20080879 Ver 2_Mitigation Plans_20130710

MITIGATION PLAN
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
Jackson County, North Carolina
EEP Contract No. D06046 -A
EEP Project No. 92515
Savannah River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03060101
Prepared for:
o stem �
�12R CIDmi C I�
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699.1652
May, 2013 (updated from 4/08)

0
MITIGATION PLAN
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
Jackson County, North Carolina
m EEP No. D06046 -A
EEP Project No. 92515
Savannah River Basin
Cataloging Unit 03060101
Prepared for:
PROGRAM
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Ecosystem Enhancement Program
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
Prepared by:
0
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
828 -350 -1408
May, 2013 (updated from 4108)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore, enhance or preserve 5131 linear feet (LF) of
stream along Logan Creek. The project site is located in Jackson County, approximately three miles east of
Cashiers. The project is on property owned by the Cow Rock Development Corp. and was previously held by
the Jennings family for many years. The lands along the stream and in the surrounding area were logged 60
to 80 years ago. Since that time various agricultural enterprises were conducted, including an apple orchard,
trout farming, mink farming and livestock grazing; however, most of the land has been maintained as a forest.
Cow Rock and Laurel Knob are sheer granite cliffs that create a box canyon that surrounds this property. The
present landowners are actively developing the property as an exclusive, "environmentally friendly ", low
density residential development.
This version of the restoration plan is a revision of the original report submitted and approved by NCEEP in
2008. The revision was necessitated by a U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps) determination that a limited
number of linear feet of existing stream were available on the site for this project. The limitation on available
stream footage was the result of on -site mitigation by the landowners in violation of the option agreement
they signed with Baker. This violation resulted in legal action being taken by Baker to settle damages to our
ability to deliver the contracted stream footage. During the settlement of this action Cow Rock agreed with
the Corps to provide additional stream footage on an adjoining parcel to meet part of their mitigation
requirement. In so doing, additional stream footage was freed up for Baker's project. The following revised
report reflects the maximization of the stream footage available, to provide the greatest number of stream
mitigation credits based on what the Corps has determined is available and the needs that exist on the
available stream footage.
The net results of the necessary changes are that the quantity of preserved stream footage is greatly reduced.
An upper enhancement reach was eliminated due to the loss of most of that reach and a restoration approach
is now proposed from the beginning of the project through to the lower development bridge. Reach 2 now
includes the Enhancement I reach between the lower development bridge and Highway 64. Preservation will
now only apply to UT5 and a small length (68') of a tributary to it. This preservation reach is called Reach 3.
The original plan did not include any work on the small, unnamed tributaries that had their confluence with
the main stem within the easement. However, we have included these tributaries at this point since there will
be work on all tributaries that meets an enhancement level of effort and on two of these there will be short
lengths of restoration due to a need to extend channels to the new channel of the main stem. Restoration on
tributaries will occur on UT 3, which will include 115 LF of restored channel plus a vernal pool and on UT6 a
extended channel of 100 LF. The final total credits will be approximately 4,249 SMU generated from the
available existing stream footage of 5,131 LF.
Logan Creek is a low gradient, gravel bed stream that supports a good trout population. Logan Creek is
within the Savannah River Watershed and is also within the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
targeted local watershed 10020, the Horsepasture River basin. There are sections of Logan Creek that are
highly, even overly sinuous and other reaches that appear to have been straightened in the past. The channel
is eroding its banks in many locations where woody vegetation has been removed and a grass field developed.
There are other areas where dense stands of rhododendron have shaded out deep rooted tree species producing
unstable, eroding banks and an over -wide condition. In stream habitat is primarily composed of woody debris
and a few scattered bedrock outcroppings.
The goals for the restoration project are as follows:
• Reduce stream sedimentation from stream banks caused by erosion.
• Protect riparian areas and features currently contributing important functions to this stream system.
• Improve the water quality in the Logan Creek watershed.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
Page i

