997
https://Ircpwa.ncptscloud.com/Madison/PrintPRC.aspx?PARCELPK=5376 1/3

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF Print Property Info
Total Plumbing 6 Assessed Land Value
Fixtures
Assessed Total Value
Bedrooms 0
Floor HardWood
Roof Cover Compostn
Roof Type Gable
Main Body(SQFT) 1589
Addition Summary
Story Type Code Area
1.00 OPEN FRAME PORCH 105 75
1.00 WOOD DECK 112 224
1.00 B-UNF BASEMENT B50 1589
Building Sketch Photograph
s_
52
Misc Improvements Summary
Card Unit Base Eff Phys Depr Econ Depr Funct Depr Common Interest
Measure Type Value
# Quantity Price Year (%Bad) (%Bad) (%Bad) (%Good)
1 1 UNITS ASPHALT $500.00 2000 0 0 0 $500
1 1 UNITS MISC $1,000.00 2000 0 0 0 $1,000
IMPRO
1 32X38 DIMENSIONS BARN $14.90 1960 85 0 0 $2,718
1 26X36 DIMENSIONS CABIN $43.12 1950 80 0 0 $8,072
Total Misc Improvements Value Assessed:$12,290
Land Summary
Land Class: RURAL IMPROVED Deeded Acres: 0 Calculated Acres: 0
Zoning Soil Class Description Size Rate Land Adjustment Land Value
R-A 1-BLDG SITE-M 1.00 BY THE ACRE PRICE $19,550 $19,550
R-A 21-WOODS-M 1.51 BY THE ACRE PRICE $6,900 $7,804
Total Land Value Assessed:$27,354
Ownership History
Owner Name Deed Type %Ownership Stamps Sale Price Book Page Deed Date
https://Ircpwa.ncptscloud.com/Madison/PrintPRC.aspx?PARCELPK=5376 2/3

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF Print Property Info
Owner Name Deed Type %Ownership Stamps Sale Price Book Page Deed Date
Current FRISBY, SHERRI LEE/FRISBY, GREGORY DEED 50, 50 408 $204,000 000625 00648 2/28/2017
Notes Summary
Building Date Line Notes
Card
P 11/8/2019 0 REMOVED STG BLDG ADDED BARN AND CABIN FOR 2020 REVAL
P 9/25/2019 0 NO CHANGE FOR 2020 REVAL
P 6/14/2018 1 LEGACY ACCOUNT NUMBER:282513
P 6/14/2018 2 ACCTNOTE FIELD FROM LEGACY PARCEL TABLE:THIS WAS UNDER ACCT 6980 WAS PIN 8798-29-8614
ACCT 29325
P 6/14/2018 3 FROM LEGACY INSTRUMENTS TABLE: Imported from AS400
P 6/14/2018 4 LANDNOTES 1-7 FROM LEGACY PARCEL TABLE: SITE: 1.000 1.00 1.0 20000 20000 OPEN:WOOD:25.240
.41 .4 5000 51742 UNDV:WAST:
P 6/14/2018 5 NOTES 1-3 FROM LEGACY PARCEL TABLE: 93/584;466/656;515/339; SOLD 23.73ACPER 614/264 FOR
2017; NAME CHANGE PER625/648 FOR 2018
https://Ircpwa.ncptscloud.com/Madison/PrintPRC.aspx?PARCELPK=5376 3/3

DV 701
DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C DD0089A264CF �G 292 - 294 (3) DOC# 341667
I hls Document eRecorded: 05/26/2021 12:07:07 PM
Fee: $26.00 DocType: DEED Tax: $1,000.00
Madison County, North Carolina
Mary Jane Wallin, Register of Deeds
NORTH CAROLINA GENERAL WARRANTY DEED
Excise Tax $ 1,000.00
Parcel Identifier No. 8798-39-8531
Mail after recording to Van Winkle,Buck,Wall, Starnes&Davis,P.A. Attorney's Initials: LPT
Post Office Box 7376 ,Asheville,NC 28802-7376
This instrument was prepared by: Van Winkle, Buck, Wall, Starnes & Davis, P.A. CLPT, representing
Grantee only)
Brief description for the Index: 11442 US 25/70,Marshall,NC
THIS DEED made this ?G244/ day of May,2021,by and between:
G' TOR G' • TEE
Gregory Frisby and wife, Sherri Lee Frisby Mulberry Farm-Madison,LLC,a Delaware
limited liability company
11442 US 25-70 Hwy
Marshall,NC 28753 11656 US 25/70
Marshall,NC 28753
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.
WITNESSETH,that Grantor, for a valuable consideration paid by Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, has and by these presents does grant, bargain, sell and convey unto Grantee in fee simple,
all that certain lot or parcel of land situated in Madison County, North Carolina, and more particularly
described as follows(the"Property"):
SEE E Ill ;IT A ATTAC:I D .1 ' TO • i, INCORPO • TED ' :REIN BY
REFERENCE.
This instrument prepared by: Lindsay P. Thompson, a licensed North Carolina attorney.
Delinquent taxes,if any,to be paid by the closing attorney,Lindsay P.Thompson,to the county tax
collector upon disbursement of closing proceeds.
NO TITLE E •: INATION WAS PERFO ' ED BY THE PREP• ' R OF THIS DEED.
submitted electronically by "van winkle Law Firm"
in compliance with North Carolina statutes governing recordable documents
and the terms of the submitter agreement with the Madison County Register of Deeds.

DocuSign EnvelopeiID:A3 8137D-933B-4 AD A 8C-DD0089A264CF DOC# 341667
THIS PROPERTY DOES INCLUDE G' OR'S ' I CIPAL RESIDENCE.
The Property was acquired by Grantor by instrument recorded in Deed Book 625,Page 648.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the Property and all privileges and appurtenances thereto belonging to
Grantee in fee simple.
And Grantor covenants with Grantee, that Grantor is seized of the Property in fee simple,has the right to
convey the same in fee simple, that title is marketable and free and clear of all encumbrances, and Grantor
will warrant and defend the title against the lawful claims of all persons whomsoever except for the
exceptions hereinafter stated.
Title to the Property is subject to the following exceptions:
Utilities physically located on the Property, ad valorem taxes for the current year and subsequent years,
easements and restrictions of record, and any local, county, state, or federal laws, ordinances, or
regulations relating to zoning, environment, subdivision, occupancy,use,construction, or development of
the subject property, including existing violations of said laws, ordinances, or regulations.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has hereunto set their hands and seals, the day and year first
above written.
0 (SEAL)
Grego Frisby
/ ,� (SEAL)
Sherri Lee Frisby
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF a s t-'r
I certify that the following person(s)personally appeared before me this clay, each acknowledging
to me that he or she voluntarily signed the foregoing document for the purpose state therein and in the capacity
indicated: Gregory Frisby and Sherri Lee Frisby
Date: 10 I •(W2-6_
rotary Pahl'
*Inn
PLACE NOTARY SEAL INSIDE THIS BOX ONLY!
(Printed Name of Notary
My Commission Expires: 4
BAR ARAANN BAER
Notary Public
Buncombe County.North Carolina
My Commission Expires:
0 /1 5/2022

,e1 A In nn A
DocuSign Envelope ID A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF DOC# 341667
E • IBIT A
• +a = 4 fe 441 4"' • 4 14I* O $ - 14 of •
BEING ALL OF THAT PROPERTY CONVEYED TO GRANTORS IN DEED BOOK 625,PAGE 648.
Address: 1442 Us 25n0 I-INVY,Marshall,NC
PIN#8798-39-8531

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,Wilmington District(Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category,with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re gul atoryPermitPro gram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE&CHARLOTTE REGULATORY WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
FIELD OFFICES US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers 2407 West Fifth Street
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208 Washington,North Carolina 27889
Asheville,North Carolina 28801-5006 General Number:[phone]
General Number:[phone] Fax Number:[phone]
Fax Number:[phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE US Army Corps of Engineers
US Army Corps of Engineers 69 Darlington Avenue
3331 Heritage Trade Drive,Suite 105 Wilmington,North Carolina 28403
Wake Forest,North Carolina 27587 General Number:910-251-4633
General Number:[phone] Fax Number:[phone]
Fax Number:[phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A,B,C,D,E,F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency,please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D—PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D -NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Depaflment of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service,prior to starting work.
Version:May 2017 Page 1

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 11442 US 25-70 HVVY
City, State: Marshall, NC
County: Madison County
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 8798-39-8531
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: ClearWater Environmental Consultants
Mailing Address: 145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
Telephone Number: 828-698-9800
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
✓❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
riInterested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other,please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name: Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Mailing Address: 1126 Upper Thomas Branch Road
Marshall NC 28753
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request(copy of Deed,County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version:May 2017 Page 2

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION3'4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps)to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on-
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I,the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
See Attached Agent Authorization
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner ❑✓ Authorized Agents
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
0 I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
_
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
3 For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols,skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties,please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
5 Must provide agent authorization faun/letter signed by owner(s).
Version:May 2017 Page 3

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION(JD)TYPE (Select One)
nI am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD)provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or"navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD)is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or"navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner,permit applicant, or other"affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2)who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
ElI am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
11
l Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
1I Size of Property or Review Area +/- 2.5 acres.
nThe property boundary(or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version:May 2017 Page 4

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: 35.862091
Longitude: -82.734196
nA legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 1 1x 17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
• North Arrow
• Graphical Scale
• Boundary of Review Area
• Date
• Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
• Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
• Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water,pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
• Isolated waters,waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or"Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
• Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States,wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
TACompleted Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled"Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations"to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version:May 2017 Page 5

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form'and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs,please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
El Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
rj Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g.National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan,previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
nNCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
nNC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
LOther Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02AppA Prelim JD Form fillable.pdf
' Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses:This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal,state,and local
government agencies,and the public,and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law.Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination(AJD),which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure:Submission of requested information is voluntary;however,if information is not provided,the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version:May 2017 Page 6

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: July 9, 2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: See Agent Authorization
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Madison City: Marshall
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 35.862091 Long.: -82.734196
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD83
Name of nearest waterbody: Hopewell Branch
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑■ Field Determination. Date(s): 4/28/2021
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site Latitude Longitude Estimated amount Type of aquatic Geographic authority
number (decimal (decimal of aquatic resource resource (i.e.,wetland to which the aquatic
degrees) degrees) in review area vs. non-wetland resource "may be"
(acreage and linear waters) subject(i.e., Section
feet, if applicable) 404 or Section 10/404)
S 1 35.862999 -82.734565 98 LF non-wetland waters 404
S2 35.861590 -82.734482 116 LF non-wetland waters 404
S3 35.862495 -82.733628 489 LF non-wetland waters 404

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre-
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be"navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
n Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Vicinity, USGS Topographic,Aerial, USDA Soil and Stream/Wetland Delineation Map
n Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
n Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
n Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
n D• ata sheets prepared by the Corps:
n Corps navigable waters' study:
n U• .S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
n USGS NHD data.
n USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
n U• .S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1 :24K Marshall Quad
n Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
n N• ational wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
n State/local wetland inventory map(s):
n F• EMA/FIRM maps:
n 1• 00-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
n P• hotographs: n Aerial (Name & Date): NCCGIA 2018
or n Other (Name & Date):
n Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
n Other information (please specify): Property Ownership Information
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
c—DocuSigned by:
—0A79F7DC85EE4F7...
Signature and date of Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Figures 1-5

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
b
A-
o
L.
I,
. '%;\ :LI
Previous Mulberry Delineation C'
(-- 1....,‘ r— ,
Parcel Boundary `__J
213
0
`�'zoo,
t a 25,
a4 F,
as
Qe�
,� Q`r c `2 2'i
v�
Vit Dr
3
, a or.--411,. -- i
4 Y�_ i:; Marshall �� ad Lo����� Cti
."1`1t
N
Legend 4�,U 2
i
Madison County PIN 8798398531 `a ��`,
0 0.5 1 2
r Previous Mulberry Delineation �� Miles
Drawn by:BWY 7.8.2021;CEC Project#1025
Madison County CLearWater,
Site VicinityNorth Carolina
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B Figure 1
Hendersonville,NC 28792

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
- (..zary
---1 ' • i".' ' ' '' ------.....\-A.V4S5- 1/7)i.;'-' ' kill ((/•-li\''.',j,,,i):, I cys,•...--1,,.
5 ‘--( ' ''' . -- '', 1-0-. 4 ,,,,-
/.,-,. ?' "41 -
) ..,,,I,
„...
ilirrT
Gr,LANAGAN ^'•oL”t\/
c„-.,L‘(L.7-'—•5 :.'_'t4
'''.;k;`_ gf1+ '1
\)..,1,......."•_-
-1J,i>L.-0..' .,,,'4
,),\4,.,k 1;•i1y•.4
k % /-- k " '1 ; .76 vJt
-1:y-.e,-i--:,->lA-/--C-fr_--,_.l=S_7__-7—a_C-t.i'.i.-
':l_
---,:i-..,-;j...
,j,
"€.•.-
.._:.
../(/4 f l':/1
r
'1.:2tw'N-e'',•,_:-''.,>-.2'01/..°-..-0:,:-1-1..--'.'4'-u7:1-,,(,l
Y-,.1 k,..17 h,ii-4_I.-_.4..•-.,i‘,/i•f?/\..,_g(_-'.--•-L---C.._.,-"?--2,-z-'?--'(i''.,.-42„,:-1-.o)--.('4\-ro.'fe'.-.'7,._1‘.cr,..-
C4..%4.,-'.'.'.
A-(/I..>1trt;..".4.'g?4I:.
,_‘,:..._'/','O$,,/.d'r-'-_p-c)__r'''i,_',_..r•
..')..--v
.,\J,.-
.\
,'.,,_ci-':‘-r..j.:1'-;-'412_'i't;/:(
1.•(,.i,.,,".,).,At-\,•,1T,4,1,6.:.k:..-.>
-.(‘.-:\
',,/,-,i.:.-\.-.
l
11‘47: tom, i _ u • ` ♦ '- l;
,, �rQ � A'.
,� 1. Parcel Boundary 01 y
'i,:.''.a
1. "L11°_(,.
1-11_)\-::.
-:2:ft,,:;.'/.-....:-.0:'1-41/1-))..,--‘-.J-/--.'f1_C
0 i:-i\
,•'1 I-.,:‘..-.-
:•
- ,r. f /l . h • ,'..
ma's,.' / ^ c4..1%.-..N,‘.''
�` /t` 1 j0
j\. /
a 4
yr-
„--, „.. _.), ,,%;,.._ .._-.., ..,, -,..\_. , :• . : ; ( 1 --- -fi .- ,414,c,. ,..,) - ‘ -/----- \
II.
1 ,?j i .1 . ltcCo fig I, s
cam , . b • '} ?' '-� •
•
•
%
.\ . .,: . .`' ..
e,: ,-/i '.ova • v f - '�
_ , .,,, .. _,.,,,. ... , , ,, _,. ; ,_____,,...: ,(__,
-7---- —-----V "• 4 ' /,.-Os-'- - _ `5 __.... .4,._........." 412 (7.7,...." (IA
c Z...11:1 ? -
4-1
• a1 `
f •
'ram., V.
� -f-...:( 0 'i:4., = f
`
. __ . z !. . ( \. + '
,; Legend , V" „ . .
�
i 0 0.25 0.5 1
/, L _ _i Madison County PIN 8798398531 Miles
Drawn by:BWY 7.8.2621;CEC Project#1025 - —— 1611 —_; ' � .---/ ;` ,/�-‘)
Madison County, CLearWater USGS Topographic Map
North Carolina Marshall Quad
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B Figure 2
Hendersonville,NC 28792

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
Act
i `''I 74440„
e.*::':-.:,...„.; .,731,:t":11?"\.'„?..' • , ..e...7.. 4:.--"AlliVe:-,1,.:11 -...'‘.. ' '-
,.7. ..„...00:_,....... "_....,..,:,
• rrx' 'r .. t '-fit
3 Z`� 1 �1
�• t.. ?fir y _
k-�_ •\. `_k Parcel Boundary '. , . - ..; . 4. .11‘,..., let,...:. ,,, t .., , -......,=',\ '..\.. 7-L. - :\' '.„ ;:c-' -.,..c... ,..44.:
_-=: 3i ' i ,- � - ,
\ �
w � _ �, _ Ao, . •7_ , {
, yr ' �: ,1` � :410k * 0 _
,1445
,-..4* I \ 4r...
' " Ill' . ;‘'.;.„si'ls;',-;714:ir-,,,...--4 )..'.: . .,.. 14 41 V ....." _..V.4-
101.°11\ ---..,. ...z, 4,
„ e .. •l.•..
III 3 �' ►�+
%, - ,1•: .. sire ;L "
r.'.•.,l-4
1l ,1, :• =
f ,,, ,pi. ,,• IIt ` y,. _
isa .rt i y „' NAotf t` ,I i ii. \ '.
b3. . / r y r 1F" _ 1J . . rr.
y 5 ` I T C
• "�'/� , 1 t ,. ` fit. — a `' N
'A _ ,\� — — f i 4 s �p it
11%1* .
Legend {1_ �. ; •
• `. _ •• - j' - 0 50 100 200
Madison County PIN 8798398531 Feet
Drawn by:BWY 7.8.2021;CEC Project#1025 'Wilk,` a
Madison County CLearWater Aerial Map
North Carolina NC OneMap (2018)
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B Figure 3
Hendersonville,NC 28792

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
� r . ,_
Legend :E: . `I. 4-
l I Madison County PIN 8798398531 x'� a
,
•
'# JbD -Junaluska-Brasstown complex '•.. =-, ._ ' _ # ..#��
SoE -Soco-Stecoah complex 4 A _ •gym '� `�-, ;+ •• S- - , re; _ Y
SyE; SzF -Sylco-Soco complex "+ # ,
14 .
.r ' — - ` JbD 4, .P*
t? s f: Ss' •'11 <
(iel
�- { 4 „ j` p' .0,
•
' `' _ \" `,a Parcel Boundary
r. tip 'Ta`
s `
hi
vjoitlr'‘,'
.
: 4. / _ ~ _ -,-- _ - _ _ i.. a 2
46-tf ,-.i.,4* \ \,;10-.-•-in.2.7"..:-!..•• • ), ‘: . .E. lc . ....,,,,_ - ,
• .rI1 SzF a
r ,A. a \ � .: .a ,:L t
i SoE • '` 1w-e s
• w
—v — — • ;:tiC r'*-,-. ' — . -4. , -11*
•
•
_ • -1 - ' _ + +
111
;_ '+ ' , j' - 0 50 100 200
�� Feet
•Drawn by: i
BWY 7.8.2021;CEC 1 Project#1025 .� . �. ... '
Madison County CLearWater USDA Soils Map
North Carolina NRCS Web Soil Survey
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B Figure 4
Hendersonville,NC 28792

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Frisby Tract - Mulberry Gap Farms (+1- 2.5 AC)
!1121111 I : /, -. ...,:-...- ---' --:N \ 'i Jurisdictional wetlands and waters identified on this map have been located within sub- _�
- meter accuracy utilizing a Trimble mapping grade Global Positioning System(GPS)and
- -�' The subsequent differential correction of That data. GPS points may demonstrate
uncomectable errors due to topography,vegetative cover,and/or multipath signal error.
\ l
\�\ Note: The illustrated wetland and stream locations are approximate. These areas have
1. been flagged in the field;however,they have not been surveyed. Although ClearWater
\..
— — — — — — _ - Environmental Consultants,Inc.(CEC)is confident in our assessment,the US Army
+ .'
•
` \ „it...
�\ Corps of Engineers(Corps)is the only agency that can make final decisions regarding
lu�l 111I/ I \ jurisdictional wetland and waters of the US delineations. Therefore, all preliminary
`•C \ determinations are subject to change until written verification is obtained. CEC strongly
Si `\ recommends that written verification be obtained from the Corps prior to closing on the
`\ 1 property,beginning any site work,or making any legal reliance on this determination.
Mg
\ A•' This map was prepared by CEC using the best information available to CEC at the time OMPotential Non-wetland \
of production. This map is for informational purposes only and should not be used to -
Waters of the US / determine precise boundaries,roadways,property boundary lines,nor legal descriptions.
`\ This map shall not be construed to be an official survey of any data depicted.
` \• Source Data:Topo and Project Boundary-Madison County GIS
\,d j \ Parcel Boundary
\
/' r umpr i . ti>...:ow' , ts,-_ :
, /- , 4,0001004.,- ,,, ,.\
.:‘,/ s
•
Right-of-Way ` �� _ • ' S3 r \•\ - 4' �,'.5 Z,'
Area Between - .1
Road&Parcel•- \
Boundary Included - - . • '•' , - lki i p, , Potential Non-wetland �, / ,\
in Delineation 1. Waters of the US
, /mini, i . ' . rigili :-..i .. 111'41 - 1,
l'\ %ill iii . ..,* %Pk • Of-
. ...._ . _ ,..- ,p
1 i
Potentially Jurisdictional Water
\ : .
11110
it 04_, Stream Linear Feet Acres N4 etland _acres
�I Sl 98 0.021 - -
I - S2 116 0.023
I • S3 489 0.131 �'
I \ Total 703 0.175 Total 0.000
r • F
'\:- , \\ ; \\$:
t_
)'1
041111.. .. '
)//
, . \ix..\\
iii ,\\‘i.
Potential ron-wetlandA4.1111P-
1 / Legend
lk - .% '
Waters of the US
;I 1 , _ Madison County PIN 8798398531
i_ Previous Mulberry Delineation ilt
r 4 ," Stream
. — Approximate Culvert
''/ \ __ -
•' ---- _ ___------------- Contours-101t
*
__ «, / Data Form
IS . It .. '
l - »S - 1� MI6;`- ..n�
''1- 1":. 1 1.. - - . . .'-- .
; 0 50 100 200
l ii. '
Feet
Drawn by:BWY4.29.2021-CEC Project#1025 ,, f
CLearWater Stream and Wetland
Madison County, Delineation Map
North Carolina Delineated April 28, 2021
145 7th Avenue West,Suite B
Hendersonville,NC 28792 Figure 5