To accomplish these goals, we are proposing the following objectives:
• Restore the existing eroding or over -wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel with access to the
floodplain.
• Improve in- stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating deeper
pools, providing woody debris for habitat, and reducing bank erosion.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering capacity,
improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature, provide cover, improve wildlife
habitat and protect this area with a permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat by increasing the density of tree species that root deeply, by thinning the thick
stands of rhododendron within the easement area and planting a more diverse native plant community.
Table ES.1
Revised Logan Creek Restoration Overview
Reach 1 Logan Cr. Mainstem 3,650 3,051 Restoration 3051
0+00 to 31+00
Reach 2 Logan Cr. Mainstem
1,050
1,050
Enhancement I
700
31+64 to 42 +14
UT1
56
56
Enhancement 1
37
UT2
82
82
Enhancement I
55
UT3
47
47
Enhancement 1
31
0
115
Restoration
115
UT4
66
66
Enhancement 1
44
UT5
560
560
Preservation
112
(535+25)
(535+25)
UT6
14
104
Restoration
104
STREAM TOTALS
5,525
5,131
------- - - - - --
4,249
Page ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Restoration Project Goals and Objectives ....................... ..............................,
2.0 Site Selection
2.1. Directions to Site
2.2. General Site Selection Information
2.2.1. Surface Water Classification/Water Quality ..... ....... ........................
2.2.2. Physiography, Geology and Soils .................... ...... ................. .......
2.2.3. Historic Land Use and Development Trends
-----------------------------------
2.2.4. Endangered/Threatened Species ...................................................
2.2.5. Cultural Resources
2.2.6. Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites .....................................
2.2.7. Potential Constraints
2.2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary ----------------------------------------
2.2.7.2. Utilities
2.2.7.3. Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization --------- -- - - --
2.3. Vicinity map ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.4. Watershed map .-------•------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.5. Soil survey map
2.6. Current Condition Plan View
2.7. Site Photographs -----------------------------------------•-------------------------------- ......
3.0 Site Protection Instrument
- - - - -- - - - - -- --
3.1. Site Protection Instrument(;) Summary Information ...................................
3.2. 3.2. Site Protection Instrument Figure ........................... ............................. ..
4.0 Baseline Information
4.1. Watershed Summary Information .........................................................
4.2. Reach Summary Information ..............................................................
4.3. Regulatory Considerations •--------------------•------..----..-----•------------------------
5.0 Determination of Credits
5.1. Asset Map, showing existing reaches, tributaries an surveyed cross - sections.
6.0 Mitigation Work Plan ------------•-----------------------------------------------------------------
6.1. Description of target stream and plant communities ... ................. ............ ..
6.1.1. Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
6.1.2. Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions ----------------------------------------
6.2. Narrative of Data Analysis and Design Parameters ... ..... ..........................
6.2.1. Reference Streams
6.2.2. Design Criteria Selection and D_ a--t-a Analysis for Stream Restoration
6.2.3. Design Parameters - -• ----------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
6.2.4. Natural Plant Community Restoration ....... ................... ...... . . . . ..
7.0 Maintenance Plan
8.0 Performance Standards
8.1. Stream Monitoring ----------------------------•-----------------------------------------------
8.2. Vegetation Monitoring ------------------------------------------------------•----------------
9.0 Monitoring Requirements
10.0 Long -term Management Plan - --------------------------------------------------------------------
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan -----------------------------------------------------------------------
12.0 Financial Assurances
13.0 Definitions
14.0 References
Appendix A. Site Protection Instruments
Appendix B. Baseline Information Data
Appendix C. Mitigation Work Plan Data and Analyses.
Appendix D. Project Plan Sheets
Page iii
1
3
3
3
3
3
5
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
8
9
10
11
12
15
15
16
17
17
17
17
19
20
21
21
21
23
24
24
25
26
28
31
33
33
34
35
37
37
37
38
39