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Data Forms

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control#:0710-xxxx,Exp:Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET—Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority:AR 335-15,paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: 1025-Mulberry Gap Farm (Frisby Tract) City/County: Marshall/Madison Sampling Date: 4/28/21
Applicant/Owner: Mulberry Farm-Madison LLC State: NC Sampling Point: UPL
Investigator(s): Yant Section,Township, Range: N/A
Landform (hillside,terrace,etc.): Streambank Local relief(concave,convex, none): Convex Slope(%): 10
Subregion(LRR or MLRA): LRR N Lat: 35.861370 Long:-82.734298 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: SoE-Soco-Stecoah complex NWI classification: Not Shown on NWI
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X No (If no,explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"Normal Circumstances"present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation , Soil ,or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed,explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS—Attach site map showing sampling point locations,transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks(B6)
Surface Water(A1) _True Aquatic Plants(B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8)
_High Water Table(A2) _Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) _Drainage Patterns(B10)
Saturation(A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots(C3) _Moss Trim Lines(B16)
_Water Marks(B1) _Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Dry-Season Water Table(C2)
Sediment Deposits(B2) _Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils(C6) _Crayfish Burrows(C8)
Drift Deposits(B3) _Thin Muck Surface(C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9)
Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Other(Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1)
Iron Deposits(B5) X Geomorphic Position(D2)
_Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) _Shallow Aquitard(D3)
Water-Stained Leaves(B9) _Microtopographic Relief(D4)
Aquatic Fauna(B13) FAC-Neutral Test(D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No X Depth(inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No X Depth(inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No X Depth(inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data(stream gauge, monitoring well,aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG,JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
VEGETATION (Four Strata) - Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point: UPL
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30 ) %Cover Species? Status Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Juglans nigra 40 Yes FACU Number of Dominant Species
2. Liriodendron tulipifera 25 Yes FACU That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A)
3. Total Number of Dominant
4. Species Across All Strata: 7 (B)
5. Percent of Dominant Species
6. That Are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 28.6% (NB)
7. Prevalence Index worksheet:
65 =Total Cover Total%Cover of: Multiply by:
50%of total cover: 33 20%of total cover: 13 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 15 ) FACW species 20 x 2= 40
1. Ligustrum sinense 60 Yes FACU FAC species 20 x 3= 60
2. Lindera benzoin 20 Yes FAC FACU species 185 x 4= 740
3. UPL species 5 x 5= 25
4. Column Totals: 230 (A) 865 (B)
5. Prevalence Index =B/A= 3.76
6. Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
7. _1 -Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
8. _2-Dominance Test is>50%
9. 3-Prevalence Index is<_3.01
80 =Total Cover 4-Morphological Adaptations(Provide supporting
50%of total cover: 40 20%of total cover: 16 data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5 ) _Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation (Explain)
1. Lonicera japonica 30 Yes FACU 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
2. Rosa multiflora 20 Yes FACU present, unless disturbed or problematic.
3. Packera aurea 20 Yes FACW Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
4. Polystichum acrostichoides 10 No FACU Tree-Woody plants,excluding vines,3 in. (7.6 cm)or
5. Daucus carota 5 No UPL more in diameter at breast height(DBH), regardless of
6. height.
7. Sapling/Shrub-Woody plants,excluding vines, less
8. than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
9. (1 m)tall.
10. Herb-All herbaceous(non-woody)plants, regardless
11. of size,and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
85 =Total Cover Woody Vine-All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
50%of total cover: 43 20%of total cover: 17 height.
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 15 )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5. Hydrophytic
=Total Cover Vegetation
50%of total cover: 20%of total cover: Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG,JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont-Version 2.0

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
SOIL Sampling Point: UPL
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-16 10YR 3/3 100 Loamy/Clayey
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol(A1) Polyvalue Below Surface(S8)(MLRA 147, 148) _2 cm Muck(A10)(MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon(A2) _Thin Dark Surface(S9)(MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)
Black Histic(A3) _Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1)(MLRA 136) (MLRA 147, 148)
_Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) _Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)
Stratified Layers(A5) Depleted Matrix(F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
_2 cm Muck(A10)(LRR N) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) _Red Parent Material(F21)
_Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Depleted Dark Surface(F7) (outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
_Thick Dark Surface(Al2) _Redox Depressions(F8) _Very Shallow Dark Surface(F22)
Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR N, Other(Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) MLRA 136)
_Sandy Redox(S5) _Umbric Surface(F13)(MLRA 122, 136) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Stripped Matrix(S6) _Piedmont Floodplain Soils(F19)(MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Dark Surface(S7) Red Parent Material(F21)(MLRA 127, 147, 148) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer(if observed):
Type:
Depth(inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-4-SG,JUL 2018 Eastern Mountains and Piedmont—Version 2.0

cuSi9n Envelope IDA328137D-9330-46Ao-ri18C-DL 89A264CF—'pitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
— Daily Total
— 30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
5
t` Oc-29
021-02-2 i f t
I V a
j ll
4- JV f
0o -L
) fi - . 110111)1 W
C
rel rit__.
3 -1"ro
11,t
4—
Iiiir .021-04-28
ro
i z-
r
1- l
l p r r r 1
D r_ r n L 11 1lt 1, 119.. _nJIr�I1.i_R_� 1__ 1 nl, J 11 0 J, ) J,_ r 0, ,
Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
2020 2020 2020 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021 2021
Coordinates 35.862091,-82.734196 30 Days Ending 30r^%ile (in) 70r^Wile (in) Observed(in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product
Observation Date 2021-04-28 2021-04-28 2.572441 4.451575 1.909449 Dry 1 3 3
Elevation(ft) 1946.51 2021-03-29 2.893701 3.995276 5.38189 Wet 3 2 6
Drought Index(PDSI) Moderate wetness 2021-02-27 2.405512 3.400394 4.389764 Wet 3 1 3
WebWIMP Hi0 Balance Wet Season Result Normal Conditions-12
y�uvsos Flgureand 2bles made Wthe r - -
AntecedentPr cipitatianTool
Version 1.0 Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation(ft) Distance(mi) Elevation A Weighted Days(Normal) Days(Antecedent)
MARSHALL 35.8033,-82.6658 1919.948 5.584 26.562 2.661 11202 90
•
•
HOT SPRINGS 35.8953,-82.8314 1345.144 5.906 601.366 6.209 145 0
•` Writtoecxrpson Deters ENKA 35.5408,-82.6536 2D49.869 22.655 103.359 12.536 6 0
�/ U.S.Army Corps of Engineers

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
Representative Photographs
4/28/21

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
cis,' �`�''' M are All !
st yy
^`" 9,1 Y4 ,e!
—,,,,- , .„, ,-,-,_-.,.....-
, , ,. ..,...... ,,, .
,- - ,.. „ti ,.. ."e't-lt4 -.F'
" ,€�,.
. , ,.,,-,..-,, ,,.,..,- ,,, -,,,,-
, ,-,-. , ...,s.,-,,,...-i, ,.-, ,
r
:*,'i-- fr-.4-'4' ' ' \... f
•
kM •
e � 5 6 �"
4 s� --�yy�� - r - t-'--v f fi'�
tea.
Photo 1: Photograph typic al upland observed onsite.of
ver-r-'-:-
,,,,,,,.. , _4,4,,,,,,,i
�a fiw
Raj y. •
_orC
-.yam
1 '-- -y9i
- -
,i
1,---„Li` •r C +y� �� ,ivy _. ., �_"'.^'�X -
' - /�d:Y I o ar
Photo 2: Stream S 1. View facing downstream.

DocuSign Envelope ID:A328137D-933B-46AD-A18C-DD0089A264CF
WS It ,
ro I e. y c .�� >r
I
y
: � a q
d1i._Fi :tsLt k . wt
Photo 3: Stream S3. View facing downstream from northeast parcel boundary.
F��.} A. '' I 5' I d s f t I N ...
.0 "f k ,f `� F 'f Ag .I F+ 4' '' -Jai �'t I - .
vq.: ,__,,_ _ ,
ilvd,:i7,
, ‘
t -,.,,,
lic
,., % ,, ,,,,, 1'2 ,—,,,p, ' r,_-\f/ '''''
' c'e 1'-*''-4.•2.-`;1''z,-.'01e.:./.-\i,V-:k--r-ril.,4..,.,"4 1,,t;''i.N.,_
.' _ ore, fix, 4 d �,r , 1 ; l
^.... V -4.,,,-, 6 ', G i` 4, fro' �X'I k:.
7► . <. '.,ram�v^�S �J a. � 1
1L
40,4".°
,rd� _J - �"% ,ram'- .'' �(`rr j.a'ri� y'�.
,,$� 'AJ'd; 3'xr Lam-r i �4 I 4 "�� _
•
C
- -5
vw. m a a 1a 04/2+8/202 9v.y y ,,, t." - �
r ',-"'"' .' sat ' „I
., ..
Photo 4: Stream S3. View facing downstream.

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

Project Justification
& Design Narrative For
Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs
Prepared for
titropepip
The School of Wholeness
& Enlightenment A -.
Madison County, NC , - ,,,
July 9, 2021 ," . -,, .� ��.
�.,,:
1 �'
1 ` Via• . . Nv :;•; - 7 :.
x:. :ter' ..
:•�• �•,,.. 'ti',r..y+w.- fir• -;
_i... _..._ _ ^jaw 'wn- :...: 4:--.
•
P.
,i2. .-ViN , --e 7re..I R' ,' 4ire �. yrr.
•
~ Robinson
•
~ Design
~ Engineers .:
4 `
A tip,
•- , ..ry' mat M-} .� .�� fn ..: .. .. �^' -

2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
2. LAND USE LEGACIES 5
3. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION 8
3.1 THE STREAM EVOLUTION MODEL 10
3.2 PROCESS DOMAINS 13
3.3 CONNECTIVITY PARADIGM 14
3.4 BEAVER HYDROLOGIC HABITAT 16
4. DESIGN 19
4.1 DESIGN APPROACH 19
4.1.1 RESTORATION PRINCIPALS 19
4.1.2 RESTORATION TECHNIQUES 20
4.2 BDA TYPE SELECTION 21
4.3 PROPOSED FEATURES 22
4.3.1 BEAVER POOL DESIGN 22
4.3.2 TB4 23
4.3.3 ADDITIONAL WOODY STRUCTURES 24
4.3.4 FLOW DIVERSION DEVICES 24
4.3.5 BDA DEGRADATION ANALYSIS 25
4.3.6 EROSION CONTROL 25
4.3.7 VEGETATION 25
REFERENCES 29
APPENDIX 36

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

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

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

6
_ -- — - •-••p4` .0' my
5(1
�r \ ,-Af
R
_ t� • � Hcr,Aim • r
�k(li e ' .., ,,,,, . wic,-rM �,t:�Tlrl •,
,•" / _r - -:7-- ' ----•.5
.„et,/
.....„._ I
---.:. 71 -__•-, i ; _ . It Qif :,..,._ S ,4* -1.11),' e
:i H Im h t r.• N fT1 h
s_ 1 y
"' h..3.-: '.."-N IT r
T -- r
if
;"*.iiii...-, :- •IP -..:, - -
� l 1
H m ,¢4 '� = �� r fip
I_ / 7Th r
y ; ACCELERATED EROSION
:s", Sj �J ,, ! S Moderate sheet erosion
SS Severe sheet erosion
- af limb . /- fiC)� ,, G Moderate gully erosion
w _ GG Severe gully erosion
10 �t '�( � �i', N a SG Moderate sheet and gully erosion
Gully
Fig. 1:The map above has been adapted from the Soil Survey of Madison County by
Goldston et al. (1942a)to highlight the project area(roughly circled)and includes the part
of the legend referring to accelerated erosion.
The soil scientists who mapped Madison County in the early 1940's have this to say about
the conditions of mountain streams in the region:
"As a whole, Madison County is rough and rugged, as most of the mountain slopes are
very steep — in some places precipitous. The streams have played a major part in making
the relief what it is today. In places they have cut valleys several hundred feet deep, and
in some places these valleys, or gorges, are flanked by precipitous walls. [...]Streams
have dissected these low, steep hills so badly that comparatively little level land remains.
[...] Slopes to streams are steep, and only in very few places does any bottom land occur
at the foot of these slopes or along the streams. [...]The streams have thoroughly
dissected the Blue Ridge Plateau. They have cut very narrow V-shaped valleys and
gorges and have created an extremely rugged land form. Drainage is good to excessive.
The streams are swift and transport large quantities of material."(Goldston et al. 1942b,
pg. 3-4)
The legacy effects of land use are still in evidence on the property today. Where native
hydrophilic vegetation is able to reach deep to the water table lowered to meet the base
level of incised streams, roots dangle from cut banks and will soon crumble and fall into
the flow, if they haven't already(Fig. 2A). Such slumped material,jagged gravel pieces,
and steep banks are all too familiar to us. Gullies are on nearly every site we visit. Some

7
portions of the streams look little better than excavated roadside ditches. The lawn is kept
closely clipped on either side, and the presence of grass is in and of itself an indication the
stream is currently unable to support obligate wetland plants (Fig. 2B).
�' s :�� v'sg n v 1 'it
I h /i ` JIi[ �B f`,0 i ti ea a Q ;. , �3 :ayes}s' -_
*� � � , '« V
r
rW- -_ 4,.- � ,t� !, + ri ,
-
Fig.2:These photos depict streams visited in August of 2020 on the project site.The
photo on the left(A)shows Hopewell Branch and demonstrates how incision triggers
Riparian Hydrologic Drought. The photo on the right(B)shows Thomas Branch hardly
able to sustain baseflow.
Shifting Baselines Syndrome (SBS) is a term that describes a phenomenon concerning
regulatory standards of ecosystem management. Stemming from fisheries science, where
regulations such as catch limits are established with a recent past condition set as the
standard for return to a state of equilibrium, misremembered prior conditions often result in
successive lowering of expectations through `generational amnesia'over human lifetimes,
as the impairments of one generation are adopted as baselines of the next(Campbell et
al.,2009; Papworth et al. 2008). Generational amnesia seems an apt diagnosis regarding
society's expectations of stream form and function in the southeast, as the Carolinas
establish Reference Hydraulic Geometry Curves, or design stream dimensions based on
regression curve analysis of`reference condition'channel form. This method of
comparative analysis, while useful for understanding trends between a watershed's
drainage area and response variables of channel slope, width,depth, etc., could dictate
prescriptive stream form measurements that do not take into account the highly variable
landscape context of mountain streams and the omnipresent, underlying co-morbidities
impairing them, not to mention the wide error bands recognizing variation along the fitted
regression equation.
How would it look and feel to restore and conserve these relatively flat alluvial systems?
Historical evidence and recent scholarship strongly suggest that this hydrologic landscape
should be a sluggish, productive backwater marsh, created by a pleasingly-messy series
of small and frequent beaver dams. Here, in this mountainous Madison County context,
that would mean willow, birch, and other native riparian trees would ring upstream areas
of the marsh;dead and down trees would stand a slant in its chesty backwater, providing
perches and nesting cavities for birds and bats. If you plodded into the ponded water your
step fall would sink into silt and leaves.The sweet smell of decomposing organic material
would waft through the air. Heterotroph invertebrates of this system, so-called"shredders",

8
can be five times more abundant in this habitat than in single-thread channels. Because of
the topographic complexity and the tenacious vegetation, the ponded water would
frustrate anglers, but native fauna would thrive.Warblers, sandpipers, and flycatchers
would perch in the overhanging willows;peepers(frogs)would provide a twilight
symphony, croaking along the marshy aprons;the deep, cool pools and refuge channels
would provide abundant trout shelter; and otters may eventually chase these trout through
the submerged branches of downed trees.
To recover this waterway to pre-settlement conditions is impossible. To stabilize it and
keep it just the same as it is today by using, for example, `natural channel design,'would
be to preserve a blighted system. The overarching goal of our work is to repair the
disconnected valleys and simplified streams by fostering conditions that can support a
thriving wetland complex and the positive feedback loops unleashed by working with, not
against nature.This work will restore natural processes that slow the flow of water,
increase floodplain soil fertility, enable hyporheic groundwater exchange, and provide
suitable habitat for the return of rare mountain wetland plant species within the perpetual
care of an environmentally conscientious land stewardship program at SoWE.
This design narrative presents our research to provide justification that Beaver Dam
Analogue structures(BDAs) are the most promising means to accomplish the goal of
restoring these streams into their native and natural state — a stream-wetland complex.
This narrative also presents our design approach to building these wetland complex
systems,outlines regulatory considerations, and provides schematic design drawings,
example materials, and case studies to help guide the project. We recognize that the
approach we are taking using BDAs is novel in the Carolinas, but rest assured, it is
nothing new, and it is being implemented successfully across the nation.
3. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION
In 2003 Glen Albrecht, an Australian philosopher, coined solastalgia, a word for the
emotional distress we feel at witnessing the destruction of beloved homelands.
Albrecht's neologism, which drew from the roots for comfort and pain, had its origins in
the territory of New South Wales, where open-pit coal mining destroyed hundreds of
square kilometers and inflicted deep psychic wounds on residents. In four syllables
solastalgia captured the Anthropocene and its discontent: the dissonance of change,
the rapidity of loss, the disorientation wrought by environmental grief. "Solastalgia,
simply put,'Albrecht wrote, 'is'the homesickness you have when you are still at home"
(Goldfarb 2018,pg.239)
Land development typically limits undisturbed natural areas to the fringes of parcel
boundaries,so that scrappy wilderness patches are normal and expected. Instead of this
usual development pattern, the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment(SoWE) aims to
integrate the preservation of natural areas into every aspect of the campus it has
envisioned. We commend the architect's vision to first restore the land, unlock its natural
beauty, and then build human interfaces within these natural systems. We have been
working closely as a team during the design process to foster a rare relationship at SoWE.
Instead of subjecting the existing conditions to suit the built environment, this project

9
seeks first and foremost to develop a flourishing natural environment, and then to
thoughtfully tie in the human infrastructure.
The form of a stream is an expression of the history of the surrounding landscape (both
natural and anthropogenic) and regional climatic variables, which influence the mass
balance of water, sediment, and organic material transferred from the contributing
drainage area into valley bottoms, shaping waterways(Knighton 1984;Julien&Raslan
1998; Brooks et al. 2012; Kasprak et al. 2016; Leopold et al. 2020;Wohl 2020). Few of
these factors remain static, and fluctuations in water, sediment, and wood affect stream
form both along a spatial and temporal continuum.
Montgomery and Buffington (1997) note that unlike low-gradient stream networks, high-
energy mountain drainage basins are prone to external forcing by constraints such as
confinement within a narrow valley, shallow bedrock outcroppings, natural woody debris
pileups, and the influence of anchoring riparian vegetation, all of which force morphologies
that would otherwise, in an analogous unobstructed flow pattern, take on the morphology
of a higher energy system. Studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate that
log jams and woody debris pileups have the capacity to create aggradational deposits
over streams that would otherwise flow across exposed bedrock and that the systematic
removal of these naturally-accumulating obstructions have reduced backwater sloughs,
side channels, and meandering headwater tributaries to a more simplistic single-threaded
planform (Montgomery et al. 1996;Sedell &Froggat 1985, see Fig. 3). Wohl (2013)
suggests that research conducted in the Pacific Northwest offers insight into the role
beaver once played in shaping North American rivers, as most thorough fluvial
geomorphic investigations have occurred in streams that suffered deforestation, beaver
extirpation, and obstruction removal long before the scientists arrived to study them with
contemporary quantification methods.
Sandstone Creek �arrisburg
4. 4, C
I INA 4 iy i
4
. ),, , ,
..wo.. ( �" .91 d 0
e\z
OA ,41).
::, IR .iii.` :--i 0
Upper Black Creek
1 t
r ,
.%, i d
"NINr r4C �` r
Lower Black Creek k r /�'
\-.___..,_
N ', McKenzie RiverA�
100" 1854 1910 1946 1967
Fig.3: On the left, a diagram from Montgomery et al. (1996)depicts stores of sediment(grey hatching) raising stream beds
behind natural debris jams(marked as an X). On the right, Sedell &Froggatt(1984)depict the loss of planform heterogeneity
to the Willamette River in Oregon over time.