Page iv

RESTORATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The 2008 Savannah River Basin RBRP (hqp: / /yortal.ncdenr.org /web /eep /rbrps /savannah) identified
HUC 03060101010020 ( Horsepasture River) as a Targeted Local Watershed. The watershed is
primarily a forested area (87 %); however, increasing development from new residential homes and
golf course communities threaten water quality due to an increase in impervious surface area and
sedimentation of streams. Most of the streams in the watershed are DWQ — designated trout water
and support important brook trout populations. The watershed also has a large number of Significant
Natural Heritage Areas and over 100 natural heritage element occurrences. The Horsepasture River
is a National Wild and Scenic River and a state - designated Natural and Scenic River.
The 2008 Savannah River Basin RBRP identified ongoing development and the potential for
increased streambank erosion as major stressors within this TLW. The Logan Creek Stream
Restoration Project was identified as a stream restoration opportunity that can improve water quality
and fisheries habitat within the TLW. Much of the stream length has eroding banks due to lateral
migration of the channel. If left alone the development of a stable dimension and pattern at a new
floodplain elevation would eventually occur through erosion and aggradation. The restoration
approach on Reach 1 of the mainstem is targeted at moving the evolutionary process to a final stable
condition quickly. The over -wide channel condition and bank erosion on this Reach will be
addressed by the installation of wood based structures that will center the thalweg, improve sediment
transport and stabilize failing stream banks. The unstable stream pattern and erosion on the Reach
will be improved by grading a new sinuous pattern. Bank stability and habitat improvement will be
accomplished by installing log structures in meanders and along riffles. Grading a new cross - section
will improve sediment transport while providing improved trout habitat. Reach 2 will be improved
using an Enhancement I approach that will include installing wood structures that will center the
thalweg and improve sediment transport. Aggradation of sand through this reach is degrading
instream habitat so moving this sand through the reach is the primary goal for enhancing this reach.
Vegetation along all reaches will be modified to increase diversity by reducing the density of
rhododendron and planting a mix of species that root deeply and provide higher quality biomass to
the stream to support aquatic food chains. Invasive vegetative which is limited will be removed and
reforestation of the riparian buffer with native species will complement the channel restoration.
This project site is an appropriate candidate for restoration because significantly more erosion will
occur before the channel is able to achieve a stable, quasi - equilibrium state. Most of the project
reach appears to have one of two problems: either over - widened with debris jams, aggradation and
channel erosion or accelerated meandering and erosion due to a lack of vegetation. These two
instability problems are contributing extensive sediment downstream of the project site. Restoration
can help stabilize the channel, halt over - widening, establish proper pattern and significantly diminish
bank erosion and deposition of sand.
The project goals address stressors identified in the TLW and include the following:
• Reduce stream sedimentation from stream banks caused by erosion.
• Protect riparian areas and features currently contributing important functions to this stream
system.
• Improve the water quality in the Logan Creek watershed.
• Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitat along the project corridor.
The project goals will be addressed through the following project objectives:
• Restore the existing eroding or over -wide stream reaches by creating a stable channel with access
to the floodplain.
Page 1

• Improve in -stream habitat by providing a more diverse bedform with riffles and pools, creating
deeper pools, providing woody debris for habitat, move sand deposits through the reach and
reducing bank erosion.
• Establish native stream bank and floodplain vegetation to increase storm water runoff filtering
capacity, improve bank stability, provide shading to decrease water temperature, provide
cover, improve wildlife habitat and protect this area with a permanent conservation easement.
• Improve terrestrial habitat by increasing the density of tree species that root deeply, by thinning
the thick stands of rhododendron within the easement area and planting a more diverse native
plant community.
Page 2