10
A contentious debate within the field of river restoration in the US hinges on one
classification system, the Rosgen classification system and method of`natural channel
design' (Malakoff 2004; Kondolf 2006; Simon et al. 2007; Rosgen 2008; Simon et al. 2008;
Lave 2008). Kasprak et al. (2016)found that Rosgen's Classification system aligned well
with the River Styles Framework of Brierly and Fryirs(2013), popular in Australia, but that
both classification systems failed to accurately predict processes in streams with
significant anthropogenic disturbances and biotic controls, such as beaver activity and
cattle grazing. Nevertheless, aspects of Rosgen's method have become so entrenched in
the regulatory permitting process for stream restoration, compliance is all but mandatory,
as other restoration methods have adopted aspects of Rosgen's approach.
River restoration efforts typically focus on the geometry of channels with the goals of
reducing and then balancing sediment loads at the reach scale, effectively attempting to
turn every reach into a sediment transfer zone. This perpetuates an erroneous approach
to management of the alluvial channel system and may partially explain why the
regeneration of high-quality habitat remains limited (Doyle &Shields 2012) and restoration
of freshwater ecosystems remains elusive (Bernhardt&Palmer 2011).
Conceptual frameworks for understanding the spatial and temporal processes affecting
stream geometry and its effects will be discussed in this section on Project Justification,
including the concepts of stream evolution, process domains, and connectivity. Within
these concept clarifications, we offer corresponding limitations to Natural Channel Design.
We conclude this section with specific justification for mimicking beaver activity as a water
resource conservation and enhancement project.This context will provide a foundation for
the next section on our Design Approach, which proposes an intervention that is built to
recover within the recurrence intervals of natural and anthropogenic disturbance regimes
(e.g.storms and construction), rather than to rigidly hold form in spite of inevitable
changes and disturbance within the watershed, as Natural Channel Design methodologies
would.
3.1 The Stream Evolution Model
Schumm's(1997) Channel Evolution Model (CEM)provides a framework for stream form
alternatives by helping to predict the natural evolutionary sequence of streams as they
adapt to disruptions both natural and anthropogenic.Assumptions inherent in Schumm's
Channel Evolution Model (CEM) include the Stage I precursor form, which presupposes
that undisrupted streams have a single-threaded planform;whereas growing evidence
suggests that single-threaded channels are a symptom of beaver extirpation, natural
debris obstruction removal, and active straightening,or channelization, of streams, and do
not adequately describe the precursor stage of undisrupted streams which would exhibit
an anastomosing or braided planform of wetland complexes and vegetated isles
interrupting and separating streamflow(Naiman et al. 1988;Walter& Merritts 2008;Wohl
2013; Cluer&Thorne 2014; Pollock et al. 2014; Goldfarb 2018). Cluer&Thorne (2014)
adapted Schumm's CEM to incorporate this relatively recently understood precursor stage
(Stage 0 Anastomosing) and provide further detail on complex responses of streams to
anthropogenic disruptions of mass balance equations of sediment, water, and wood in

11
streams — the Stream Evolution Model (SEM). Another important difference in Cluer&
Thorne's(2014)expansion on Schumm's concept is that they have redrawn the
progression of stages into a cyclical, not linear progression, where Stages 0—4 can
become stuck in a feedback loop not unlike a"short-circuit,"where downcutting and
widening can be triggered over and over again (see Fig. 4).
STAGE O
Amstomoslog Anastomosing
Wet Woodland Grassed Wetland
neeiS
Ittf
Ot
STAGED STAGEI
Anasto[nosing Sinuous Slntle T�nead
STAGE!
' ill!zffit \
pneliaed
�'Rsan
Aa
ler •-arron
STAGEI STAGEI
o
Laterally RCM! n ' Detrada[rnrs
= Harrowing ;;:
II. •
G
, If 1�
•
. STAGE le
STAGE Arwood Datrsdatlon
4,„ pua[!Equilibrium a Dotrahtlen and WldwrMg h'14
rxti n>n,
ernl� W.JNi r r
a
STAGES S ��
AEtradation and Wodwand
macwed w [Harped*wend
ltimatii
RUIN.,
Jumped
Fig.4: Cluer&Thorne's (2014)Stream Evolution Model (SEM) adapts the Channel
Evolution Model (Schumm 1977) to include a precursor stage (Stage 0)to better
represent predisturbance conditions, two successor stages to cover late-stage evolution,
and a cyclical rather than linear progression. Dashed arrows indicate `short-circuits'in the
normal progression, indicating for example that a Stage 0 stream can evolve to Stage 1
and recover to Stage 0, a Stage 4-3-4 shortcircuit,which occurs when multiple head cuts
migrate through a reach and which may be particularly destructive. Arrows outside the
circle represent'dead end'stages,constructed and maintained (2) and arrested (3s)
where an erosion-resistant layer in the local lithology stabilizes incised channel banks.
The Stream Evolution Model &Limitations of Natural Channel Design
The channels in most alluvial reaches are restored from Stage 3 to Stage 6 forms in the
Stream Evolution Model (SEM, see Fig. 4). These relatively low value forms are then
preserved through contrived stabilization measures. In a recent webinar, Colin Thorne
suggested that another`arrested'stage could be included as an offshoot to Stage 6
(Quasi-equilibrium)where restoration activities halt lateral activity at Stage 7 through
biotechnical revetments of beds and banks,just as with Stage 3a(Thorne 2020). The only
way out of this short-circuit cycle of degradational process, according Cluer&Thorne
(2014), is through the eventual longitudinal gradient stabilization of sufficient degradation
and widening at Stage 5 for the stream to recover a terraced floodplain of alluvial
deposition inset in the large, degraded former channel boundaries. This hypothesis is

12
supported by the literature on stream competence, as for example, Montgomery&
Buffington (1997) point to the availability and limitations of sediment supply as a driving
factor in the form a stream takes. Even though using soft engineering and natural
materials such as biotechnical revetments and large wood have become common,
stabilization impedes the fluvial processes that could drive continued evolution to the
substantially more resilient and ecologically valuable Stages 7 and 8.
STAGE 0
4
Anasaomorin. Kay to pereentag.o1 Zfen.frtl
100E
Aimb� ,mains N a
STAGE S
Anrp� .l.a.r STAGFI
Srnuo.a Slnib Three!
040STAGE 1
,,,. pa Ae.+•-•hOk • Is c...yeoU
-MEixN[nvw�+nexww+
01
-[aanno.am F.c.o.n Eeawrea GI
.....—
STAGE T O K1.Jn STAG!3
al Fa[.rlEly AW. ' Oalodatbn
-NAum e '
4 QD =1
EIaW+.W EcAyAem&Arks Tame
I I wmm. " sr
I i Waur(h.1nY STAGE IJ • a
AGF3
STAGE 6 I I yen STAG" Anoand ov51::axbn
4WFl Eywl.enum I i neol�e O o.v»amen and wlee.un!
a e Z ./ •
STAGE S
AylrWubn Awl WAlenlnt
a
Fig.5: Cluer&Thorne (2014)offer in this diagram a demonstration of associated physical
characteristics and ecosystem benefits associated with each Stage of stream evolution
(shown in Fig. 4). The relative size of the circles represent the ordinal points achieved at
each stage relative to the maximum achievable points, where a high rank represents
`abundant and fully functional'and a low rank signifies`absent or dysfunctional'. This
conceptual framework of ecosystem benefits and physical attributes demonstrates that a
return to pristinity at Stage 0 is impossible;that to freeze forms at Stage 2 or Stage 6 (the
target of most Natural Channel Design methods) misses enhancing benefits; and that late
adaptations to Stage 8 offer the closest possible return to pre-settlement conditions and
the highest level of habitat enhancement represented by Stage 0.
Cluer&Thorne (2014)diagram conceptual benefits of stream processes throughout the
evolutionary trajectory of dominant process(see Fig.5). Whereas Rosgen's`natural
channel design' methodology seeks to freeze streams into a rigid Stage 6 form of`Quasi
Equilibrium,'we have the capacity to usher surface waters towards a Stage 8
`Anastomosing'stream form with higher benefits to habitat and ecosystem attributes,
according to Cluer&Thorne's(2014) analysis of stream form and function.
The channels on SoWE property are at stages 2 and 3 as described by the SEM diagram
(Figure 4).As the SoWE campus is built and the watershed continues to develop, these
channels will experience the predictable progression to stage 3a(arrested degradation)or
a stage 3-4-3 short circuit of degradation and widening. Degraded channels like these are

13
sadly all too common and are a source of solastalgia for the initiated. Polvi et al. (2011)
demonstrate that entrenched stream channels limit the width and frequency of riparian
inundation, having measurable impacts on the health and spread of riparian corridors.
Cluer&Thorne (2014)describe the relative benefits of each stage of the SEM,
demonstrating that this concept for a Stage 8 channel will facilitate multiple aims of habitat
enhancement.
3.2 Process Domains
The existence of process domains implies that river networks can be divided into discrete
regions in which ecological community structure and dynamics respond to distinctly
different physical disturbance regimes(Montgomery 1999). Wohl (2020)provides a
comprehensive literature review exhibiting the usefulness of categorizing process domains
along a river network. By delineating these process domains we can understand spatial
patterns of riparian vegetation (Polvi et al. 2011), sediment dynamics(Wohl 2010), organic
carbon stock in river corridors(Wohl et al. 2012; Sutfin and Wohl 2017), aquatic
ecosystem dynamics and biodiversity (Bellmore and Baxter 2014), channel geometry
(Livers and Wohl 2015), and connectivity(Wohl et al. 2019).
Some river geomorphic parameters exhibit progressive downstream trends whereas
others exhibit so much local variation that any systematic longitudinal trends which might
be present are obscured (Wohl 2010). Local variation that overwhelms progressive trends
is particularly characteristic of mountainous terrain, where spatially abrupt longitudinal
transitions in substrate resistance,gradient, valley geometry, and sediment sources can
create substantial variability in river process and form. Under these conditions,
characterizing river dynamics based on these longitudinal transitions can be more
accurate than assuming that parameters will change progressively downstream. Examples
of geomorphic parameters for which spatial variation is better explained by process
domain classifications than by drainage area or discharge include riparian zone width
(Polvi et al. 2011), floodplain volume and carbon storage (Wohl et al. 2012), connectivity
(Wohl et al. 2019), instream wood load (Wohl and Cadol 2011), and biomass and
biodiversity(Bellmore and Baxter 2014; Herdrich et al.2018;Venarsky et al. 2018).
Process Domains& Limitations of Natural Channel Design
A geomorphic perspective on river resilience would characterize a resilient river as having
two basic characteristics. First, a resilient river has the ability to adjust form and process in
response to changes in water, sediment, and wood inputs, whether these changes occur
over many decades to centuries(e.g.climate variability)or over relatively short time
periods(e.g. watershed development or a large flood). This is an important distinction
from a robust river system which must rigidly maintain one set of conditions in order not to
fail. An artificially dammed river is robust. A beaver dammed river is resilient. The latter
can be flexible to changing conditions and recover or be made stronger by disturbance,
the former is at its best on the day of installation and only gets worse over time (see Graf
2001;Wohl 2004;Wohl & Beckman 2014).

14
Second, a resilient river has spatial and temporal ranges of water, sediment, and large
wood inputs and river geometry similar to those present under natural conditions(Wohl
2020). Montgomery and Buffington (1997)distinguish source,transport, and response
segments in reach-scale classification of mountain channel morphology. Sklar and
Dietrich (1998) hypothesize consistent changes in dominant incision mechanism (e.g.
headcuts) and substrate type (coarse-bed alluvial,fine-bed alluvial)at threshold slopes,
regardless of drainage area.
Natural Channel Design would presuppose that all streams on the project site should exist
as sediment transfer zones, stabilizing beds and banks with boulders, rock toes, and other
robust features resistant to high-energy flows. If instead, we acknowledge legacy
manipulations to channel-floodplain connectivity, we can restore these channels to a
resilient system that takes a lower-gradient process domain as its target. Where the
streams emerge from confined valleys, the carolina beaver would have had an outsized
effect on stream form and function. By emulating beaver and recognizing an opportunity to
transition dominant processes, we should see Thomas and Hopewell transform into a
lower-energy,diffuse storage area to capture the water,sediment, and wood we would
expect to find in these broad valleys.
3.3 Connectivity Paradigm
The spectrum of stream connectivity to disconnectivity (see Fig. 6)describes the
longitudinal (upstream/downstream), vertical (surface water/ground water), and lateral
(floodplain/instream)exchange over spatial and temporal scales, involving the movement
of water, organic material, and sediment(Ward 1989; Montgomery 1999; Kondolf et al.
2006;Wohl &Beckman 2014;Wohl 2019). Connectivity is neither a priori better nor worse
than disconnectivity, depending on constraints imposed by the natural context. A high-
gradient mountain stream passing through a closely confined valley, for example, would
exhibit lateral disconnectivity, but experience high longitudinal connectivity,exporting
runoff, sediment, and organic material downstream. Conversely, an anastomosing stream
would experience high lateral connectivity, delivering sediment, organic material and water
to floodplains, but longitudinal connectivity would occur much more slowly in this diffuse
energy zone.

15
channelization v
removal of large wood
removal of beaver dams
J
1;11:
flow
lilli
P‘, regulon
LATERAL
es
/ bank stabilization
■ Water,Sediment,Wood, channelization
Solute,Animals floodplain drainage
■ Water,Sediment,
Wood,Salutes
■ Animals
Water,Solutes,Animals
Fig.6: From Wohl (2019), this diagram demonstrates the concept of connectivity, the
movement of water, sediment, wood, solutes, and organisms vertically between the
atmosphere and groundwater, longitudinally from upstream to downstream, and laterally
between a stream and its floodplain. Examples of anthropogenic disruptions to
connectivity are offered next to the wavy lines breaking the arrows of connective transfer.
Among the many challenges in managing rivers are those of quantifying connectivity and
understanding how human activities have and will increase or decrease connectivity within
a landscape (Kondolf et al. 2006). This connectivity ultimately reflects geomorphic context
and governs the extent to which a river network or a reach of a river is integrated into its
floodplain and the greater landscape. Geomorphic context includes spatial dimensions of
river corridor geometry, location within a drainage basin, and location within a global
context(Wohl 2020).
High connectivity implies that matter and organisms move rapidly and easily within a river
network. Landscapes typically include some characteristics that create at least temporary
storage and limit connectivity. Subsurface units of low permeability can limit the
downslope transmission of water from hillslopes to channels, or limit hyporheic and
ground-water exchanges along channels(e.g. Gooseff et al. 2017). Lakes, broad
floodplains with extensive wetlands, and numerous channel-spanning obstructions such
as beaver dams and logjams can substantially decrease the rate at which floods move
through a river network(e.g. Lininger& Latrubesse 2016;Wegener et al.2017). Extensive
and active floodplains increase the residence time of suspended particles, including
sediment and soluble nutrients, within a river network, so that these basins have a greater
capacity to store and filter whatever the water carries than streams without extensive
floodplains or with inaccessible floodplains.

16
Some river networks naturally have high levels of connectivity, whereas others include
many features that limit connectivity(e.g. Burchsted et al. 2010; Mould and Fryirs 2017).
The three dimensions of connectivity commonly have different relations to reach-scale
characteristics:channel obstructions such as logjams and beaver dams,for example,
promote lateral and vertical connectivity for water, solutes, and particulate organic matter,
but limit longitudinal connectivity for these materials. High sediment inputs that promote
channel avulsion and high rates of lateral migration may increase lateral connectivity for
water, solutes, sediment, and large wood, but restrict longitudinal connectivity for these
materials.
Connectivity Paradigm &Limitations of Natural Channel Design
Natural Channel Design conducted with the best of intentions retains the potential to
become subsumed under the future heading legacy effects of hydromodification.
Understanding the connectivity paradigm within the natural context of valley slope, stream
segment, and underlying geology helps elucidate pathways to recovery where streams
have long suffered human-induced impacts. The paradigm at these SoWE sites is similar
to many other agriculturally manipulated and impaired floodplains in western North
Carolina: increase in longitudinal connectivity(stream straightening), a decrease in lateral
connectivity(drain floodplains for planting), and indirectly decreasing vertical connectivity
(incision impacts ground-surface water interaction).
The streams on the SoWE property flow through headwater valleys with relatively thin,
narrow alluvial veneers over bedrock and then experience a drastic shift as they enter the
broadest valleys on the property. Streams situated in valleys like these, on long-standing
farmsteads, have assuredly been impacted through centuries of anthropogenic
management. And, predictably,the more incipient soils in these areas will be the first to
degrade,continuing their march through the Stream Evolution Model (SEM). However,
these broad valley areas also present an opportunity.These areas are relatively flat and
the finer grained soils are fertile ground for riparian trees and wetland meadow grasses.
Using BDA techniques, these broad valley areas can be fast-forwarded into wetland
complex systems;they will provide greater floodplain buffers and increased hyporheic
exchange.The presence of these floodplain buffers will create depositional zones, and
progressively more extensive floodplains providing greater average residence time of
sediment, surface flow during overbank floods, and subsurface flow. Coarse and fine
particulate organic matter will be sequestered within these wetland complex systems.
3.4 Beaver Hydrologic Habitat
Contemporary research on log pieces and log jams as structural interventions capable of
reversing stream incision has considerably influenced stream restoration methods in other
parts of the United States. In the arid Southwest, for example, Beaver Dam Analogs
(BDAs) and Post Assisted Log Structures(PALS), sometimes combined with beaver
reintroductions, have significantly improved the hydrological and ecological functions of
restored streams(see review Philiod et al. 2017). Many of these methods draw from
designs adapted in the early 1900's by the USDA Forest Service and Soil Erosion Service

17
(see, e.g. Kraebel& Pilsbury 1934;Ayres 1936). While these practices have enjoyed a
renaissance in the western US, their application to the unique environmental legacies of
the southeast are underrepresented in the literature and in practice (Wohl 2019). Hand-
built wooden structures offer tremendous potential to reverse stream incision in the
Southeast by passively raising stream beds and reducing stress on banks.
In the wetter conditions of the southeast, there is a chance that seasonally inundated
riparian zones can become permanently flooded areas, as hyporheic exchange allows
groundwater sources to connect depressional wetlands with additional water inputs.
Beaver ponds have been shown to increase hyporheic exchange, buffering water
temperatures(Weber et al. 2017) and influencing nutrient dynamics(Margolis et al.2001;
Bason et al. 2017). Riparian zones of beaver ponds have been shown to have denser
above ground biomass compared to riparian zones of same or similar species composition
in nearby unobstructed stream side zones(Gatti et al. 2018).
The effects of beaver on the hydrologic condition of streams has rippling effects for the
floodplain and the plant communities comprising them. As Naiman et al. (1988)
demonstrate, some of these effects catalyze long-term successional processes, even if
the ponds are abandoned and transform back into streams. By slowing the flow of water,
beaver create positive feedback loops that allow vegetation to establish, which further
decreases hydraulic stress(Box 2018). Beaver ponds create sediment sinks that build up
stream beds, creating newly exposed areas for vegetation to establish (Osterkamp&
Hupp 2010). The slower water allows sediment to settle raising the stream bed level,
offering incising streams an avenue for reunion with its floodplain (Pollock et al. 2014).
This latter mechanism is of particular interest to the southeastern region given the ubiquity
of gullying in response to historic land cultivation legacies.
Streams suffering from legacy effects of incision may experience a condition called
Riparian Hydrologic Drought, where incision causes both fewer instances of floodplain
activation achieved by overbank flows(decreased lateral connectivity), as well as a
localized lowering of the water table near incised streams(decreased vertical connectivity)
(Groffman et al. 2003; Hardison et al. 2009). In Fig. 7 below, Hardison et al. (2009)
diagram the comparative lateral and vertical disconnectivity of incised stream channels.
On the left, a cross section of a stream is depicted where vertical connectivity is
demonstrated by the high water table saturating floodplain soils, and lateral connectivity is
possible within the breadth of the bold arrows demarcating the floodplain. In the diagram
on the right,stream incision is halted by the confining unit, as in Cluer&Thorne's(2014)
SEM Stage 3s(see Fig. 4 above). Vertical and lateral disconnectivity is indicated by the
lowered water table and narrowing of the `floodplain'.The effect this has is called Riparian
Hydrologic Drought, a wilting of riparian corridors starved of nutrients and seeds delivered
in floods and groundwater accessible to shallow rhizospheres of wetland vascular plant
species.

18
(a) Floodplain fib) "Floodplain"
IC >I IHI
I I I I
it)1'
I I\
I9v♦
------------
Confining Unit Confining Unit
•
Fig.7: From Hardison et al. (2009), demonstrating the differences in channel form that
can lead to Riparian Hydrologic Drought, the wilting of short-rooted riparian vascular
plants as incision lowers the local water table and deprives floodplains of periodic
inundation during high flow events.
Comparative analyses conducted in the Appalachians and across the Carolinas indicate
that beaver ponded streams are better for bat forage (Francl et al. 2004) and nesting
(Menzel et al. 2001), better for avian communities(Otis& Edwards1999), better at
reducing suspended sediment and nitrate loads(Bason et al. 2017), better for the
richness, diversity, and evenness of herpetofaunal communities(Metts et al. 2001)than
other streams, wetlands, or forests depending on the study in question. Of particular
interest to regulators concerned about minimizing impacts to the 'use'of streams and
wetland in favor of beaver ponds, you might read the concluding paragraphs of one essay,
the heading of which is entitled, "Beavers do not present a threat to flowing-water species
and need not be controlled for that reason"(Snodgrass 1997, pg. 1055). Snodgrass
suggests that land managers should only consider beaver removal when land
management objectives favor valuable timber stands and the preservation of access
roads. The client and design team are aware of this management issue and are
developing the buildings and roads with potential flood extends and wetland expansion in
mind.

19
4. DESIGN
"We cannot know what we are doing until we know what nature would be doing if we were
doing nothing."
Our restoration work is guided by the above refrain, written in 1979 by the farmer-poet,
Wendell Berry. In all of our work, we strive to emulate and catalyze the natural processes
of self-renewing ecosystems. Our experience continues to strengthen our devotion to
natural process-based restoration as the only sustainable way to manage aquatic
resources.
4.1 Design Approach
Scholarship and responsible practice demand that river restoration be based on or include
five principles (Kondolf and Larson 1995; Hughes et al. 2001; Kondolf et al. 2001;Ward et
al. 2001; Hilderbrand et al. 2005;Wohl et al. 2005; Kondolf et al. 2006;Sear et al. 2008;
Brierley and Fryirs 2009; Hester and Gooseff 2010).
These principles — and how we've endeavored to implement them — can be summarized
as follows:
4.1.1 Restoration Principals
First, restoration should be designed with explicit recognition of complexity and
uncertainty regarding river process and form, including the historical context of variations
in process and form through time. We have observed Hopewell Branch and Thomas
Branch through this lens, using Cluer&Thorne's(2014) Stream Evolution Model (SEM)to
conceptualize not only the present dominant processes at work, but those trajectories that
may apply under expected future scenarios and the legacies of the past that compromise
habitat on site today.
Second, restoration should emphasize processes that create and sustain river processes,
rather than imposition of rigid forms that are unlikely to be sustainable under future water
and sediment regimes. On Hopewell Branch and Thomas Branch,we are recommending
wetland complex systems created by small BDA structures that enable the system to
undergo the transformation it would eventually undergo if we did nothing. Further,our
intention is not to build permanent structures or"freeze"the stream in time 1 year after
construction. Rather, we are proposing wetland complex systems that will be stable in the
near-term while catalyzing processes that offer a path to self-adjustment and ongoing
improvement despite changes to the watershed.
This is an important consideration for our restoration approach as the planned
development in the Thomas Branch watershed would otherwise cause degradation, and
the development pattern in the Hopewell Branch watershed is uncontrolled and
unpredictable. To expect incoming flows to follow the same trends present in our recent
observations(2019-2020), would be folly. Our approach is to design a channel and a

20
floodplain that anticipate future geomorphic trends and have the capacity to adapt and
thrive in spite of potential future impacts.
Third, projects should be monitored after completion, using the set of variables most
effective for evaluating achievement of objectives, and at the correct scale of
measurement(Comiti et al. 2009 provides an example of effective monitoring). The
proposed restoration efforts at Mulberry Gap are not tied to any mitigation performance
standards. However, the operations at the proposed SoWE campus will include long-term
operation and maintenance of the grounds, including these wetland complex systems.
There will also be on-site stream and weather gages so that the maintenance plans and
adaptive management can be tied to specific triggers(i.e. storm flood events).
Fourth, consideration of the watershed context, rather than an isolated segment of river,
is crucial because of the influences of physical, chemical, and biological connectivity on
alterations undertaken for river restoration. Our approach aims to leverage the full project
area of floodplain and stream corridor within the context of the high gradient watershed
that feeds it. Moreover, by working within the floodplain area, we will create habitat
diversity that can sustain a more biodiverse community of native flora and fauna adapted
to floodplain conditions long absent from this site.
Fifth, accommodation of the heterogeneity and spatial and temporal variations inherent in
rivers is necessary for successful restoration (Brierley and Fryirs 2009). The proposed
wetland complex systems on Hopewell Branch and Thomas Branch will continue to adjust
parameters such as bedform configuration, grain-size distribution, and emergent
vegetation clustering in response to fluctuations in water, sediment, and wood yields.
These adjustments are commonly not synchronous or of the same magnitude between
distinct reaches of the river. So,our design will allow the BDA features some freedom to
adjust, and this will be reflected in the long-term operation and maintenance plan.
4.1.2 Restoration Techniques
RDE considered two approaches to water resource conservation and restoration
enhancement during the design phase: Natural Channel Design and Process-Based
Design. The former approach was screened from consideration because it fails to achieve
a high level of habitat conservation and enhancement, a consideration of utmost
importance for the client(SoWE).
Natural Channel Design, as described in the Engineering Handbook on stream
restoration, is at its heart a misnomer. Former channels are abandoned for excavated
channels in the floodplain. Beds and banks are rigidly held in place by robust quantities of
rock not native to the local lithology. This approach creates an artificial and contorted
canal masquerading as a`natural feature'.
On the other hand, Process Based Design catalyzes self-renewing cycles of
stream/floodplain/wetland interactions to create habitat that is responsive to the natural
forces at work on the site. We trust natural processes will dictate the expansion of wetland
areas and delineation of streams. We have provided a broadly applicable illustration that

21
shows these potential outcomes in the appendix(see the"Potential Outcomes after BDA
Construction"illustration). And the client is willing to accommodate increased lateral and
vertical connectivity over strictly defined and rigidly maintained canal and wetland
boundaries.
RDE and the State of North Carolina have a unique opportunity on this site to follow the
lead of many other states in the US currently engaged in encouraging beaver mimicry and
hopeful beaver reintroduction. In the arid western United States, Process-Based
Restoration approaches including beaver dam analogs, post-assisted log structures, large
woody debris jams, and rewilding of beaver have made demonstrable improvements to
fish populations, riparian corridor width and vegetation densities, water quality parameters
such as temperature, turbidity, and nutrient concentrations, and fire suppression in every
case we know of. While in the west, primary habitat loss has occurred from a legacy of
overgrazing and water diversion, here in the southeast, legacy effects of soil loss and
`positive drainage improvements' have had similar consequence to aquatic habitat and the
native plant communities that depend on soggy soils and periodic flooding for the
nutrients, seed dispersal, and open space to achieve population dynamics that work with,
rather than against, the coevolution of wetland communities and ecosystem engineers,
like the beaver that once had a hand in every trickle of WoUS, an indelible and forgotten
influence on the landscape.
4.2 BDA Type Selection
We considered three design alternatives for the BDA structures, these typologies are as
follows:
1) Post&Weave BDA: Posts driven into the channel and floodplain at regular intervals
with long small caliper trees and branches woven into the structure. Mud, gravel, and
stone is packed against this hand-built structure. These structures are intended to
provide habitat that attract beavers. This would not be a permanent feature; it would
require regular maintenance and would likely need to be re-built in the event of an
extreme storm event.
2) Full Engineered with Façade: Building on the option above, but with extensive grading
and structural subsurface elements(sheet piles, concrete cores, etc.). These structural
elements would physically impound the water, provide a non-erodible barrier, and
prevent seepage. This also requires regular maintenance but is less susceptible to
failure and is less adaptable to changes in regimes of flow, sediment, and wood. This
option has been disregarded because of its reliance on non-natural materials and
susceptibility to weaken over time and its susceptibility to failure with changing
conditions. This alternative offers a robust, but not resilient approach.
3)Aggradation Structure: In this third option — which we are proposing at SoWE —
engineered materials (stone aggregates, woody materials, and fine grained soils)
provide the `core'of a retention structure upon which additional mud and sticks are
placed to replicate a beaver dam. Post and weave BDA is then built on top of this

22
earthen feature. This would require regular maintenance, but less maintenance than the
post&weave option alone, and would be more robust in the face of extreme storm
events.
This third option (aggradation structure) is contextually appropriate and balances the
benefits and drawbacks of all the three options.The core of these BDA features will be
constructed of carefully blended aggregates for site-specific incipient motion criteria. The
aggregate will include a wide range of grain sizes, ideally native material consisting of
cobble, gravel, sand, and silt, and will be placed in layers of gradually increasing grain
size. When this inner core of the BDA aggradation structure is built, it will appear to be a
natural riffle.
After the core has been constructed, the BDA feature will be capped with interlocked
woody material. A slash matrix will be fanned-out on the downstream side of the feature,
in the dip of the ogee shape, and imported cobble will be used as a downstream armor
layer that anchors the woody material and resists scouring to a higher degree than the
core aggregates. The size of this cobble will be in the uppermost range of the largest
cobble native in the system. The larger cobble will then be covered with a thin layer of the
native bed material, providing a soil matrix for emergent vegetation.
The shape of these BDA features will be convex in plan-view, pointing in the downstream
direction. In profile, they will have a 2H:1V or milder grade on the upstream side with a
designed ogee shape on the downstream side. The downstream side will also consist of
the largest gradation sediments, carefully designed, but likely cobble-sized material and
interwoven with woody material.
4.3 Proposed Features
Our approach includes hydraulic and geomorphic design considerations.This approach
ensures that the individual BDA features are dimensioned to sufficiently resist the stresses
and velocities they will have a 2H:1V or milder grade on the upstream side with a
designed ogee shape on the downstream side. The downstream side will also consist of
the largest gradation sediments, carefully designed, but likely cobble-sized material and
interwoven with experience during regular floods,while allowing certain areas to break-
away during extreme, catastrophic events(i.e. 100-year recurrence storm).
4.3.1 Beaver Pool Design
The future marsh aprons upstream of the BDAs will be selectively excavated to provide
undulations and deep-water refuge. A variety of depths and morphologies will provide
habitat and thermal heterogeneity. Longitudinal profiles of Thomas Branch and Hopewell
Branch, have been provided in the appendix, and the appendix also includes an example
cross section cut through the floodplain of the core area along Thomas Branch — this
section shows the topographic heterogeneity proposed in the floodplain.

23
These micro-topographic features can be seen on the grading plans and the Predicted
Depth Maps (see appendix). The complicated relationship between seepage,
evapotranspiration, and the potential inundation extent is difficult to predict, but the
vegetation plan will feature plants with population dynamics having the capacity to adapt
to these future water level conditions.
We have prepared depth maps that predict and define the areas upstream of each BDA
feature into their respective depth zones. These zones were developed using the range of
probable conditions, from flooded conditions to drought conditions. A flooded condition
was defined as 1'above weir crest elevation and drought was defined as 2'below weir
crest elevation. These zones are defined here:
• Deep pool zone:sustained deep pools(3'or greater). This zone represents areas that
retain 3'depths during drought conditions. 3'was chosen for this delimiter because
this is the minimum depth for beaver shelter and this will stifle growth of emergent
wetland plants keeping vigorous vegetation growth along the fringe areas.
• Deep Marsh/Submergent Zone:typically inundated(2'-5'). Submerged plants are
expected here.
• Shallow Marsh/Emergent Zone:frequently inundated (0'-2').This zone would not
be inundated during drought conditions, but would be inundated to some level
depending on other environmental conditions. The upper bound of this zone is
defined by the crest elevation of the floodplain BDA. Emergent plants will be
appropriate, but this zone is the hardest to predict.
• Lower Riparian Zone: infrequently inundated. This zone would be inundated only
when the water level goes above the weir/floodplain BDA, which would happen
infrequently. This zone will have shallow groundwater and contain very moist soils.
• Upper Riparian/Upland Zone: not typically inundated. This zone will also have
shallow groundwater, but is not expected to be inundated.
The BDA features and our predicted depth maps will be initially planted based on these
expected conditions, but ultimately, these features are meant to change and to adjust
based on their temporally varied inputs of water, sediment, and wood.
4.3.2 TB4
All the BDA features will be constructed within the existing channel-floodplain topography,
with some excavation in opportune areas for habitat diversity(described above in the
beaver pool design section). It is likely that all the pools will have seasonal and storm-
related fluctuations in pool elevation. We know that the pool elevations won't stabilize any
higher than the in-channel BDA crest elevation, but we cannot predict exactly how low the
pool elevation will be when it reaches equilibrium. This uncertainty is because of the
complicated dynamics between inflows(rainfall and groundwater) and outflows(seepage
and evapotranspiration). We cannot predict what the equilibrium pool elevation will be at a
particular BDA, although we know reducing the outflow parameters will have an increasing
effect on pool elevation.

24
The proposed pool upstream of Thomas Branch BDA#4 (aka TB4) is the largest and most
prominently featured on site. Because of this reason, we were tasked with developing a
nature-based approach to hedge against the outflow variables. This makes the pool
design upstream of TB4 a deviation all other proposed BDAs. The floodplain area above
TB4 will be excavated and then amended with clay soil to reduce permeability in the deep
pool areas (see engineering plans, sheet C102). The existing channels and the fringe
areas(shallow marsh and lower riparian zones)will not be amended with clay soil to allow
for hyporheic exchange.
4.3.3 Additional Woody Structures
Other low-tech, process-based restoration strategies will be incorporated at other areas on
site, or as an adaptive management strategy through long term operation and
maintenance. For example, downstream of the proposed administration building on
Thomas Branch — where the valley necks-down to a more confined floodplain — BDA
weir-like features are infeasible here. However, it is appropriate to install a permeable
large woody debris structure (see example detail in the Engineering Plans). This would
allow base-flow to pass through unencumbered but would provide a backwater affect on
its upstream BDA counterpart during storm events, reducing storm event stresses and
create a fluvial transition zone between the BDAs and the downstream single-thread
channel. This approach would decrease erosive forces in-stream and increase resident
times for wood, organic material, and sediment — contributing to the overall goal of the
wetland complex system.
4.3.4 Flow Diversion Devices
So-called "pond levelers"or"beaver deceivers" — or more sophisticated Agridrain
systems — are a common tool used to manage nuisance water levels of beaver
impoundments. These devices can be incorporated on the peripheral of beaver-made
dams or human-made BDA's to avoid unwanted flooding, but they must be carefully
designed so that they are not immediately clogged by the eager beaver.These devices
are commonly installed at existing roadway culverts, and generally these devices fall
within the non-notifying category of activities in Waters of the US.
We have incorporated a flow diversion device into this plan, but the purpose is NOT so
that the pools maintain a minimum elevation. Instead, this device is anticipating potential
flooding problems. As initially designed, the stream-wetland complex will not inundate
roads or walking paths. However, in the event that natural processes cause flooding,this
flow diversion device will already be installed to allow for vehicular and pedestrian
ingress/egress around the complex. Natural processes that could cause this type of
flooding include beaver activity that increases the elevation of the BDAs, or sediment and
wood recruitment from large storm events.
An Agridrain device will be embedded into the BDA weir, but separated from the main
BDA spillway area. The intake areas for this Agridrain device will be caped with"T"
connection and screened to dissuade from clogging. This intake will be placed in a deep

25
pool and the outlet will be buried and in the downstream floodplain and released in the
downstream channel.
The need for additional flow diversion devices is not anticipated at this time.
4.3.5 BDA Degradation Analysis
Wild beaver dams are in a constant state of degradation, constantly being rebuilt by the
beaver colony. Hence the"business"that is often used to characterize this keystone
species. These BDA structures are designed to mimic their natural counterparts, and in
keeping with this approach, the BDA weirs have been specified to naturally degrade
during large storm events.
We have performed hydrology and hydraulic calculations for each of the proposed BDA
weirs.Through this analysis we have estimated the shear stress that BDA will
experienced during predictable rain events. Based on this analysis, we have sized the
materials to become mobilized during large storms. Particularly, the stone gradation of the
in-channel BDA has been specified such that large storm events will exceed the incipient
motion criteria. That is to say:the dams are designed to partially degrade during large
storm events.
4.3.6 Erosion Control
The in-channel BDA features will be constructed"in the dry."A temporary coffer dam (see
appendix)will be placed on the upstream toe of the proposed BDA feature and a small
trash pump or other similar method will be used to divert water around the work area. All
work will be planned such that the coffer dam will not become overwhelmed during storm
events and the individual work areas will be stabilized at the end of each day.
There are several being removed and converted back to open channels. Upon removal of
these culverts the channels will be re-constructed in accordance with the culvert removal
details(see appendix). Culvert removal and channel construction will be conducted"in the
dry"using similar methods used to dewater the BDA work areas(coffer dam and pump
around).
4.3.7 Vegetation
Native riparian plant species have evolved to withstand and depend on the natural flow
regimes and disturbance regimes that trigger seed dispersal, cavitation, and propagule
establishment in stream corridors and adjacent floodplains, so that extreme deviations due
to anthropogenic disruption could incur cascading habitat impacts(Tyree et al. 1994;
Schaff et al. 2003; Merritt et al. 2010; Osterkamp&Hupp 2010;Wohl 2019). Thus, spatial
and temporal dynamics of connectivity are important factors driving the form and function
of streams as ecological agents of the landscape. Although beaver reintroduction is not
planned, and is not a specific goal of these efforts, the vegetation plans are being
prepared in-keeping with beaver habitat.

26
Most of a beaver's diet is made up of tree bark and cambium. Cambium is the soft tissue
that grows under the bark of a tree. Willow, maple, birch, aspen, cottonwood, beech,
poplar, and alder trees are preferred varieties, but beaver are known to eat other
vegetation like roots and buds and other water plants.
All plantings around the BDA complex will be native species adapted to the hydrologic
conditions we intend to restore on site. A list of desirable native vegetation that will be
incorporated is included in the Operation and Maintenance Manual. Riparian, wetland, and
emergent planting plans are being prepared by Osgood Landscape Architecture.
A selection of plants that are under consideration for both the initial planting plan, and the
long-term adaptive management of these areas are included below.

27
Riparian Zones
Trees
o Red Maple -Acer rubrum
o Swamp White Oak-Quercus bicolor
o Smooth Serviceberry-Amelanchier laevis
o American Elderberry-Sambucus canadensis
o Black Gum - Nyssa sylvatica
o Bitternut Hickory-Carya cordiformis
o Fringetree-Chionanthus virginicus
o Sourwood-Oxydendrum arboreum
o Ironwood -Carpinus caroliniana
o River Birch- Betula nigra
o American Holly- Ilex opaca
(spec it in drier areas within the riparian zone)
o Sycamore- Platanus occidentalis
o PawPaw-Asimina triloba
o Black Willow-Salix nigra
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Shrubs
o Winterberry- Ilex verticillata
o Possumhaw- Ilex decidua
o Silky Dogwood-Cornus amomum
(this spreads to form thickets-use sparingly in the planted area around the managed
main pond and more of it in the other less managed riparian areas)
o Spicebush -Lindera benzoin
o Sweetspire- !tea virginica
o Buttonbush-Cephalanthus occidental is
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Sweet pepperbush-Clethra acuminata
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Witch hazel - Hamamelis virginiana
o Doghobble- Luecothoe fontanesiana
o Possumhaw Viburnum -Viburnum nudum
o Silky willow-Salix sericea
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Herbaceous/Grasses
o Fox sedge -Carex vulpinoidea
o Blunt broom sedge-Carex scoparia
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Tussock sedge -Carex stricta
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Pink Turtlehead-Chelone lyonii
o Golden Groundsel - Packera obovata
o Mountain Mint- Pycnanthemum virginianum

28
o Milkweed -Asclepias incarnata
o Grass leaved Goldenrod-Solidago graminifolia
o Sensitive Fern-Onoclea sensibilis
o Cinnamon Fern- Osmunda cinnamomeum
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o Joe Pye Weed- Eupatorium purpureum
o Switchgrass-Panicum virgatum
(this is a fast spreader-consider specing it sparingly in the planted area around the
managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed riparian areas)
o River oats-Chasmanthium latifolium
(this is a fast spreader-consider specing it sparingly(or not at all)in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed
riparian areas)
o Indian Grass-Sorghastrum nutans
o Cardinal Flower- Lobelia cardinalis
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
o New England aster-Aster novae-angliae
o Jack in the Pulpit-Arisaema triphyllum
(spec it in wetter areas within the riparian zone)
Emergent Zones
Herbaceous/Grasses
o Soft Stem bulrush-Scirpus validus
o Common Rush -Juncus effusus
o Blunt Spike Rush- Eleocharis obtusa
o Pickerelweed- Pontederia cordata
(this is a fast spreader-consider spacing it sparingly(or not at all)in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other more wild riparian
areas. If this plant is both hearty and spreads quickly, it may be best used in areas
where the expected water level is the most unpredictable.)
o Southern Blue Flag- Iris virginica
o Sweetflag-Acorus calamus
(straight species)
o Lizard's Tail-Saururus cernus
this is a fast spreader-consider spacing it sparingly(or not at all)in the planted area
around the managed main pond area and more of it in the other less managed
riparian areas. Maybe use this one and Pickerelweed as more"wild"solutions.
o Arrow Arrum - Peltandra virginica
o Duck Potato- Sagittaria fasciculata

29
REFERENCES
Ayres, Q. (1936). Soil Erosion and its Control. MeGraw-Hill Book Company. Inc: New
York.
Bason, C. W., Kroes, D. E., &Brinson, M. M. (2017). The effect of beaver ponds on water
quality in rural coastal plain streams. Southeastern naturalist, 16(4), 584-602.
Bellmore, J. R., &Baxter, C. V. (2014). Effects of geomorphic process domains on river
ecosystems: a comparison of floodplain and confined valley segments. River Research
and Applications, 30(5), 617-630.
Bennett, H.H. (1932). Relation of Erosion to Vegetative Changes. The Scientific Monthly,
35(5), 385-415.
Bernhardt, E. S. & Palmer, M.A. (2011). River restoration:the fuzzy logic of repairing
reaches to reverse catchment scale degradation. Ecological Applications, 21(6), 1926-
1931.
Box, Samuel, "Impacts of Vegetation Growth on Reach-scale Flood Hydraulics in a Sand-
bed River and the Implications for Vegetation-morphology Coevolution" (2018). Graduate
Student Theses, Dissertations, & Professional Papers. 11144.
Brierley, G., &Fryirs, K. (2009). Don't fight the site:three geomorphic considerations in
catchment-scale river rehabilitation planning. Environmental Management, 43(6), 1201-
1218.
Brierley, G. J., &Fryirs, K. A. (2013). Geomorphology and river management: applications
of the river styles framework. John Wiley&Sons.
Brooks, K. N., Ffolliott, P. F., & Magner, J. A. (2012). Hydrology and the Management of
Watersheds. John Wiley&Sons.
Burchsted, D., Daniels, M., Thorson, R., &Vokoun, J. (2010). The river discontinuum:
applying beaver modifications to baseline conditions for restoration of forested
headwaters. BioScience, 60(11), 908-922.
Campbell, L.M., Gray, N.J., Hazen, E.L., &Schackeroff, J.M. (2009). Beyond Baselines:
Rethinking Priorities for Ocean Conservation. Ecology and Society, 14(1).
Cluer, B., &Thorne C. (2014)A stream evolution model integrating habitat and ecosystem
benefits. River Research and Applications, 30: 135-154.
Comiti, F., Cadol, D., &Wohl, E. (2009). Flow regimes, bed morphology, and flow
resistance in self-formed step-pool channels. Water Resources Research, 45(4), W04424.