2.0 SITE SELECTION
2.1. Directions to Site
The Logan Creek restoration site is located approximately three miles northeast of Cashiers in Jackson
County, North Carolina, as shown on Figure 1.1. The project site extends south from the confluence of Logan
Creek and an unnamed tributary (Right Prong Logan Creek) downstream to a road culvert at US 64. Stream
names used in this report follow those used by the Division of Water Quality; however, locally Logan Creek
is known as West Fork Logan Creek and Right Prong Logan Creek is known only as Logan Creek. The site is
accessible from US 64 at the Lonesome Valley Company, Inc. development.
2.2. General Site Selection Information
The Logan Creek watershed lies in the Savannah River Basin, within North Carolina Division of Water
Quality ( NCDWQ) sub -basin 03 -13 -02 and USGS hydrologic unit 03060101010020.
The recent land use of the site has been open hay fields and forestry. Historically, the site was used for
pasture, timbering, trout farming and as a mink farm. Past land uses created conditions that today are causing
the degradation of on -site streams.
Logan Creek through the project site is a "blue- line" stream, as shown on the USGS topographic quadrangle
for the site (Big Ridge Quadrangle). Based on field evaluations using NCDWQ stream assessment protocols,
all of the stream channels proposed for restoration, enhancement, or preservation are perennial, as shown in
Appendix A. At Logan Creek, Baker proposes to restore, enhance or preserve 5,131 linear feet (LF) of stream
along Logan Creek.
2.2.1. Surface Water Classification/ Water Quality
NCDWQ designates surface water classifications for water bodies such as streams, rivers, and lakes.
Classifications define the best uses for these waters (e.g., swimming, fishing, and drinking water supply).
These classifications are associated with a set of water quality standards to protect their uses. All surface
waters in North Carolina must at least meet the standards for Class C (fishable /swimmable) waters. Other
primary classifications provide additional levels of protection for primary water contact recreation (Class
B) and drinking water supplies (WS). In addition to these primary classifications, supplemental
classifications are sometimes assigned to water bodies to protect special uses or values. Logan Creek
[ NCDWQ Index No. 3 -13 -2] has the primary classification Class C water and the supplemental
classifications of Tr for trout waters and HQW for high quality waters. The HQW supplemental
classification is intended to preserve a high level of existing water quality that exceeds state water quality
standards. There are both wastewater treatment standards and development controls enforced by NCDWQ
on these streams. Logan Creek carries the HQW designation because it is a tributary to the Horsepasture
River which is designated as HQW. The Tr supplemental classification is intended to protect habitat for
natural trout propagation and survival of stocked trout. This classification primarily affects the quality of
permitted discharges and recognizes a 25 foot riparian buffer administered by the Division of Land
Quality. Additionally, because this is trout water and located within a "trout water county" it will be
subject to a trout water construction moratorium that will be a condition of the 404 permit. This
moratorium will limit construction to a period between April 15 and October 15 and will forbid
construction during what is considered to be the spawning period for trout.
2.2.2. Physiography, Geology and Soils
The project site lies within the Blue Ridge Belt of the Blue Ridge physiographic province of western North
Carolina. According to the 1985 North Carolina Geological Survey Map and a 1 degree by 2 degree
geologic map of the Knoxville Quadrangle prepared by the USGS (Hadley, and Nelson, 1971, Map 1 -654),
the project site is underlain by an intrusive igneous formation of quartz diorite and grandiorite that are
middle Paleozoic Era, late Devonian in age. This rock unit is described as gray or white, medium to
coarse - grained, generally foliated rock composed dominantly of plagioclase feldspars, muscovite, biotite,
quartz, hornblende, plagioclase feldspars and xenocrysts.
Page 3