30
Dearman, T.L. &James, L.A. (2019) Patterns of legacy sediment deposits in a small
South Carolina Piedmont catchment, USA. Geomorphology, 343: 1-14.
Doyle, M. W., &Douglas Shields, F. (2012). Compensatory Mitigation for Streams Under
the Clean Water Act: Reassessing Science and Redirecting Policy. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 48(3), 494-509.
Ferguson, B. K. (1999). The alluvial history and environmental legacy of the abandoned
Scull Shoals mill. Landscape Journal, 18(2), 147-156.
Francl, K. E., Ford, W. M., &Castleberry, S. B. (2004). Bat activity in central Appalachian
wetlands. Georgia Journal of Science, 62(2), 87.
Gatti, R. C., Callaghan, T. V., Rozhkova-Timina, I., Dudko, A., Lim, A., Vorobyev, S. N., ...
&Pokrovsky, O. S. (2018). The role of Eurasian beaver(Castor fiber) in the storage,
emission and deposition of carbon in lakes and rivers of the River Ob flood plain, western
Siberia. Science of the Total Environment, 644, 1371-1379.
Goldfarb, B. (2018). Eager: The Surprising, Secret Life of Beavers and why They Matter.
Chelsea Green Publishing.
Goldston, E.F., Davis, W.A., Croom, C.W., &Davidson, S.F. (1942a). Soil Survey:
Madison County, North Carolina. [Map] United States Department of Agriculture. Series
1936, No. 19.Available at:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/madisonNC1942
/m ap.pdf
Goldston, E.F., Davis, W.A., Croom, C.W., &Davidson, S.F. (1942b). Soil Survey:
Madison County, North Carolina. United States Department of Agriculture. Series 1936,
No. 19.Available at:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/madisonNC1942
/madisonNC1942.pdf
Gooseff, M. N., Wlostowski, A., McKnight, D. M., &Jaros, C. (2017). Hydrologic
connectivity and implications for ecosystem processes-Lessons from naked watersheds.
Geomorphology,277:63-71.
Graf, W.L. (2001) Damage Control: Restoring the Physical Integrity of America's Rivers.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 91(1): 1-27.
Groffman, P.M, Bain, D.J., Band, L.E., Belt, K.T., Brush, G.S., Grove,J.M., Pouyat, R.V.,
Yesilonis, I.C., &Zipperer, W.C. (2003). Down by the Riverside: Urban Riparian Ecology.
Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment, 1:315-321.
Hardison, E.C., O'Driscoll, M.A., DeLoatch, J.P., Howard, R.J., &Brinson, M.M. (2009)
Urban land use, channel incision, and water table decline along coastal plain streams,
North Carolina. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 45(4): 1032-1046.

31
Herdrich, A. T., Winkelman, D. L.,Venarsky, M. P., Walters, D. M., &Wohl, E. (2018). The
loss of large wood affects Rocky Mountain trout populations. Ecology of Freshwater Fish,
27(4), 1023-1036.
Helms, D. (2009). Hugh Hammond Bennett and the creation of the soil erosion service.
Journal of soil and water conservation, 64(2), 68A-74A.
Hester, E. T., &Gooseff, M. N. (2010). Moving beyond the banks: Hyporheic restoration is
fundamental to restoring ecological services and functions of streams. Environmental
Science Technology, 44(5), 1521-1525.
Hilderbrand, R. H., Watts, A. C., & Randle, A. M. (2005). The myths of restoration ecology.
Ecology and Society, 10(1).
Hughes, F.M.R., Adams, W.M., Muller, E.et al. (2001).The importance of different scale
processes for the restoration of floodplain woodlands. Regulated Rivers:Research and
Management 17:325-345.
Jackson, C. R., Martin, J. K., Leigh, D. S., &West, L. T. (2005). A southeastern piedmont
watershed sediment budget: Evidence for a multi-millennial agricultural legacy. Journal of
Soil and Water Conservation, 60(6), 298-310.
Julien, P. Y., &Raslan, Y. (1998). Upper-regime plane bed. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering, 124(11), 1086-1096.
Kasprak,A., Hough-Snee, N., Beechie, T., Bouwes, N., Brierley, G., Camp, R., Fryirs, K.,
Imaki, H., Jensen, M., O'Brien, G. and Rosgen, D. (2016). The blurred line between form
and process: a comparison of stream channel classification frameworks. PIoS one, 11(3),
e0150293.
Knighton, A. D. (1984). Indices of flow asymmetry in natural streams:definition and
performance. Journal of Hydrology, 73(1-2), 1-19.
Kondolf, G. M. (2006). River restoration and meanders. Ecology and Society, 11(2):42.
Kondolf, G. M., Boulton, A. J., O'Daniel, S., Poole, G. C., Rahel, F. J., Stanley, E. H., ... &
Huber, H. (2006). Process-based ecological river restoration:visualizing three-
dimensional connectivity and dynamic vectors to recover lost linkages. Ecology and
Society, 11(2).
Kondolf, G.M. and Larson, M. (1995). Historical channel analysis and its application to
riparian and aquatic habitat restoration. Aquatic Conservation:Marine and Freshwater
Ecosystems 5: 109-126.

32
Kondolf, G. M., Smeltzer, M.W., & Railsback, S. F. (2001). Design and performance of a
channel reconstruction project in a coastal California gravel-bed stream. Environmental
Management,28(6):761-776.
Kraebel, C. J., &Pillsbury, A. F. (1934). Handbook of erosion control in mountain
meadows. California Forest and Range Experiment Station.
Lave, R. A. (2008). The Rosgen wars and the shifting political economy of expertise.
University of California, Berkeley.
Leopold, L. B., Wolman, M. G., Miller, J. P., &Wohl, E. (2020). Fluvial processes in
geomorphology. Dover Publications.
Lininger, K. B., & Latrubesse, E. M. (2016). Flooding hydrology and peak discharge
attenuation along the middle Araguaia River in central Brazil. Catena, 143, 90-101.
Malakoff, D., 2004. The River Doctor. Science 305:937-939.
Margolis, B.E., Castro, M.S., & Raesly, R.L. (2001)The impact of beaver impoundments
on the water chemistry of two Appalachian streams. Canadian Journal of Fish and Aquatic
Science, 58:2271-2283.
Menzel, M. A., Carter, T. C., Ford, W. M., &Chapman, B. R. (2001). Tree-roost
characteristics of subadult and female adult evening bats(Nycticeius humeralis) in the
Upper Coastal Plain of South Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(1), 112-119.
Metts, B. S., Lanham, J. D., &Russell, K. R. (2001). Evaluation of herpetofaunal
communities on upland streams and beaver-impounded streams in the Upper Piedmont of
South Carolina. The American Midland Naturalist, 145(1), 54-65.
Montgomery, D. R. (1999). Process domains and the river continuum. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 35(2), 397-410.
Montgomery, D. R., &Buffington, J. M. (1997). Channel-reach morphology in mountain
drainage basins. Geological Society of America Bulletin, 109(5), 596-611.
Montgomery, D. R., Abbe, T. B., Buffington, J. M., Peterson, N. P., Schmidt, K. M., &
Stock, J. D. (1996). Distribution of bedrock and alluvial channels in forested mountain
drainage basins. Nature, 381(6583), 587-589.
Mould, S., & Fryirs, K. (2017). The Holocene evolution and geomorphology of a chain of
ponds,southeast Australia: Establishing a physical template for river management.
Catena, 149:349-362.
Naiman, R. J., Johnston, C. A., &Kelley,J. C. (1988). Alteration of North American
streams by beaver. BioScience, 38(11), 753-762.

33
Osterkamp, W.R., & Hupp, C.R. (2010) Fluvial processes and vegetation—Glimpses of
the past, the present, and perhaps the future. Geomorphology, 116:274-285.
Otis, D.L., and N.T. Edwards. 1999. Avian communities and habitat relationships in South
Carolina Piedmont Beaver ponds. The American Midland Naturalist 141(1):158-171.
Papworth, S. K., Rist, J., Coad, L., & Milner-Gulland, E. J. (2009). Evidence for shifting
baseline syndrome in conservation. Conservation Letters, 2(2), 93-100.
Pilliod, D. S., Rohde,A. T., Charnley, S., Davee, R. R., Dunham, J. B., Gosnell, H., ... &
Nash, C. (2018). Survey of beaver-related restoration practices in rangeland streams of
the western USA. Environmental management, 61(1), 58-68.
Pollock, M. M., Beechie, T.J.,Wheaton,J. M., Jordan, C. E., Bouwes, N., Weber, N., &
Volk, C. (2014). Using beaver dams to restore incised stream ecosystems. BioScience,
64(4), 279-290.
Polvi, L. E., Wohl, E. E., &Merritt, D. M. (2011). Geomorphic and process domain controls
on riparian zones in the Colorado Front Range. Geomorphology, 125(4), 504-516.
Schumm, S.A. (1977). The fluvial system. John Wiley and Sons, New York.
Sear, D.A., Wheaton, J.M., and Darby, S.E. (2008). Uncertain restoration of gravelbed
rivers and the role of geomorphology. In: Gravel-Bed Rivers VI:From Process
Understanding to River Restoration(eds. H. Habersack, H. Piegay and M. Rinaldi), 739-
761.Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Sedell, J. R., &Froggatt, J. L. (1984). Importance of streamside forests to large rivers:The
isolation of the Willamette River, Oregon, USA, from its floodplain by snagging and
streamside forest removal:With 2 figures and 1 table in the text. Internationale
Vereinigung fur theoretische and angewandte Limnologie: Verhandlungen, 22(3), 1828-
1834.
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields Jr, F. D., Rhoads, B., & McPhillips, M. (2007).
Critical evaluation of how the Rosgen classification and associated"natural channel
design"methods fail to integrate and quantify fluvial processes and channel response 1.
JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 43(5), 1117-1131.
Simon, A., Doyle, M., Kondolf, M., Shields Jr, F. D., Rhoads, B., &McPhillips, M. (2008).
Reply to Discussion by Dave Rosgen on" Critical Evaluation of How the Rosgen
Classification and Associated'Natural Channel Design'Methods Fail to Integrate and
Quantify Fluvial Processes and Channel Responses".
Sklar, L., & Dietrich, W. E. (1998). River longitudinal profiles and bedrock incision models:
Stream power and the influence of sediment supply, in Tinkler, K.J. &Wohl, E.E., eds.,
Rivers over rock:Fluvial processes in bedrock channels:Washington, D.C., American
Geophysical Union, 237-260.

34
Snodgrass, J. W. (1997). Temporal and spatial dynamics of beaver-created patches as
influenced by management practices in a south-eastern North American landscape.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 1043-1056.
Sporcic, M. A., &Skidmore, E. L. (2011). 75 Years of Wind Erosion Control:The History of
Wind Erosion Prediction. In International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution
(ISELE), 18-21 September 2011,Anchorage,Alaska(p. 31). American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Thorne, C. (2020, Aug. 11). "Missing Reference Condition: Stage 0" [Webinar
Presentation]. In: Module 1: Introduction to Low-Tech Process-Based Restoration.
Available at:
https://lowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/workshops/2020/SG I/Modules/modulel.html
Trimble, S. W. (1975). A VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATE OF MAN-INDUCED SOIL EROSION
ON THE SOUTHERN. In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment
Yield and Sources: Proceedings of the Sediment-Yield Workshop, USDA Sedimentation
Laboratory, Oxford, Miss., Nov. 28-30, 1972(Vol. 40, p. 142). Agricultural Research
Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Walter, R. C., & Merritts, D. J. (2008). Natural streams and the legacy of water-powered
mills. Science, 3/9(5861), 299-304.
Ward,J. V. (1989). The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 8(1), 2-8.
Ward,J.V., Tockner, K., Uehlinger, U., and Malard, F. (2001). Understanding natural
patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration.
Regulated Rivers:Research and Management 17:311-323.
Weber, N., Bouwes, N., Pollock, M.M., Wheaton, J.M., Wathen, G., Wirtz,J., &Jordan,
C.E. (2017)Alteration of stream temperature by natural and artificial beaver dams. PLoS
ONE, 12(5).
Wegener, P., Covino, T., and Wohl, E. (2017). Beaver-mediated lateral hydrologic
connectivity, fluvial carbon and nutrient flux, and aquatic ecosystem metabolism. Water
Resources Research, 53:4606-4623.
Wohl, E. E. (2004). Disconnected rivers:linking rivers to landscapes. Yale University
Press.
Wohl, E. (2013) Floodplains and wood. Earth-Science Reviews, 123: 194-212.
Wohl, E. (2019). Forgotten legacies: understanding and mitigating historical human
alterations of river corridors. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 5181-5201.

35
Wohl, E. (2020). Rivers in the Landscape. John Wiley&Sons.
Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M.,
Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L., &Tarboton, D. (2005). River Restoration. Water Resources
Research, 41:W10301.
Wohl, E., &Beckman, N. D. (2014). Leaky rivers: implications of the loss of longitudinal
fluvial disconnectivity in headwater streams. Geomorphology, 205:27-35.
Wohl, E., &Cadol, D. (2011). Neighborhood matters: patterns and controls on wood
distribution in old-growth forest streams of the Colorado Front Range, USA.
Geomorphology, 125(1), 132-146.
Venarsky, M. P., Walters, D. M., Hall, R. O., Livers, B., &Wohl, E. (2018). Shifting stream
planform state decreases stream productivity yet increases riparian animal production.
Gecologia, 187(1), 167-180.

36
APPENDIX
A. Potential Outcomes After BDA Construction
B. Predicted Depth Maps&Area Tables
C. Culvert Removal Details
D. Creek Profiles and BDA Pool Sections
E. Example Dewatering Details(coffer dam)

Potential Outcomes after BDA Construction
Existing Condition Potential Outcome 1
A ft
4 Gc
,j:
Riparian
S .~vegetation y
.i 1) C r Wetland
J ` Meadow
` _ BDA
, ir, ..„ ..„, ,
,
.„. ,
4111,7--
Potential Outcome 2 Potential Outcome 3
t-c_ - • /1 11408W
( (0 , .
, . . ,
........_ ______ L -1
,„ .
~ Robinson
N Design
N Engineers

il....o
6 4., LEGEND
94 For aril Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
92 ��� r pm ' (3' or greater)
•
I ! O TB ,'see Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
�� �I ( p M; � I \ \ �\ Typically inundated
1
I � I \ Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
�', A'� `� v Frequently inundated
•� F Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
- •,. inundated
�rn rn °'\ Upper Riparian / Upland Zones
...i. Typically not inundated
r_,....._ ..„ Jill‘:', 4,_ .
w- -.:°,5\hit. ,
,iitir
TB2
i
,o) 4
________ 44
6, wif ,!ph
k\
----- / \ , , 4
� \ \ ,o•
w
\ \ •••
PDM1: Predicted Depth Map 1 •' Robinson%
N Engineers 20 40 80

_ + •° + rn 111111111111111
LEGEND .0,. 'i
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained � —s$ -95
deep pools (3' or greater) , \
■ Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone - = loplito •a
Typically inundated `
Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone - 1".1,00� / I
Frequently inundated N y \ I
Lower Riparian Zone - \
, Infrequently inundated `
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones - - I I
Typically not inundated + -
0
For area upstream g \ �i
of TB4A&B, see `�' iN
�� yy
PDM3 and PDM4
: • a ®\, v
\ + J \
96•6 TB4A Al -
Alli
AIN
644
TB4B .,�
94,
4
rill4 i-
ij1øIpS-..
0
CL
z 94,
v �
\ w 92' ii
6 , , , , ,
11 , 1
B.
..rt ,_,
6' ICI1 , ,
-
1/1.
.-.
1 1
TB3A \ i, i\
PDM2: Predicted Depth Map 2 N Robinson
N Engineers 0 20 40 80

1 I \ \ \
LEGEND
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
(3' or greater)
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
■ Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
ell \
, \a �� /
___ . ,
_________ \
\\\ \ \\\\\ \\ \ \\\\ \ _
\ \\\ ift4.5 _____ ,. It :-
% 1#
4 lip __ ,
8 .$
. ir.\\ +‘
\ 411111\ , , \ \
•• TB5A
\ * • `lv"
A A I 1 16 L'. •rO
PDM3: Predicted Depth Map 3 N Robinson
N Engineers 0 20 40 80

\ \ \ \ \ \ 2
LEGEND
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
(3' or greater)
Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone -
Typically inundated
Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone -
Frequently inundated
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
____ r inundated
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones -
Typically not inundated
i_
'\lir------'—''-
. •'' -----\ ___
-------- --
------i-1-1---- _----------------- / \
-__ - \ ' N\4111.10/ ___--
9E
\ '\ \d/•.
•
Akio
\ TB6 11411 %jJc;z
.: .
`\;N \
PDM4: Predicted Depth Map 4 Robinson"/
N Engineers 20 40 0

LEGEND ----- _-------
Deep Pool Zone - Sustained deep pools
(3' or greater) ---_______
■ Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone - /
Typically inundated ____ ——
■ Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone - �!
Frequently inundated �/
Lower Riparian Zone - Infrequently
inundated 6
Upper Riparian / Upland Zones - _
Typically not inundatedrt _
0/ ' A; ill
in
in
in
v7 4 4
/ N zs
• 6
'8S = __ +
:., -,
� lir
o
N
in
-
,— W...------- - --___,-______.- in--k , ....„._.
\ ) ' I ! */ ct II.- --1 'I.-'-
A ) Alli '-
_ o
%,, / Ii !
�,�
...kiV wg:mw\\\ *L4
PDM5: Predicted Depth Map 5 .�Robinson
N Engineers 20 40 to

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

BDA Deep Pool Deep Marsh - Shallow Marsh TOTAL (ac)
Zone (ac) Submergent - Emergent
(ac) (ac)
TB1 0.05 0.13 0.11 0.29
TB2 0.01 0.07 0.09 0.16
TB3 0.02 0.19 0.20 0.41
TB4 0.13 0.28 0.37 0.78
TB5 - 0.03 0.21 0.24
TB6 0.00 0.09 0.09 0.19
HB4 0.01 0.21 0.38 0.60
TOTAL 0.22 1.01 1.44 2.66
/1114./Robinson
PDM7: Predicted Depth Map Area Table N Engineers

existing culvert to be removed
vegetation per landscape architect
apply coir matting to all
disturbed channel slopes
Match downstream channel
bottom-width_ o
" "
Bio-D block soil lift
7o7
o°ti�lrq ���� ' ;' Compacted sub-grade
'- ��``. a�',zi�°
� Channel bottom of granite ballast stone 8"minimum thickness
12"overlap,minimum f Underlain by bedding stone 6"minimum thickness
:..\047:47;riaibt a v ii'(1 iiiiiii0Aiii iii it
COMPLETELY FILL ALL INTERSTITIAL SPACES WITH CLEAN SAND
CREEK CHANNEL - FREE FLOWING
CA) apply outside of deep marsh zones SCALE:1"=4'
, l---- 1 c\
Match downstream channel
bottom-width existing culvert to be removed
vegetation per landscape architect
i ,
( 7) ,
, i ____
....
.. ,,o,
I °00, fly fl
o og8 c0000 a o8 0
° ,, Compacted sub-grade
apply channel armor
to depth=12" ��
Channel bottom of bedding stone 6"minimum thickness
COMPLETELY FILL ALL INTERSTITIAL SPACES WITH CLEAN SAND
CB) CREEK CHANNEL - WITHIN INUNDATION ZONE
apply inside of deep marsh zones SCALE:1"=4'
APPENDIX C. CULVERT REMOVAL DETAILS Robinson
,N „

c Copyright 2020
These drawings are the properly of
inson
I\�// II 1\\ / � Design
Engineers.
Design r Engineers reproduced u•ttlhou�ihet
upon
or repro
express,written consent of Robinson
� � Design Engineers.
U.,' __I i .-
;;�
hill\er"44 /17.11401P.4%
1 ��nL I O 4;'
(` ��/ oo so o 100 300
(' // '' tr.it' 3°,';\'''- .
r '
. , , , / )
_ . , .. /, i I
.... ., / , , 0 „,,.......,
,,,.. / / /, p-
,*'___,L13r::'-/--- 7':////i)'' .-, _
EdDham
ED)/� I ( , ,111 \1 oI
c
co
o vA
CZ
w o a)
� o
o
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+01 5+00 L
i i O U
N E )zz
1,955 1,955 Ts j
W H 2
1,950 1,950 RDE SubmProject 20310
ittal: No: Concept Plans
Date: 2020-05-18
Revisions:
2 0 20 0 8-24 dam-height reduction
2020-10-20 TB revisions
2020-10-30 HB revisions
2021-01-15 PCN submittal
1,945 1,945
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00
ENGINEER
PR1HOPEWELL HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=40' RobinsoeDeesgnEngineers NNC C 10
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=4' 1293rd Avenue West
Hendersonville,NC 28792
w ww.ro b in s on de s ig n en gi n ee r s.com
profiles
Hopewell Br.
C201

c Copyright 2020
These drawings are the properly of
\_ _/ Robinson Design Engineers antl may sot
\\�/ N // be relied upon or reproduced without the
�� \ f(/ \ express,written consent of Robinson
' �1, Design Engineers.
'. it */ "17 . ' C .0.
\ '401&.. 'Mao:7#,(IV i .
ED
\ \ ile \ 4 SCALE 1'= 100
�� a � I 100 50 0 100 300
14/1 io
*4,'1 41/11 I / /) _/ ,_______ \
if.:),
4#, V1( fil /
Nit T, \WM.
J
Pedm
EXISTING GRADE
og o
a a aP a PROPOSED GRADE c
a)
E
c
a)
E.
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 cm
W
IL
1,990 1,990 0 V2
W H
RDE Project No: 20310
1,985 1,985 Submittal: Concept Plans
Date: 2020-05-18
Revisions:
2 0 20 0 8-24 dam-height reduction
2020-10-20 TB revisions
2020-10-30 HB revisions
2021-01-15 PCN submittal
1,980 1,980
ENGINEER
Robinson Design Engineers NC C3863
Philip Ellis,PE NC 39870
1,975 1,975 1293rd Avenue West
Hendersonville,NC 28792
Graf.ro b in s on de s ig n en gi n ee r s.com
profiles
1,970 1,970
0+00 1+00 2+00 3+00 4+00 5+00 6+00 7+00 8+00 9+00 Thomas Branch
PR2 THOMAS BRANCH HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=40'
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=4' C202

c Copyright 2020
These tlr awes are the properly of
% Robinson Design Engineers Dit may not
111%8i be relied upon or reproduced ootlhout the I
express,mitten consent of Robinson
��� Design Engineers.
102LP g1
\Irak. /
11.-- dv--"O' /- I 10141siii illtit.,H,Wit Eh igkW,
Ir
141. liiipjli ,ta,00,741 :101 ir
N14-411M1111111.11° 1 \ .. --71r ,
..) 1 ..• -..--r ,
41
)1111 \ \ ,of
\ ,) 11, 40 1/(6" )4- #4pom
(T3
SCALE 1"= 40
�/®� ` s
II II i kill I I I I I
40 20 a 40 120
r:7;4144, 9°' p. 2__ i i 0,,.20!0.•0•114‘1"11 V A t4 1 I il I.); —.. "--i'-------,:., ,I. ,.,I_If
ifirroutaim. ..40,4000pri
/ ... r/ /Le-,-_,Aki-------4 _,..:; 1 ,
-13, _.......A401'' /-- _
t.
----- /- ___---7
i 77...„,_,. ...........
140 ,fr......,,,,,,,
..,..: k
/14:t.s..vi
..... w„,i. ,..„, l
c:=3 ' I\ , G30C»BedG BOG
4 I. � .......
/ i
A. 11111\ avAn2w,-3
/ J
j
EXISTING GRADE g a
i>s o
PROPOSED GRADE > o -c
0.00 0+50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2i50 3.00 3i50 4.00 4i50 1 O
a) Eoz
2,005 _ 2,005 w O Ts
2,000 — — — _ — — / z,000 C o , ca
C H c>s
w2
1,995 1,995
— ` / 4 Sub Project No: 20310
Concept
T� V Submittal: Concept Plans
Dat1,990 _ — — — — — —��' 1,990 Reeslons: 2o2o-os-la
IN In— 2020- -2 dam-heightreduction
2020-10-20 TB revisions 2020-10-30 HB revisions
1,985 1,985
2021-01-15 PCN submittal
0.00 0i50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2i50 3.00 3i50 4.00 4i50
XS2 THOMAS BRANCH HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=16' ENGINEER
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"=8' Robinson Design Engineers NCC-3863
Philip Ellis,PE NC 39870
1293rd Avenue West
Hendersonville,NC 28792
v v v.robinsondesignengineers.com
sections
Thomas Branch
C302

ROCK COFFERDAM
TOP OF BANK
LINER FINAL
PUMP
COFFERDAM CROSS-SECTION
ScKKEP
LINER COFFERDAM WORK
7 44:141014. WORK AREA
AREA
SUMP PIT
_ _ _ _ AND PUMP
COARSE AGGREGATE SANDBAGS
CREEK BOTTOM EXCESS LINER 0
0 0
COFFERDAM PROFILE
ENERGY DISSIPATING
SURFACE
FILTRATION
AREA
0
U-
NOTES:
1. THE LINER SHALL BE PLACED ON
BOTTOM OF WATERWAY W/EXCESS LINER
EXTENDING OUT OF THE COFFERED AREA.
ONCE STONE IS PLACED, LINER WILL BE
PULLED OVER ROCK AND EXTEND BEYOND PLAN VIEW
THE PILE ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE.
SANDBAGS WILL SECURE THE EXCESS
LINER AS SHOWN. REFER TO THE
STANDARD FOR LINER SPECIFICATIONS.
REFERENCE STANDARD DWG. NO,
Project IUM-503RF
Designed Date
Checked Date SHEET 5 OF 7
Approved Date DATE 7-09-2012

Attachment E
Alternative Analysis

Off Site Alternatives Analysis
The applicant evaluated several criteria before the optimal parcel was chosen for the proposed
project. The criteria included topography, size, vicinity, accessibility, aquatic resources, and
property acquisition. The criteria were evaluated on the following requirements:
1. Size: Site must be at least 100 acres and have open space of sufficient size to accommodate
coexistence of educational facilities, open spaces, and biodiverse ecosystems.
2. Forested with Natural Viewshed: The site must be mostly forested with a viewshed that is
mostly undeveloped land, preferably long-range mountain views.
3. Topography: Site must have enough sufficiently low gradient topography to accommodate
building sites. Steep topography is not optimal.
4. Vicinity: Site must be in the Appalachian bioregion within reasonable vicinity of the City
of Asheville (45 minutes) and the Asheville Regional Airport (1 hour). Most supplies and
services to run the SOWE would be obtained in Asheville.
5. Accessibility: Site must be easily accessible from a well-traveled, navigable road. SOWE
will have many visitors and students from out of town, unfamiliar with local roads.
Highways and paved roads leading directly to the site are ideal. SOWE visitors may need
access to the City of Asheville and the Asheville Regional Airport.
6. Visual and Acoustic Privacy: While the site needs to be easily accessible it also needs to
maintain and element of privacy from nuisance noise such as heavy traffic, commercial or
industrial business, and dense residential areas.
7. Aquatic Resources: SOWE wants aquatic resources and will attempt to build around
aquatic resources present on site. Site history and potential to improve, restore, enhance,
degraded resources were also considered.
8. Potential for Acquisition: Site must be available for sale and match the property acquisition
timeline set during the project's initial stages.
Five alternative sites were candidates for the project which included:
• Alternative 1: Camp Sequoia
• Alternative 2: Barnardsville Tract
• Alternative 3: Etowah Tract
• Alternative 4: Candler/Mt Pisgah
• Alternative 5: (Proposed Alternative)Mulberry Farm
Alternative 1, Camp Sequoia—Buncombe County:
1. The 136-acre site has sufficient size to accommodate the planned project components. The
existing open space is approximately 7-8 acres, the least existing open space when
compared to the other alternatives. The open space is clustered in the center of the site,
which is ideal for the SOWE layout. Additional tree clearing would likely be required
accommodate the entire SOWE campus.

2. The site is mostly forested. Several coves and ridges with north, east, and west facing
slopes offer a variety of forested habitats. Existing open space area has short-range views
of McDaires Ridge on the edge of Pisgah National Forest.
3. The area near the site entrance is in a relatively gentle sloped valley bottom, suitable
topography to accommodate building sites.
4. The site is in the Appalachian bioregion within close proximity to Craggy Gardens and
Blue Ridge Parkway. Site is inside the Pisgah National Forest boundary.Asheville is within
25 minutes and the Asheville Airport is within an hour drive.
5. The site is easily accessible from well-traveled roads. From Asheville, Interstate 26 can be
taken west to Weaverville. Reems Creek Road is a major road,with a dedicated interstate
exit,that runs east from Weaverville most of the way to the site. The last mile of the route
is on Blackberry Inn Road,which is a paved and easily navigable to the site's entrance.
6. The site is situated in a cove, surrounded by forested land. The existing open space is not
visible from outside the property. The site provides ideal privacy from nuisance noise and
visual distractions.
7. Aquatic resources on site include approximately 10,187 linear feet of stream that
confluence near the site entrance. A pond was already on-site. Based on the alignment of
streams,similar impacts to aquatic resources would likely result from road development of
SOWE facilities. The applicant was unable to conduct land planning studies to determine
additional possibilities for environment restoration before the land was sold.
8. This site was initially available for purchase at the start site selection but was sold and
taken off the market before the applicant could make an offer.
This location was the leading candidate for purchase after initial review. The parcel was not
available for sale at the time of project initiation which fails to meet criteria 8.
Alternative 2,Barnardsville Parcel—Buncombe County:
1. The 213-acre site has sufficient size to accommodate the planned project components.
There are approximately 18 acres of open space that is linear in shape. The open space
extends up a steep north facing slope.
2. The site is mainly forested. The viewshed is mostly forested, with direct views of Tharp
Mountain.
3. The parcel does not have enough appropriate topography to accommodate building sites
throughout the property. The areas outside of the open field, are very steep, with little
potential to create more open area. Most of the parcel is too steep for construction of larger
structures, such as community spaces.
4. The site is in the Appalachian bioregion near Mountain Mitchel State Park, Pisgah Forest
and the Blue Ridge Parkway. The site is only 30 minutes from Asheville and 45 minutes
from the Asheville Airport.
5. The site is easily accessible from well-traveled roads. From Asheville, Interstate 26 can be
taken west to the Barnardsville exit, at which point NC Highway 197 can be taken east all
the way to the site. Highways lead right to the site's entrance.
6. NC Highway 197 is within the viewshed of the existing open area, and it is possible that
highway traffic can be heard from the site.Noise from the highway during warmer months,
when the highway is frequented by tourists, is less than ideal for SOWE.

7. Aquatic resources on site include 15,920 linear feet of stream. A pond was already on-
site. Stream impacts from development road impacts would likely be similar or less since
the open area is in between the two major stream systems. Due to the site occupying the
entire headwaters of the local watershed,all streams originate within the site. The applicant
was unable to conduct land planning studies to determine additional possibilities for
environment restoration. However, based on maps it appears that he riparian buffers on
two of the streams is removed or greatly reduced and the applicant would have taken on
similar ecosystem enhancement projects.
8. The site was available at the initial stages of the project for a reasonable cost.
This site failed to meet criteria 3 due to steep topography and would fail to meet criteria 6 due
to traffic noise on the adjacent highway and lack of visual privacy. Therefore, this alternative
was dismissed from further analysis.
Alternative 3,Etowah—Henderson County:
1. The 128-acre site offers more than sufficient open space (approximately 90 acres) to
accommodate the planned project components.Minimal tree clearing would be needed for
any layout chosen by SOWE due to the abundance of open space.
2. The site is mostly cleared of trees and has a long range viewshed that is of the French Broad
River floodplain and distant mountains. Multiple residential areas and some commercial
facilities are within the viewshed.
3. Gentle slopes occupy much of the site, with steeper slopes present along the eastern and
southern margins of the parcel. Topography is sufficient to accommodate building sites.
4. The site is in the Appalachian bioregion only a few miles north of DuPont State Forest.
Asheville is within 45 minutes and the Asheville Airport is within 25 minutes.
5. From Asheville, Interstate 26 can be taken west to the Airport exit at which point NC
Highway 280 runs west past Mills River. Back roads need to be taken through Mills River
and Horse Shoe for the last 15 minutes until reaching the site.The back roads are accessible
and well-traveled,but indirect.This alternative is the farthest drive from Asheville but was
the closest to a major airport(Asheville Airport).
6. The site being mostly field/pasture in a broad valley bottom,with residential properties on
the adjacent hillsides, visual privacy is minimal. The lack of trees around the margins of
the site minimizes visual and acoustic privacy. A public road abuts the site for several
thousand feet.
7. Aquatic resources on site included 10,912 linear feet of stream with most impacts
avoidable. A pond is located on-site. This site is the location of the failed Seven Falls
Country Club and has significant outstanding regulatory issues that would need to be
addressed and corrected before any new Section 404 or 401 (Clean Water Act)permitting
would likely be approved. The site was composed primarily of disturbed habitat and would
have offered high potential for restoration including the use of BDA's, regulatory
mitigation,riparian establishment as well as upland forest regeneration.
8. The site was available to purchase during the initial stages of the project, but the property
transaction timeline did not line up with the timeline of the proposed project.

The site failed to meet multiple criteria. Criteria 2 and 6 were not met based on the open nature
of the site and therefore the lack of visual and acoustic privacy. This site failed to meet criteria
7 based on unresolved regulatory issues related to unpermitted impacts to aquatic resources.
Additionally, criteria 8 was not met to the expedited timeline for the real estate transaction.
Alternative 4, Candler Mt. Pisgah—Buncombe County:
1. The 624-acre site contains a sufficient amount of total open space (25 acres).
2. The site is mostly forested and is surrounded by a vast area of undeveloped forested land.
The viewshed of the site consists of the Hominy Creek floodplain, Ripshin Mountain, and
Saw Mountain.Multiple residential properties are within the Hominy Creek floodplain that
are also within the viewshed of the existing open area on site.
3. The site occupies a large, east facing cove with gentle slopes near the entrance at the east
side of the property. Steep slopes occupy the remainder of the parcel. Topography near the
entrance is sufficient to accommodate building sites.
4. The site is in the Appalachian bioregion within close proximity to Pisgah National Forest
and the Blue Ridge Parkway. Asheville is within 25 minutes and the Asheville Airport is
40 minutes away.
5. From Asheville, Interstate 40 can be taken west to US Highway 23 to NC Highway 151 to
reach Davis Creek Road. SOWE Visitors would have to drive to approximately 9 miles
down a two-lane residential road to the end of Davis Creek Road which winds through an
existing housing development before reaching the site.The access route is somewhat direct
but not well traveled.
6. The existing open area on site has multiple neighboring houses that impinge on visual and
acoustic privacy. Davis Creek Road is a quiet road and would not be heard from the project
site. However, the site is separated into multiple sections between roads and patches of
forest. An existing private driveway and house are located as an "out-parcel" within the
middle of the gentle sloping area of the site,which would be an obstacle to running SOWE.
The site would require SOWE to clear additional steep forested land for new facilities
upslope from the entrance in order to provide visual privacy from neighbors.
7. Aquatic resources on site included 43,029 linear feet of stream. A pond was already on-
site. Several streams are mapped running through the forested areas near the entrance of
the site that break up the existing open space. It is likely that stream impacts would be
required to create a contiguous open space. Some similar stream restoration opportunities
may be available on this property;however,these opportunities would be located far away
from the "core". Close proximity to Davis Creek Road and not an integral part of the built
project environment. The site has some disturbed habitats and would have offered potential
for restoration including the use of BDA's, regulatory mitigation, and riparian
establishment.
8. The site was available for sale during initial stages of the project.
This site failed to meet criteria 1, 2, 5, and 6 based on the lack of connectivity between open
spaces and the suboptimal privacy and access road through a residential neighborhood.

Preferred Alternative,Mulberry Farm—Madison County:
1. The 456-acre site contains open space of sufficient size (approximately 65 Acres) to
accommodate the planned project components.
2. The site is approximately 80 percent forested and has long range views in multiple
directions. Short range views include Price Mountain and Hopewell Ridge. The open space
is mostly contiguous in the center of the site, ideal for the SOWE layout. The site covers
three different local watersheds,offering a variety of coves,fields,and ridges with multiple
aspects.
3. Sufficient topography to accommodate building sites is present on site. Larger facilities
could be placed in the lower grade areas of the open space while smaller lodging buildings
could be placed up the slope where the grade starts to increase.
4. The site is in the Appalachian bioregion near the town of Walnut,the French Broad River,
and Pisgah National Forest. Asheville can be reach in about 35 minutes and the Asheville
Airport can be reached in about 50 minutes.
5. Visual and acoustic privacy. The"core" area of the site is surrounded by forested ridges on
all sides. A few houses are present near the service/emergency entrance of the site but are
not likely to be seen from SOWE facilities. The site provides the best visual and acoustic
privacy.
6. From Asheville,Interstate 26 can be taken west to Weaverville at which point US Highway
25 runs to the west until reaching the access road for the site. The highways that lead
directly to the site are easily accessible and well-traveled. Additionally, there is potential
for multiple access (guests/service)roads into the site.
7. Aquatic resources on site included 19,514 linear feet of stream with most development
impacts avoidable. Restoration potential of aquatic resources from past agricultural activity
can be used as an example and learning opportunity for SOWE attendees. Several culverts
are proposed for removal and using BDA's for ecosystem enhancement will recreate a
dynamic hydrology that was once experienced throughout the region.
8. The site was available for sale during initial stages of the project.
This site meets all eight criteria. This alternative was selected as the preferred alternative.
The following matrix summarizes criteria analysis for the proposed alternatives.
Site Size Forested Topography Vicinity Accessibility Visual and Aquatic Property
acoustic resources* Acquisition
Privacy
Sequoia + + + + + + + -
Barnardsville + + - + + - + +
Etowah + - + + + - +/- -
Mt Pisgah + + + + +/- - +/- +
Mulberry + + + + + + + +
+indicates favorable criteria.—indicates unfavorable criteria
*Aquatic resources within Camp Sequoia, Barnardsville, and Mt. Pisgah alternatives are based on GIS data, for discussion
purposes only.Actual quantities and locations of aquatic resources on site may be different.Aquatic resources within Mullberry
Farms and Etowah alternatives were identified and mapped during a formal wetland and stream delineation using US Army Corps
of Engineers methodology.

Vicinity of Alternatives
HOT
SPRNIGS. --- ( BETHEL N
__
L- - lc,rJ
Mulberry Farms V
Proposed Alternative 25 L1AR5
HILL
213 -•
70
' N fork"
_,BARNARD LE
251 . :pitcr Rd
LUCK cr0/ 1756 2149 GIL Bernardsville Tract
as Alternative 2 2
tag hJ//'yy111' 2207 �c'�
63 ALERAND WEAVE RVILLE O\�e'
0 1003 2109
/'
•
r _
LEICESTER 183 ` .r
'yP ofk j Camp Sequoyah NALKERTOW
�`<P� R Nt� ac`aN Alternative 1 MO RE
Cest 'ol� 1,9 c4,0 694'.. g
ey 11
�° 1t RIDGEC1
J. (ti ,,,NiSt3lc . BLACK
A0.HEYILLE / —U10UNTAIN
,} Tu 1 '+�a10 Si'ANNhi40ti
> -- __ �J 74--�� ram J_`
cyl��_ CANT91 23 .... 1,7• '112 ` J ~
\hA0`' CANDLER 191' ?t1) \_______C6
11 �^= � FAIRVIEVJ °A!c
Mt. Pisgah /Candler NYLAND AI s--''y
BETHEL 151 Alternative 4 �G . a
146 ROYAION 0.ERTON
PINES .ARDEN
Ashevill K,
276 R9nIAi •r, BAT CA:'E°
FLEI }ER
a CRUSO 1
j
a \\\ i 25
O
0
N., A\\PLES
LT 1k46 yaywo M1�11�ITjg1N k Rcl
R �
°�`y�°c °a/?n �1AE\� \ ��eY
\�o
_ j 0 HOLLY HORSE \` C\
t JSPRINGS SHOE PI EHU'RST
280 •ti 1h, �:•..1.•
t64' DANA
E TOV3AH
-
2 [ I Selected Alternativetk' i' Etowah Tract/Seven Falls
„JO • Alternative 3
Alternative Sites NerW°
N ' `
0 2 4 8
Counties - ' —_a -
r --,•-, ra--� Miles
Drawn by:TJK 4.5.21;CEC Project#1025 • w F1,11 • '
Madison, Buncombe, CLearWater Alternative Sites
and Henderson Counties, Overview
North Carolina 145 7th Avenue W;Suite B Figure 1
Hendersonville NC 28792

On-Site Project Alternatives
The location of the proposed BDAs in the central portion of the property makes them a defining
feature of the"Core Village"area. Four options were evaluated to determine which best meets the
needs/purpose of the project. Options that were considered included:
• Option 1- Do Nothing.
• Option 2- Convert to Agriculture.
• Option 3- Create amenity ponds.
• Option 4- (Preferred alternative) Construct Beaver Dam Analogue (BDA) Complex.
Selection criteria for evaluating proposed alternatives is as follows:
A. SoWe Mission: The chosen alternative must be one that can be utilized by the residents to
achieve the SoWe Mission, which is to provide a supportive environment where
individuals can work on self-improvement based on an enlightened and harmonious
relationship with the Earth.
B. Economic Feasibility: The chosen alternative should meet criteria at a reasonable cost and
create an opportunity to meet the SoWe mission.
C. Construction Feasibility: The chosen alternative must be able to be constructed and
function as proposed.
D. Natural Resource Improvement: The chosen alternative should go beyond simply avoiding
impacts to natural resources to the maximum extent practicable. The chosen alternative
should be regenerative with the purpose of improving natural resource function.
Alternatives Analysis
• Option 1 Do nothing: In this option, the existing streams and wetlands would remain as-
is, and the valley would become pasture/field.This option was excluded because it does not
actively serve the mission of SoWE. The site would not be suitable to be utilized for
education or enjoyment in a degraded state. Streams and wetlands would remain in an
impaired state, on a trajectory of further degradation, with no proposed additional impact.
Eventually bank stabilization would be required at a minimum to protect eroding banks.
This does not meet the project criteria of improving natural resources.
• Option 2 Continue Agricultural Use: In this option, the existing streams and wetlands
would remain as-is and the valley would continue to be used for agricultural uses such as row
crop, grazing or orchards. The site could potentially be suitable for education in sustainable
agricultural practices; however, the water resources would not suite this in their current
degraded state. The construction feasibility is achievable in this case and there are several
examples of sustainable agricultural systems implemented locally. However, the location
of fields is so small and implementation of stream buffers with sustainable agriculture
would provide almost no practical room for agriculture. Streams and wetlands would remain
in an impaired state, on a trajectory of further degradation, with possible water quality
impacts from more intensive land use. This does not meet the project criteria of improving
natural resources. This option was excluded because it incompletely addresses the SoWE
mission.
• Option 3 Create amenity ponds: In this option, one or several amenity ponds would be
constructed with conventional non-porous, earthen fill dams. The November 18, 2019 site
plan(Figure 8)prosed proposed 3 ponds. The largest proposed dam would have measured
over 18 vertical feet. This option was excluded because of the negative environmental

effects of traditional amenity ponds on stream temperature, aquatic passage, and water
quality and would therefore be
contrary to the mission of SoWE. Costs associated with constructing a conventional dam
design is significantly greater than the costs associated with constructing a BDA. The
Construction feasibility is moderate to low in this case, requiring intensive ongoing
maintenance to keep open water accessible to guests. Amenity ponds would not qualify
for an agricultural exemption for construction online with the channel. However, if built
online as shown in the November 18, 2019 site plan, it would result in approximately
1,695 linear feet of permanent inundation of streams. Though the construction of amenity
ponds would increase the quantity of open water, they would not be considered natural
waters, and would be managed for recreation rather than ecosystem services. A pond
currently exists on site and is programmed by SoWe for aesthetic use. This does not meet
the project criteria of improving natural resources.
• Option 4 Preferred alternative, Construct BDA complex: This option was chosen
because it meets all of the alternatives selection criteria. The alternative was chosen as it is
favorable to the mission of SoWE by providing the opportunity for harmonious relationship
building with natural earth processes. The economic feasibility is favorable, with
comparatively inexpensive installation requirements when compared to creating amenity
ponds. The construction feasibility is favorable as the proposed construction is a dynamic
system that functions in congruence with natural processes.The proposed BDA complex
would improve habitat function within aquatic ecosystems on site. Modification of the
degraded channel to a stream-wetland complex would increase quantity and improve quality
of aquatic habitat. Recent and considerable interest and implementation of BDA ecosystem
habitat restoration is a paradigm shift away from standard "steam reach" (pattern, profile,
and dimension) restoration and provides significant missing components of stream
ecosystem restoration (ground water recharge, sediment collection, woody debris, and
naturally aggrading entrenched channels). In many parts of the country, these BDA
features are not considered to be an environmental impact and are frequently built without
the needs for obtaining regulatory permits.
Summary of Proposed Alternatives Criteria
Criteria A: Criteria B: Criteria C: Criteria D:Natural
Alternative Option SoWe Mission Economic Construction Resources
Feasibility Feasibility Improvement
Option 1: Do O O O
Nothing
Option 2: Convert to -
Agriculture
Option 3: Construct
Amenity Ponds - - - -
Option 4: (Proposed
Alternative) + + + +
Construct BDA
Complex