This rock unit along with other rock types of the geographic area (amphibolite and biotite gneiss), weather
to form clay -rich saprolite, generally a soft, friable material that often contains relict structures and mineral
assemblages from the parent rock material. Due to faster weathering rates on rock in topographically low
areas and increased erosion rates in topographically high areas, saprolite in the area tends to be thickest in
valley and small coves around Cashiers and thins out as the topography rises to hilltops and ridges.
Additional soil characteristics of the site were determined using the Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS) Soil Survey data for Jackson County, along with preliminary on -site evaluations to
determine any hydric soil areas (USDA 1975). A map depicting the boundaries of each soil type is
presented in Figure 2.2. There are four general soil types found within the project boundaries. A
discussion of each soil type and its locations given by the NRCS is presented in Table 2.1. Table 2.2
identifies characteristics of each soil series located on the project site and will be referenced in conjunction
with the soils descriptions to select appropriate seeding mixes and other vegetative cover.
Table 2.1
Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Nikwasi Floodplain The Nikwasi series consists of poorly drained and very poorly
drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils on flood plains in the
Blue Ridge (MLRA 130). These soils formed in recent alluvium
consisting of loamy material that is moderately deep to strata of
sand, gravel, and/or cobbles. Slope ranges from 0 to 3 percent.
Whiteside-
Upland valley
The Whiteside series consists of very deep, moderately well drained,
Tuckasegee
moderately permeable soils on colluvial toe slopes, benches, and
fans in coves in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. These soils
formed in colluvium and alluvium derived from materials weathered
from felsic to mafic crystalline rocks such as granite, mica gneiss,
and hornblende gneiss. The Tuckasegee series consists of very deep,
well drained soils on gently sloping to very steep benches, foot
slopes, toe slopes, drainageways, and fans in coves in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. These soils formed in colluvium derived
from materials weathered from igneous and metamorphic crystalline
rocks such as granite, mica gneiss, hornblende gneiss, and schist.
Saunook
The Saunook series consists of very deep, well drained, moderately
permeable soils on benches, fans, and toe slopes in coves in the Blue
Ridge (MLRA 130). They formed in colluvium derived from
materials weathered from felsic to mafic, igneous and high -grade
metamorphic rocks. Slope ranges from 2 to 60 percent.
Cullowhee
Valley
The Cullowhee series consists of somewhat poorly drained,
moderately rapidly permeable soils on flood plains in the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. They formed in recent alluvium that is
loamy in the upper part and is moderately deep to sandy strata that
contain more than 35 percent by volume rock fragments. They are
very deep to bedrock. Slope ranges from 0 to 3 percent.
Note: NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions (http://ortho.ftw.nres.usda.gov/cgi-
bin/osd/osdname.cgi)
Soils within the proposed stream restoration areas are primarily mapped as the Nikwasi series by the
NRCS in Jackson County. The Nikwasi fine sandy loam is found along the floodplain of Logan Creek and
the lower ends of the tributary valleys. The Whiteside - Tuckasegee complex is mapped along the upland
Logan Creek Valley, upstream of the proposed restoration reach. The steep slopes along the edges of the
downstream Logan Creek valley, just upstream of US 64, are mapped as the Saunook gravelly loam.
Soils along the UT5 valley are mapped as Cullowhee fine sandy loam. Bedrock was observed in a few
isolated locations in the Logan Creek bed, and numerous outcroppings are visible along the valley walls.
Page 4
0J

Generally, the depth to bedrock appears to be at least three feet in the Logan Creek floodplain. In areas
where shallow bedrock is encountered, the restoration plan will incorporate this bedrock as in -situ grade
control.
Table 2.2
Low Density Residential
40.26
2.4%
High Density Residential
92
Project Soil Type Characteristics
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
32.02
1.9%
Pasture Lands
78.46
4.6%
Grasslands
12.78
<1% .80)
rosion .
Deciduous Forest
1293.77
76%
ctor
O
Nikwasi Fine (NkA)
30"
11.50
0.20
4
10.00
Whiteside- Tuckasegee Complex
Note: The above was gathered from 2001 U.S. Geological Survey land cover data.
Source: htt : / /Seamless.us s. ov/
(WtB)
>60"
16.00
0.24
5
9.50
Saunook Gravelly Loam (SaC)
> 60"
13.50
0.24
5
6.50
Cullowhee Fine (CwA)
40"
11.50
0.20
3
6.50
Source:
NRCS, USDA. Official Soil Series Descriptions
(http:/ /websoilsurvey.nres.usda. gov /app
/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
(http:/ /soildatamart.nres.usda. gov /Default.aspx)
2.2.3. Historic Land Use and Development Trends
Except for low density residential development and small portions of land maintained as grassland
meadows, the Logan Creek watershed is primarily forested. Less than 10% of land in the Logan Creek
drainage is in development while approximately 87% remains forested, as shown in Table 2.3. The Logan
Creek drainage, and more specifically the area of this project, has experienced varying degrees of
agricultural and aquaculture development for the past 60 to 80 years. The Logan Creek watershed was
logged in the 1920's to 1940's, as much of the southern Appalachians were at that time. Since then,
portions of the project area have supported apple orchards and livestock, as well as a trout hatchery and
mink farm. Currently the project site is being developed as an eco- friendly development called Lonesome
Valley. This includes large lots and a significant amount of green- space. The large grasslands or
meadows as they are referred to by the developer are maintained as open space and these adjoin Logan
Table 2.3
Logan Creek Watershed Land Use/ Land Cover
Laud UTse Cate o► Arcs acr
Streams /Wetlands 6.23 <1% .40
Low Density Residential
40.26
2.4%
High Density Residential
92
<1 % .OS
Bare Rock/Sand/Clay
32.02
1.9%
Pasture Lands
78.46
4.6%
Grasslands
12.78
<1% .80)
Forested:
Deciduous Forest
1293.77
76%
Evergreen Forest
135.36
8%
Mixed Forest
39.99
2.4%
Shrub /Scrub
57.55
3.4%
Note: The above was gathered from 2001 U.S. Geological Survey land cover data.
Source: htt : / /Seamless.us s. ov/
Page 5