DRAWING INDEX 11/18/2019
•
Title
/. Al1/ PROJELT LOLATION Sheet No. SITE PLAN,VICINITY MAP,GENERAL NOTES
ENLARGED SITE PLAN
� f AM ENLARGED SITE PLAN
S
OWNER.CHARLES DEAiON MADDOX „ AM ENLARGED SITE PLAN
PIN Bl999B1699 // 7 AM ENLARGED SITE PLAN
AG.65A4 '/ // // ) \ r- �\ AM ENLARGED SITE PLAN
//-/ // / GED SITE PLAN
/ / \ _I--
_- r i
/ / / / // / / ` t 43 ROAD RLAYOUT DIAGRAM
< ^p/ j /�� /% i \\ \�' A2.XX RECEPTIONPo
/' / /' O,j /// /' // / / �� } , A3.XX BACK OF HOUSE z rc
/ ) / ;a 0 / / / \ £ A4.XX SERVICE BUILDING
/ �Yb / / ��\\ �S' A5.XX MEETING HALL a f
/ ) / / ,e� /� / /!\\ PARCELS FOR SPECIAL USE
// / / / 0' __�/ �— `'' PERMIT ZONING APPLICATION �_ AB.XX EVENT CENTER
/ / ! / // ,gym ( \,'`` (SHADED IN GREEN) �` A7 XX DINING HALL
N// / / / / / / V00' j// r� y N A8.XX HEALING CENTER N
a o 0
/ / / / / / / / ypyo-�-- — �� — !�\ PARCELS OWNED BY MULBERRY O VICINITY MAP A9.xx GYM _
/ ) / / ( / // /�\V / FARM-MADI50N LLC(NOT PART Ato.xx SAUNA
___�� OF ZONING APPLICATION,SHADED
\ / / J r i ry�p0 —��' j/ ,rn>_�.9. \ =,( N GRAY) \ A11.XX SCHOOL OF EARTH STUDIES MEETING HALL
/ / r _ / /^\ 4 .\`T _ / Al2.XX SCHOOL OF EARTH STUDIES HOUSING AREA
/
. I / / <) �/ �/ �( l� �� ��/ Al XX CCI IDOL or LARTIIsruDlLS LOU1MLwT sroRACL
/ \ \ \ V A OWNER TRUSTEE OF
. 3 / ( / ( \ \ \ \`/�_\ .�\ `— , /, `� - _ 1 wILLIAM S.LOWND[5 A14.XX SCHOOL OF BUSINESS WISDOM
\ \ \ \ �� _ PIN.Bl9B9 B1911 / A15.XX SCHOOL OF HEALING&ENLIGHTENMENT
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ _ \ 3 ( I OWNER SANNYANS GENE PAYNE AG 11A4 /
V \
vV A A\ ---------------\ 1 V v \ ��'�-`�� PIN.Bl999az6BB At B.xx CABINS
\ \ \ \_ __ \ \`e AG 1199 • OWNER WENSY KIRKLANSANS HUSBAND
•
PIN 5195951019 /
AO Saw Al7YX VP CABINS Ej
�� '11/4o \I V A�� vo \� // 1 O V v _�/�\) \��o / / OWNER WENDY KRKLANDAND HUSBAND OAN
\ y \ \ j Ato.rX HAY 'CN\SS o
o \ / \,-, PIN.Bl9BB11194 QE
\\ / �- aawa A1sr owslTrLooclwc ��
CO
VER TAWANAR / �/ / /� r -
ROUSON RAFSEY \ / / ' ---� '�^ / \ \ /� 1 '.�\ // �� / A20.YX HOHN RESIDENCE 0
Zgszlzs9zz /� 00 / /// � �� \V A ���—/ A\ �— \—_--V,v�\ - v w v �:
��v/� v v ��- PROJECT ADDRESS
1 .� yh / / PIN.Bl9B695055 ° / \_—'�\ \\ �23 / }-- ~ _O
/ „, s / /—�_—�Ac 20415 V / o / N. -- ///'/! -Li"-\'---, 3°— A ��\ �\ _ /' 1���.: 1126 Upper Thomas Branch Road
/ / /ry m/ / —� // / / \�—/'1 \\ / / /\// \7s--,� ••� J ' \_ —+ \ ��l \ — _—_-- , \ l \ I Marshall,NC 28753 N o O
/ / / 0° i./ h / / A 1 �1 moo\ 2s v.�/' �z\I__8/ ,,,,,,,./ // i„..,8" // /— N 8/ 8-
\ V A %/ :-.
• OWNER U o
/ 0 0 v� A rC \ Mulberry Farm Madison LLC .0 co N
0
/ v--, I /rya A ) i!?` / �� / ���zaso tl c
// — V I -� A_ / \ V�� - 251 Little Falls Drive C
\ / `-..... /! a o 4 \ \ \ P /\/ ..\ i-''1 -.-*_ =_ _ --, \— - -i_ / \ l /`—_ Wilmington,DE 19808 m N c6
/// // /i �\ /'/ ) m0/� % / � A•
_• _ V Count of New Castle Q
/ ro �'\ ��( zas •2400-' y it a`
t, �_ / o oSeD WATER Z eie 19b91 �� ARCHITECTS ` o
\/ // aa /—��� \ / sxoaa6euak--- - -- -�. --� .�_�� k --z, �_ psi'_ )--25so--2..-- N CO
' / _/ \ �_` T 1 ,,(25 GALLON, / �- \ \ _ Cutler Anderson Architects O
/ o/ �� ! \ / ,—�/ Contact Ran Botkins C >
\ \\ o \ .�-1� \ — l - A�_ / \_�� NV — �� \ Bainbridge Island,WA 98110 I._ 0
J2 ° 1 _- l •
--- Voice zos.84z.4710 N dcr5
\� `,v ��— \\ 15p I // )' EXISTING LHIMNEY �\ _ -.\ \ yam_<r\ /` -j‘,.. / \ \ �'�- /,-� \t-\ y2250-' Fax [phone] f�
�� s / V ) / \ A — \ _ A \ _ EARTH STUDIES 1�_—� W V / Email [e-mail] M
( / / ( / d \ LABINS(S UNITS) �� \ —� U x- d W
\ ) /c' 1 LODGING UNITS ��'� 1 • � 1' l 1 � ��ssoo-
�� VIP LABIN TO BE DESIGNED 15 LODGING UNITS J �\ l 1 '•' -$� EARTH STUDIES �-� Y / Harding AfehiteCSure&Design
���A � � \V--�PROPOSED NEW /MEETING HALL H," s a v �V Contact:Chad Harding
g 2s I I WELL RLo ATION, 1 �� o,
--
PROPOSED TANK
\ � A 1 \ .. / A� ,/ ?' OWNER J PPERY� Ash Forest Hill Drive
` \ 1 \ \ / ''.��,OWNER.''-" Y 0 Asheville,NC 28803
\ 1 GALLON / ) _
\-- % _ STORA6�) - \ \ \ �) - AARON IJESSGA AARON JE551CA
000
/ / � � /45 X 10 / ,. _ A V A V A / j- x0 xocz Voice 828.333.9018
\ \\ y -- /I -�$ ,,A 1LODGING UNITS i'-` V= - E �' PIN'5194110939 Email chad hardin ad.com
f \ \\ `ice \ ^ / 1'\ \\4../-- "%� / \ '.�. \ \ \ \\ ' \\\..`1 - ,. ®' \' i � ..Bl9B1B0139 AC..1511 @ g-
..�\ - \ \ \f 1 —/ \ �"'.y. _ )� \ \ \ ` Y\ �1. / / ( f� v /'— 191 j OPARMJIT WNER EDWARDI
J \ _ — _ t PIN519561 5EN5iEIN
�� co
l� N \ r i / aa0 s STRUCTURAL ENGINEER
\ _ - ��; IN OM � /�Nv �. _ I Av i C CK
o
/ i AI '—, �WSDOM OF
�� �� N Madden&Baughman Engineering 0 -
2LOD61N6 UNITS -
( y L _ Contact:Jerome Madden,P.E. t
.� '1 1 / ) ,, _ /�/ir/ OWNER DONAEDWArnE
N d ( � 1 -I \ \ •" Bu5INE55 ^�:� , - °� IKEzwx MAE HOHLER 815 SW 2nd Avenue,Suite 350 -0 2
�yo \`,/ rTi/.,- � a\\, -\ '� SLIENLE EXI5TIN6 STREAM '-INc-a•r - / -��\p`,Bi56Blb1 Portland,OR 97204 (0 cL
/ II N u - \ :E ABANDONED - Q j / 503.236.7611 t m
' ✓ o \ NEW POND •.,I OP
/ \ PROPOSED NEW WELL / & �\ 503.236.9411f
OWNER.JAMESA RAMSEY I % % %L \ �ELO MALHNE ��` 1 C N
PIN Bl99sznsB �'•, 1 / "� erome maddenbau hman.com O
1 ( ' % �" 1 �� / %LOOATION,PER HYDRO // =P OWNER \ OWNER DONALD 1 @ g
AC 6524 \, ` '� � GEOLOGIST C
Q ^\ \ \ -\ \ \ / 0�� PIN 51956565, / \\. WAYNE I KEZAH
\� \ \ ��. VIP LABIN TO BE DESIGNED ----- Ij� _/ AG.iD4 \\ PINBl9B6LB614 C D_ O CO
11111:.
�/ A V oLOD6IN6UNT5 ) /— Aa1 9 CIVIL ENGINEER al N
) �e Er15TIN6 POND �.� ./ \ \ PARCELS BY MULBERRY ,_, H (..)
a \\\\�—, \ U SLHOOL OF HEALING \EXI5TIN6 STREAM �` �'' I LODGING UNITS// \ FARM-MADISON LLG(NOT PART z
\�> 1 `1aJ \ \ ) AND ENLIGHTENMENT \ HAY BARN / -� o/ T�tt, l OF ZONING APPLICATION,SHADED Blue Earth Planning,Engineering,and Desl n,PC �� ❑_
\� 1\\)\\ \ \ I A\ 0I Ff _ ING HALL /j.0`'-. •
\�, IN GRAY) 9 Q
p I ,y Contact Tim Ormand,P.E. �j �j ,,
1 / 1 Haywood Street,Suite 414 _Q L
( \ rtlil # ENT E fER vw
1 7�I,� 1 , \ ( WHOLENESS �" z eqp � EXISTING POND Asheville,NC 28801 N i
�� 1 V —� 3� a ■ :ETN6HALL Dcz
/ ( ( ����� / 828.989 8075 t 2 2 7— 2
\ / V `:, - x """'� [e-mail]
d 11 \ \�� \ -- o i �� ` /!\ / \ .` // PAC 101
INBl9B6B14BB ©Cutler Anderson Architects
I ����',s ) \ \ v V / l °° A �� (� LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
\ l X _1 a/ j l� \ \ / ' EXISTING STR' / "X 1 i_PIN 519.51199 !1
..\ , \\\l \\ \ ` \\_` a,,0 / / /\ /r I 1 - S / )\\ •I..1 AG..109 LL
a o \ A� V ` \ V / _ �/ / ) / / V A\ RELEPTION Osgood Landscape Architecture,Inc(OLA) Q
\ r/ / \ PIN.5195691351 \ l C
/- - ( 4 STALLSRKIN6 • Osgood,
t� \.` \,\\ \\ \ \ /// j/ . i �\ I AG.SBO \\ \ �p) r\I� AG 8113 bB0181 14 ChUrCh$tr t LA G
( A s • y Asheville,NC 28801
Y \ A \ - I/ \ rto PIN 51955591 Bb
m \ T
���� A \ 4'_, l/ J PIN.5195596292 1 `"( \� \ o ••� ,� Ac.0"95
828.527.6466t
��L_�• � A V � \V /7/ Acb"lB I A o os oodla.com- �_ A v ••SERVI E YARD LAST , / @ g Z (p
\��. - / BARN AND(26) � ti. 1 �,\_ /. l PIN Bl9B6B0611\ / \ / PARKIN65TALL5 J `\ \ lT, i\ AG.alB w� :_�_ ��T / ( ( (INLL.2ADA) / A '9`''./i J PINBl9B5BB5BBDESIGN CRITERIA—
o ` � N. i� \\ ▪ c� / Site Area: Total owned by Mulberry Farm LLC:291.88 acres Q J
4 _C�.. _ (31)PARKIN eor
G
=---5_ / o Total for SUP Zoning Application:234.31 acres
��-i_ _ �� ,n o STALLS I
\ OWNER JRC NCF uc �!X---' " (IN0..4 AI Lot Coverage: 66,748 sf(0.6%) 0_
PIN 5199405553
�� /� %'� W
o '\ AC.6950 .\-, o PIN.5195555962 / j�c-�2= Zoning Group: RA w
�/ AC 6so /, v/' 11 Building height: 35'-0"max. I— W
\\ \\ / //'/OWNER CHEYENNE IDEBRA EVANS j Setbacks: Front:50'-0"min.from DOT, (n (�
• PIN.Bl9B5Bsan 40'-0"min.from private road
Ta / Side:30'-0"min.
��,�% Rear:40'-0"min.
Parking: Required: 114 Al .1
_ NN _ MASTER SITE PLAN Provided: 114
SLALE:1"=200' +51 overflow
Figure 8 PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION NOTE Do not scale drawings

Attachment F
Operation & Maintenance Manual
for
Beaver Dam Analog Stream-Wetland Complex

Operation & Maintenance Manual
For Beaver Dam Analog Stream-
Wetland Complex
Prepared for
The School of Wholeness
& Enlightenment
Madison County, NC
July 8, 2021
41)1°
NRobinsone 'I
Engineers

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION 4
2. OBJECTIVES 5
2.1 SUPPORT WATER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT 5
2.2 PROVIDE FORAGE AND SHELTER FOR WILDLIFE 6
2.3 PROVIDE BEAUTIFUL AND INSPIRING SCENERY 7
3. MONITORING 8
3.1 BDA WEIR INSPECTIONS 8
3.2 HYDROLOGIC MONITORING 8
3.3 HYDRAULIC MONITORING 9
3.4 ALIGNMENT AND TEXTURE MAPPING 9
3.5 SEDIMENT MAPPING 9
3.6 WOOD MONITORING 10
3.7 PHYSIOCHEMICAL MONITORING 10
3.8 VEGETATION MONITORING 10
3.9 INVASIVE SPECIES MONITORING 11
4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT 12
4.1 BDA WEIRS 12
4.2 VEGETATION PERFORMANCE 12
4.3 TEMPERATURE PERFORMANCE 12
5. REPORT PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL 13
REFERENCES 13

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: ❑
APPENDIX B: ❑

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 4
1. INTRODUCTION
❑ ❑
E ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 5
2. OBJECTIVES
•
•
2.1 Support Water Quality Improvement

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 6
2.2 Provide forage and shelter for wildlife
❑ ❑

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 7
Lawn habitat Meadow habitat ,a
m
-wr.nM-.k,L ...... \ - .
Lf
• ' ..,......„...
^~' •, / r,._. -;fir 0..
1
1
-- ate_' `T
„4n `"' r .
...7/ 4
Figure 1. ❑
E ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
2.3 Provide beautiful and inspiring scenery
O O
. 0 0 0

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 8
• ❑ ❑
3. MONITORING
3.1 BDA Weir Inspections
3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 9
3.3 Hydraulic Monitoring
3.4 Alignment and Texture Mapping
1 ❑
❑ ❑
11
❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
3.5 Sediment Mapping

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 10
❑ ❑❑
3.6 Wood Monitoring
3.7 Physiochemical Monitoring
❑❑
3.8 Vegetation Monitoring

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 11
❑ ❑ ❑❑
❑ ❑
3.9 Invasive Species Monitoring
❑ O
❑ O
❑ O
O
O
O O
0

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 12
❑ O
O O
❑ O O
O
O
4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
❑ - 1 ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
4.1 BDA Weirs
❑ - ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
4.2 Vegetation Performance
4.3 Temperature Performance

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 13
5. REPORT PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑ ❑
REFERENCES
❑❑ ❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑❑ ❑
❑ ❑
❑ ❑

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Temperature Measurement Locations
LEGEND
TMA ExISnNG WETLANDS
TBSB E%LSTNG STREAM CENTERLINE
PROPCGCONTOO
-PROPOSEDCNTOUR
' PROPOSED BDA
UR
MAX POTENTAL
y N ..„� 1 \ INUNDATION EXTENTS
PROPOSED
r\4......_ IMPERMEABLE MAT:RLAL
e
t i '*: 'N4 --r--------PROPOSED WALMNG PATH
Thl..°1•064 4J e \ \ \t.
7
U...7111\ 1
\t/466
AA 4 -- PI ' e 1 )
411„, ' IN.,,,..4,,!‘r.i/ Pi"TBO: )
ommiwillisylle
C
II%\ '-} iltAkUirt
'UV iiEtik r Arlo il u \, .....1
...At NI k
e , ) r Bt
_ --:
,_
, ‘ . ,,,,,,,,, _ , \\ \
III I II ��
IL I L 61

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
#441
I ;iiii,
\ 1 9216 r�''
,k5
,, ,,
..,, -,,,,„
, ,\ ..,,,,
,4
\\
`11 - IL
,:„...,3/4.
_,.. ..44,.....,,,, .. ...,,,fti...„.....„.
\ * , ,
40,-,
°it1%®i..„-.,:z1, -,...„...„. „..,,
�=' i
,,,,,. ,
.. ,.,.:.
,4c<,
,ito
.0)
, „ . _ ., 4,..
1,,k N
,,, ,o,__
TB1-2 Plots -O 11 �
t.tril
1 I 1t1S14 _ Lig 'a
4
.11 I ; 4; ‘ ;ti 1 1-I 177 N' r
as, I ____ , ell la
toor,'4).4 \-4;,,z,„tA aik,_ ___
6, u,..1
r;:,r. .„-\.\ -. 1
6' I�
..
----''''air_____-.4.111A1- PriiiiilMil
9A1 I� -`- 1
- -3��� • 00\ LJfIi
111W,
H
riNk,c,,
---L \;t1M/SkiiP;14/ :
'�'�). 1 i
TB3-4 Plots -p 1-1, �

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Transects
$ \
\ ilir' \ -
*Of 4 ,
dill At*wit_ i
V
il
44 'Ba \ '#,4
r...,2„.... •S - 1
vifilL il V-5.,...1_,-
..... * 4.k'' --4
,_,
TB5 Plots -O 1-1o
Aiiii)V-
____ \
1
INII__,,,,,.... ..41 . N.- ,,,N4.
f --
�idri0
f
ll
9A i0
�i
„
TB6 Plots -O 1-10

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Transects
i , j
# W V7 ,y LI ,.,
iViiiii0 ..%ii.w_ l' Alb v. c) .,
, p,, .., .i, im___4111611001 /00,,/
bI \o a¢
40,06( -c.tr--,. ...... iipii:,-2-ib. .,
HB4 Plots -O 11 �

Appendix B: Target Invasive Species
Japanese barberry (Berberis thunberg/i) Asian bittersweet (Ce/astrus orbicu/ata)
444. ...- . "•
me
c .,,,,,,, to.•a.: , •
'-' /Ole • r '' ' ..' '
0 1 ,awr :, ' ' .,,,_ :--A: •• '.'..- : 61:61. 1';1".'..''''i' . *.:E.;'
r ' I A' -* ..4, -‘.11,,„ :,.... * -4, .. .. . , . .. . .:
rif . 1 .I 6 ak:
Creamy white The bright red C. orbculata in flower C. orbculata's red
flowers appear in berries of B. - After flowering, berries appear in late
Spring. Spines are thunbergii persist orange-yellow fall to winter.
present along the through winter. capsules appear.
stem.
Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata) Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense)
'
it ' 1y1k,
4. 1 .- , 11\a‘41‘
f,� , „-...,1*--%,1"; "I-2,,*t 0 / 0' :\ _ , ,aF - '(S/ ...,1a \ \,
.,,,_
W . 1= 1_ .. ,
White to pale yellow, E. umbellata fruits L. sinense has Berries of L. sinense
fragrant flowers are brown to red white flowers and are green in summer
form in early summer. with brown to silvery an opposite leaf and turn dark blue by
Leaves are alternate. specks. arrangement. late fall.
Royal paulownia (Paulownia tomentosa) Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora)
•�1 tie -" ., j
5
` 3 '%.
t`
1 ■E •
',conk '. ' . ,At to .-e, ior •
- Jr_ 14 it ill — > - 5' VGA512'
P. tomentosa P. tomentosa leaves R. multiflora has Red fruits form at
flowering structure grow in an opposite white flowers. The the end of summer.
leaf arrangement in leaves are alternate
sets of two. compound, and
leaflets are arranged
opposite one
another.

Appendix B: Target Invasive Species
Goat willow (Salix caprea)
is4
S. caprea have broad Male catkins are grey
elliptic to oblong and oval shaped and
leaves that are dark become yellow when
green on top ripe with pollen

Attachment G
Stream Enhancement Plan

c Copyright 2020
These drawings are the property of
aggal
Robinson Design Engineers and may not
LOG VANE be relied upon or reproduced without the
PERMEABLE LARGE WOODY express, written consent of Robinson
Design Engineers.
47°m'— -
RIVER-LEFTSHALL TREMAINOE OF BANK SEE DETAILS SHEET C802
UNDISTURBED DEBRIS STRUCTURES
REPLACE CULVERT
& CONSTRUCT ROUNDABOUT
(SEE MERCER PLANS)
FIP- " 11.11111FAIS Aiii.Wfr OF
1,1,1,0 1 1 p r
N -.a m 1 i i iid .I"II I 11 &-g .°I I I
z _.,,. i..i m m _______,..•.in i in a i.•..•ii i i.i i.m 1 r,_ ,....,,w No w
il 7
,,,...........„,,_+
.1 I 1°M..I"Mil"I 64.Mil I 11 I e
7
_ _
y777
// yy
7
, ,, , __ I___ 10.
_ _ ____
_,
y __
_____
,_
// /
/- __47
_ _
IMINIMIk:_r__‘._ ---
Al
1 • ,,,,, , s_ , a _
_ _ _ _ _
_ _ _
RIVER-RIGHT TOE OF BANK �_ _ ► °
_ _ _
111!
INSTALL SHALLOW REVETMENT ±240LF / ���� �� �
PER DTLS SHEET C802
---- ---- { ,
N
E
C
-"""IIII IIIIIIIIMIN NI
a)DEMOLISH EXISTING ROADWAY AND
EXCAVATE IN-SET FLOODPLAIN
PROPOSED ROADWAY W-0
PROPOSED ROADWAY
cZ
DEMOLISH EXISTING ROADWAY AND 2
PROPOSED STRUCTURE EXCAVATE IN-SET FLOODPLAINC15 c a)
0 - a)
IN-SET FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS SCALE 1" = 20
0
IN-SET FLOODPLAIN EXTENTS ift20 1 o 0 I a! L
6rPROPOSED TOP OF BANK /'�� L CD. O 0
1
ECD en oz
(-7) U (z
PLAN = Cl)
2
%-
o _c co
W I-
RDE Project No: 20310
Submittal: Concept Plans
7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00 Date: 2020-05-18
Revisions:
2020-08-24 dam-height reduction
2,000 2020-10-20 TB revisions
2020-10-30 HB revisions
2021-01-15 PCN submittal
1,995
2021-07-08 WoUS revisions
LOG VANE -
PERMEABLE LARGE WOODY 1,990
DEBRIS STRUCTURES ENGINEER
SEE DETAILS SHEET C802 - 1,985 Robinson Design Engineers NC C-3863
Philip Ellis, PE NC 39870
_ EXISTING THALWEG -- 1,980 129 3rd Avenue West
Hendersonville, NC 28792
_ www.robinsondesignengineers.com
--- 1,975
__ _ Preliminary Drawings
- --.— - CULVERT 1,970
I I I I I I - I I
II
1,965 Plan & Profile
I I I I I I
7+00 8+00 9+00 10+00 11+00
PROFILE HORIZONTAL SCALE: 1"=20' C 1 03
VERTICAL SCALE: 1"= 10'

WETLAND MEADOW PLANTING ZONE
BELOW GRADE BREAK c Copyright 2020
GRADE BREAK DELINEATES VEGETATION SPECIES These drawings are the property of
A Robinson Design Engineers and may not
ORIENT MOST LOGS be relied upon or reproduced without the
RIPARIAN PLANTING ZONE express, written consent of Robinson
s ABOVE GRADE BREAK SUCH THAT ROOT-WA)IS
iz -' J
WITHIN CHANNEL& Design Engineers.
.: POINTING UPSTREAM
- :,._ LOG SPECIES SHALL BE SELECTED FROM DURABILITY TABLE
�Y. LOG LENGTH SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO REACH ABOVE
EXCAVATED FLOODPLAIN(TYP) �—"° '�� EXISTING GRADE
. 1. CHANNEL INTO UPLANDS AND/OR BURIED
TOP WIDTH VARIES ► / ttOr 1
BOl`TQM WIDTH VARIES ► .,
. 0.,,..0: *61 A
------- • "Itii, 4,04 -..iilliiiiiiiiiiiii„„,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,....,,,,,,,,,,,,....
,----- - 40 7 iiiii i''
"''' 4 0 ,, ,lit ,i , 1414'411PP-IIINMPIL
c! III lit,o.tml
,01 ' �Es�3
NI 1111 0/ i i i �i/Ifl�� J\IJ �<URUN ' kt io
�- - MIX OF BURRIED LOGS&
��i�� II ulii li I di Hill, lk/ / / / // >/> > >\ /
VARIES(121 MAX) �i��/��/��/��/�����/��/�����/� LOGS REACHING INTO FLOODPLAIN
�� / l
�� ��acc LARGEDIAMETERTREES
%� r � � SEQUENCE AND EROSION CONTROL
12"MINIMUM LARGE STONE HEIGHT;�i��i��i�����i��i�� CHANNEL BANKS The work shall proceed in a manner that creates the most minimal amount of disturbance to the creek. The following guidelines will be used to WITH ROOT-WAD ATTACHED
ON 3"THICKNESS BEDDING STONE\'\'����i�%�%�%�i<i� T�����\��o BUILT WITH COIR MATTING SOIL LIFTS protect the receiving waterbody.
� 1. The work shall be performed in dry-weather conditions. In the event of rainfall and/or high flows in the stream, the work will be stabilized Q
�������� and put on-hold until baseflow conditions return.
UNDISTU %��%��%��%��� �, 2. Large equipment will not track-through the creek; large machinerywill be operated from the topof bank, reachingdown to excavate and 0 �4
BED MATERIf � `�" gg p SINGLE PIECE OF LARGE WOOD I/.r�'A
manipulate the proposed revetment. IN EXPANSION AREA I111 ` I
3. The work will proceed in a manner that minimizes turbidity pollution.The stone toe and chinking layers will be constructed first, creating a
SHALLOW REVETMENT windrow-barrier between the disturbed bank and the creek bed.
4. Portions of the existing channel bed may be adjusted to over-excavate for the proposed revetment. This excavated bed substrate shall be 404 0.1
,,...iirl let' OT
re-used within the revetment as chinking-material. A
�n�
5. Damage to the creek bed and river-right bank shall be avoided. 7/ ° 11.11111.11M o�
-o
LOW-FLOW NOTCH CUT INTO TRU - """""
SCHEMATIC PLAN SCHEMATIC SECTION
r- ENHANCEMENT REACH TYPICAL SECTION LOG VANE
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM SCALE: 1"=5' B
PERMEABLE LARGE WOODY DEBRIS NTS
/7116N47r
0
_ of
Ca I - 21'�
+-+
C
a)
OO h
C
cu
0)
C
w
C
al
9- 2
LIVE STAKES CZ C 0
z
co O C
LIVE BRUSH LAYERING BETWEEN EACH LIFT o }'
0
APPROXIMATELY 10-15 LIVE BRANCHES PER LINEAR FOOT ri El/o 0
BRANCHES SHALL BE APPROXIMATELY 4'IN LENGTH AND 1/2"TO 2"IN DIAMETER ~ \ 0
CONFORM TOP SOIL LIFT TO WATER GENEROUSLY BEFORE INSTALLING SUBSEQUENT LIFT ��`�/ �/ �//,,/V COIR EROSION CONTROL MATTING /1
GRADED BENCH z �/� 0
m APPROVED SPECIES FOR BRUSH LAYERING: / / / / i CC 0
L ����������� ��'� 1S.y FACE OF COIR MATTING STUFFED WITH LESS POROUS MATERIAL
o
ri 1. PLANTANUS OCCIDENTALIS ("AMERICAN SYCAMORE") � // ///�/��41-1' E 0 Z
2. SALIX NIGRA ("BLACK WILLOW") / / /�j/ CD 0 0
7,..... 3. SALIX SERICEA ("SILKY WILLOW") �iV/ V/ V/ V/ V/ V/ V/ LOWER EDGE OF COIR EROSION CONTROL MATTING + '
sr y� 4. CORNUS AMONUM ("SILKY DOGWOOD") EXISTING BANK /V �/ /�/\ KEYED IN AND TUCKED UNDER 24"INCHES >,
X / /�// //�//�//\// / �%/ AND FOLDED UP AND OVER COMPACTED FILL SOIL Cl) V)
SOIL LIFT COMPACTED SOIL �� / / � //��//��//��// 0 N
EXCAVATED SLOPE HEIGHT /�//�//��V�/V�/ /V�/V�/V�/V� /V�/V� 2 V _c co
r /��/��/��\/\/� /\/\/\/\/ \/\ W
s ' INTERSTITIAL SPACES FILLED WITH BEDDING STO rs.y U BASEFLOW WATER SURFACE
�� \ \ gi, �X STONE RDE Project No: 20310
ii
INTERSTITIAL SPACES FILLED WITH BEDDING STONE r .y ASEFLOW WATER SURFACE/��/��/��/��/� _ tre d, iii , HEIGHT Submittal: Concept Plans
........... __4 *toe!&frelk, BEDDING STONE
p
�X STONE %/�/�/ �/�/�� EXISTING CHANNEL BED Date: 2020 05 18
likRIPRAP TOE STONE _ _ Revisions:
6"LAYER OF BEDDING STONE / POWIFIOA" HEIGHT V C it/ IF
W 0 2020 08 24 dam height reduction
� • EXISISTING CHANNEL BED FILL ALL VOIDS WITH SOIL 0 2020 10 20 TB revisions
RIPRAP TOE STONE — �� W. EXCAVATE 2020-10-30 HB revisions
/ ® Silit DEPTH 2021-01-15 PCN submittal
FILL ALL VOIDS WITH SOIL ® / * Piniark.-:iiMatt" L
� �� �
2021 07 08 WoUS revisions
EXCAVATE :::
S �4,7( ., .4.--•••„ 11 IP /11.0:::::::::
DEPTH / /Y j�
/�� L �� �� �� ��� STONE ENGINEER
/� Y� ��� i STONE INSTALLATION AND MATERIAL / SPREAD g g
� � SPECIFICATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH STONE SPECS \\��\��\��\/ Robinson Desi n En sneers NC C-3863
vSTONE Philip Ellis, PE NC 39870
�/� 129 3rd Avenue West SPREAD STONE INSTALLATION AND MATERIAL
� �� �� ��/ SPECIFICATIONS SHALL COMPLY WITH STONE SPECS Hendersonville, NC 28792
www.robinsondesignengineers.com
REVETMENT with VEGETATED SOIL LIFTS I REVETMENT with STABILIZED SLOPE Preliminary Drawings
ALTERNATIVE 1 ALTERNATIVE 2
LOOKING UPSTREAM SCALE: 1"=2' D LOOKING UPSTREAM SCALE: 1"=2'
DETAILS

c Copyright 2020
These drawings are the property of
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT STONE SIZE GRADATION FOR APPROVAL. Robinson Design Engineers and may not
2. STONE SHALL CONFORM NRCS MATERIAL SPECIFICATION#523. be relied upon or reproduced without the
express, written consent of Robinson
3. ALL STONE SHALL BE DURABLE MATERIAL FREE FROM CRACKS, BLAST FRACTURES, BEDDING, SEAMS AND OTHER Design Engineers.
DEFECTS THAT WOULD TEND TO INCREASE ITS DETERIORATION FROM NATURAL CAUSES. INSPECTIONS FOR CRACKS,
FRACTURES, SEAMS AND DEFECTS SHALL BE MADE BY VISUAL EXAMINATION. COIR FABRIC ATTACHED TO
4. STONE SHALL BE FREE FROM DEBRIS, SOIL, DUST, MOSS, OR ANY DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCE WHATSOEVER. TOP AND BOTTOM OF COIR BLOCK
5. STONE SHALL BE ANGULAR, BLOCK-LIKE (NOT ELONGATED) MATERIAL WITH THE MEDIAN DIMENSIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
(PERCENTAGE MEASURED BY WEIGHT)OUTLINED BELOW. THESE ARE MEDIAN DIMENSIONS, WHICH DENOTE THE LENGTH 47"
OF THE MIDDLE AXIS OF THE STONE. ALTERNATE AXES OF EACH STONE SHALL BE WITHIN THE STONE CLASS (I.E. NO SIDE
OF ANY STONE SHALL BE SMALLER THAN DMIN OR LARGER THAN DMAX) 5"
6. LENGTH : WIDTH RATIO OF EACH STONE SHALE BE 2 OR LESS (I.E. NO MORE THAN TWICE AS LONG AS WIDE).
7. CARE SHALL BE TAKEN WHEN HANDLING STONE TO ENSURE THE STONE REMAINS EQUALLY MIXED AND THE BOTTOM OF
THE PILE DOES NOT BECOME PROGRESSIVELY SMALLER. = R ''"-'- '
8. THE STONE SHALL CONFORM TO THE SPECIFIED GRADING LIMITS AFTER IT HAS BEEN PLACED. GRADING TESTS SHALL BE =_
PERFORMED, AS NECESSARY, ACCORDING TO ASTM D 5519, METHOD A, B, OR C, AS APPLICABLE. 8.4.44 1i1I M=-`'= 12'
9. THE SUBGRADE SURFACE ON WHICH THE STONE OR FILTER MATERIAL IS TO BE PLACED SHALL BE CUT OR FILLED AND ita, >
GRADED TO THE LINES AND GRADES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS.
10. THE STONE SHALL BE PLACED BY EQUIPMENT ON THE SURFACE AND TO THE DEPTH SPECIFIED. IT SHALL BE INSTALLED 47 12H" x 5W" COIR BLOCK
TO THE FULL COURSE THICKNESS IN ONE OPERATION AND IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO AVOID SERIOUS DISPLACEMENT OF (LENGTH VARIES, APPROX. 10')
6"FABRIC OVERLAP
THE UNDERLYING MATERIAL. THE STONE SHALL BE DELIVERED AND PLACED IN MANNER THAT ENSURES THE LARGER (FEMALE ENO)
STONES ARE EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED AND FIRMLY IN CONTACT WITH THE SMALLER ROCKS AND SPALLS FILLING THE VOIDS
BETWEEN THE LARGER STONES. SOME HAND PLACING WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE NEAT AND UNIFORM SURFACE.
11. WHERE THE ENGINEER HAS SPECIFIED FILTER, BEDDING, OR GEOTEXTILE BENEATH THE STONE, THE DESIGNATED
MATERIAL SHALL BE PLACED ON THE PREPARED SUBGRADE SURFACE AS SPECIFIED. COMPACTION OF FILTER OR PRODUCT SPECIFICATIONS:
BEDDING AGGREGATE IS NOT REQUIRED, BUT THE SURFACE OF SUCH MATERIAL SHALL BE FINISHED REASONABLY
SMOOTH AND FREE OF MOUNDS, DIPS, OR WINDROWS. FABRIC-ATTACHED COIR BLOCK SHALL BE ROLANKA BIO D-BLOCK 12-300 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT WITH THE
12. AS DIRECTED ON THE DRAWINGS, INTERSTITIAL SPACE BETWEEN STONE SHOULD BE BACKFILLED WITH THE CHINKING FOLLOWING PROPERTIES:
LAYER TO CREATE A TIGHTLY-PACKED MATRIX OF STONE ARMORING.
13. STONE SHALL BE DUMPED AND PUSHED AND TAMPED INTO PLACE WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT, CREATING A RELATIVELY HEIGHT: 12"
SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE. WIDTH: 5"
WEIGHT: 4.2 LBS/FT
TARGET AVAILABLE QUARRY
STONE CLASS SPECIFICATION SPECIFICATION
BOULDERS D15 - TBD
D50 - 1. SOIL LIFTS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED USING SUITABLE FILL SOIL THAT IS CLEAN AND FREE FROM STONES, ROOTS,CLUMPS,
D85 - STICKS,OR OTHER DELETERIOUS SUBSTANCES. FILL MATERIAL SHALL BE COHESIVE MATERIAL.
D100 -
RIPRAP D15 - TBD 2. MATERIAL SHALL BE INSTALLED IN 12"LIFTS,AND ENCAPSULATED IN COIR FABRIC AS INDICATED IN THE PLANS AND
D50 - DETAILS. EACH LIFT SHALL BE COMPACTED BY HAND UNDER OPTIMAL MOISTURE CONDITIONS.
D85 -
D100 - 3. THE FACE OF EACH LIFT SHALL BE VERTICAL OR VERY NEARLY VERTICAL. FORMS OR TEMPORARY BEAMS MAY BE
BALLAST D15 TBD REQUIRED TO ACHIEVE A VERTICAL FACE AND CONTINUOUS,SMOOTH LONGITUDINAL GRADIENT.
D50
D85 4. THE SURFACE OF THE SOIL LIFT SHALL BE PREPARED AS A SEEDBED FOR TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEED MIXES.ALL
BEDDING A D15 TBD SEED SHALL BE SOWN AND WHEAT STRAW MULCH APPLIED BEFORE COIR MATTING IS INSTALLED OVER THE LIFT. ,
D50
D85
BEDDING B D15 TBD /--
D50
BioD Block-attached to face of soil lift
D85 NTS Ta6)1JThlA J\1]
CA)
Stone Specifications ����/ @2To
C
N
E
C
N
cm
C
w
C
O Q5 CZ
C N
CD •_O N2 to 3 feet 2 to 3 feet EROSION CONTROL MATTING PER SPECIFICATIONS BELOW 11,11i.\::.\.).\.\.‘.,\,\ 4-, _
O AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTIONS O2t03feet •i • �--+
0 0 0 0 ♦♦♦•••••O.O•
\/����1//� EROSION CONTROL MATTING SHALL EXTEND TO TOP OF SLOPE • ...�., A li cc�;��// AND SHALL BE SECURED WITH STAKES AS SHOWN THIS DETAIL. ' \VA � U
Q //
yv, E O z
' .:::-_---8,___ 2 to 3 feet(measured parallel to slope) _ -
CD w
O _
\--- Min.8 inches
fn U CO
0 0 0 0 0
GRADED AND PREPARED SLOPE i
TEMPORARY&PERMANENT SEED AAA ,..) (C�
AND MULCH SHALL BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY 2in G
/eet SAC BEFORE INSTALLING MATTING(TYP) \\
/ /%/j///F , \ \\ SDbE Project No: 20310
Concept Plans
O O O O 6 TRENCH ALONG TOP OF SLOPE P
(SEE INSET DETAIL AND STAKING SPECIFICATIONS) Date: 2020 05 18
Revisions:
/// 2020-08-24 dam-height reduction
�% SPACING DIAGRAM
2020-10-20 TB revisions
COIR MATTING 2020-10-30 HB revisions
VA
C2021 01 15 PCN submittal
THE WOOD STAKE SHALL BE THE NORTH AMERICAN GREEN ECO STAKE OR 2021-07-08 WoUS revisions
///\////\//` V iiyiiii\ 71- // //</ COMPACTED APPROVED EQUIVALENT WITH THE FOLLOWING DIMENSIONS:
SQUARE \/AA//AA VAv �iIi\ y iy jA/ v BACKFILL
LIVE STAKING NOTES: CUT TOP , ; LEG LENGTH 11.00 IN (27.94 CM)
VAjAA\ VjA/
V /V/VAV AVAA/� HEAD WIDTH 1.25 IN (3.18 CM) ENGINEER
1.STAKES SHALL BE CUT AND INSTALLED ON THE SAME DAY BUDS FACING 6�� `V/�VA��/ /V�\ HEAD THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
/ %i EROSION CONTROL MATTING Robinson Design Engineers NC C-3863
2.STAKES THAT HAVE BEEN SPLIT SHALL BE REJECTED AND NOT USED FOR UPWARDS LEG WIDTH 0 60 IN (1.52 CM) (TAPERED END) Philip Ellis, PE NC 39870
CONSTRUCTION SHALL EXTEND TO TOP OF SLOPE
LEG THICKNESS 0.40 IN (1.02 CM)
3.STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH BUDS POINTING UPWARD / 129 3rd Avenue West
4.STAKES SHALL BE INSTALLED PERPENDICULAR TO BANK TOTAL LENGTH 12.00 IN (30.48 CM) Hendersonville, NC 28792
5.STAKES SHALL BE 1/2 TO 2 INCHES IN DIAMETER AND 2 TO 3 FT LONG / www.robinsondesignengineers.com
6.SPECIES SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE PURCHASE IN LIEU OF A PRE-FABRICATED STAKE,A WOODEN STAKE OF THESE DIMENSIONS
WITH A NAIL DRIVEN PERPENDICULARLY THROUGH THE TOP MAY BE
\ / TRENCH DETAIL \ SUBSTITUTED. Preliminary Drawings
COIR MATTING SHALL BE THE ROLANKA BIO-D MAT 90 OR APPROVED EQUIVALENT
ANGLE CUT WITH THE FOLLOWING PROPERTIES: DETAILS
30-45 DEG. Property Test Method Minimum Required
Weight ASTM D 3776 29 oz/SY(980 g/sq.m)
LIVE STAKING Open area Calculated 38%
COIR MATTING Thickness ASTM D 1777 0.35 in(9 mm)
B NTS D
� \ NTS