Creek. The development also has a trail system that runs along the stream and will enter the easement in
places. The trails are for foot traffic only, maintain the natural ground surface and conform to the
conservation easements intendant of the area being used for quiet enjoyment. The developers are
maintaining a 25 foot buffer on all streams other than those included in this project. Non - project streams
are protected by community covenants that require no development within a 25 foot buffer of all streams.
2.2.4. Endangered/Threatened Species
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS) was most recently contacted August 1, 2006 regarding
protected species on the project site. A response was received February 21, 2007 from the USFWS
concurring with a finding of "no effect" for project impacts to federally listed species located in Jackson
County. As a precautionary measure, Baker will consider the effects of construction activities on species
under Federal protection in Jackson County and take reasonable measures to avoid direct and indirect
impacts during the project. A copy of the correspondence from USFWS and information on the species
considered is included in Appendix B.
2.2.5. Cultural Resources
A letter was sent to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians' Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), August 1, 2006, requesting a review and
comment for the potential of cultural resources in the vicinity of the Logan Creek restoration site. A
response was received on August 30, 2006, from the SHPO with a recommendation that a comprehensive
survey be conducted due to the project site landscape and proximity to two previously recorded
archaeological sites and one architectural site. The THPO also submitted a letter requesting they be
contacted for further consultation should further cultural resources data be obtained for the project site.
Subsequently, an archaeological survey was completed by Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas,
Inc. in which no significant archeological or architectural resources were located within the project
boundaries. Camp Merrie Woode, which is listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), is
located approximately 1.6 km from the Logan Creek project area. However no adverse impacts to the
camp are anticipated from the project. On December 1, 2006, the archaeological survey report was
submitted to the SHPO and THPO for review. On January 12, 2007, Baker received a letter from the
SHPO concurring with findings from the archaeological survey that no further archaeological investigation
be conducted in connection with this project. The THPO submitted a concurrence letter on January 24,
2007. A copy of the SHPO and THPO correspondence is included in Appendix C.
2.2.6. Potentially Hazardous Environmental Sites
An EDR Transaction Screen Map Report that identifies and maps real or potential hazardous
environmental sites within the distance required by the American Society of Testing and Materials
(ASTM) Transaction Screen Process (E 1528) was prepared for the site. A copy of the report with an
overview map is included in Appendix B. The overall environmental risk for this site was determined to
be low. Environmental sites including Superfund (National Priorities List, NPL); hazardous waste
treatment, storage, or disposal facilities; the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act Information System (CERCLIS); suspect state hazardous waste, solid waste or landfill
facilities; or leaking underground storage tanks were not identified by the report in the proposed project
area. During field data collection, there was no evidence of these sites in the proposed project vicinity, and
conversations with landowners did not reveal any further knowledge of hazardous environmental sites in
the area.
2.2.7. Potential Constraints
Baker assessed the Logan Creek project site regarding potential site constraints. No fatal flaws have been
identified during project design development.
2.2.7.1. Property Ownership and Boundary
Baker has obtained a conservation easement from Cow Rock Mountain, Inc., for the Logan Creek
project area. The easement has been approved by the N. C. State Property Office (SPO) and recorded
at the Jackson County Courthouse. Final copies of the easement and plat have been provided to SPO
Page 6
0

and to EEP. The easement will allow Baker to proceed with the restoration project and restricts the
land use in perpetuity. The landowner will retain the right to establish and maintain a trail for non-
motorized use that will pass through the easement in a few areas. The trail base will be maintained
with a natural, pervious material such as mulch and shall conform to easement guidelines. The
easement area lost to this trial is compensated for by the fact that the easement, on average is much
wider than the required 30 foot buffer.
The site can be accessed for construction and post- restoration monitoring. Construction access and
staging areas will be identified during final design.
2.2.7.2. Utilities
No utility easements are present within the conservation easement. There are at least two 100 foot
diameter, circular easements that protect wells that adjoin the proposed easement lines. These will
not infringe on the conservation easement since for the most part these easement areas will be
maintained in a natural condition.
2.2.7.3. Hydrologic Trespass and Floodplain Characterization
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Jackson County, NC, (Panel Number
3702820175C) indicates that the project is located within a regulatory floodplain, zone "AE ". When
this project was originally planned and when originally submitted for EEP approval the floodplain
was regulated under zone A and no flood study was expected; however, new maps have come out
since that time and now with the change in zoning we anticipate doing a flood study. Based on the
design channel dimensions and slope, any change in the BFEs is expected to be minimal ( <1'
change). Baker has discussed this project with the local Floodplain Administrator and they do not
have any concerns related to the project and have concurred with this assessment and approach.
Page 7

RESER
04 -04 -01
LTN1
CREEK
2VOIR
j? r
S 04 -04-02
LTN2 r
l04 -0301
1, FRBt
r
Project Location
caxE
rQxaw>gr
E i r.
1r 03-13-02 f
SAV2
031301 ,-
`.� SAV1 { `
Counties
Figure 1. Project Location Map
NCDWQ Sub -basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit Logan Creek Stream Restoration
r
t�
N
0 1 2 3
Jackson County, NC Miles ffixin�r? i �' 11,
2.3. Vicinity Map for Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project.
Page 8
40

h
�n
l
0
r
f
�.. / u,
,.
R
J.
i
i i5i1~Ud^..``-
t
t i
Legend
Existing rUagnmcnt Figure 2. Watershed Basin Map
O vatersned Boundary Logan Creek Stream Restoration
N
1 0 1.000 2.0(}0
Feet
�•.... .— t„ —i...,..,.,6— — u.., w.,.,u.,u.,., — Lvrjau �.Iwn, wmr n uao a wamagc aica vi i.vo ayumu iruicw,
and Right Prong Logan Creek, which has a drainage area of 1.0 square mile.
Page 9

2.5. Soil Survey Map for the Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site.
Page 10

2.7. Logan Creek Stream Restoration Site
Setting of Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Stream runs along edge of field and tree line.
Taken 9/27/2005.
Upper project (--1 +00) near wetland, showing
eroded bank and over -wide condition. Taken
12/31/2002.
Upper project ( -6 +50) in wooded area showing
eroded bank and over -wide condition associated
with thick Rhodo. Taken 12/31/2002.
Small brown trout observed in Logan Creek. Brook
trout have also been observed throughout the
stream. Taken 10/10/2006.
Overly sinuous area close to station 2 +50, showing
cutting bank and tree that has fallen. Taken
2/04/2007. _
Upper project ( -7 +50) in wooded area showing
eroded bank and over -wide condition associated
with thick Rhododendron. Taken 12/31/2002.
Page 12

Forest area showing thick Rhododendron stand.
Low germination of hardwoods and minimal
protection of banks due to shallow rooting. Taken
10/10/2006.
Eroding meander near station 11 +50, along edge of
field with few trees to stabilize the stream bank.
Taken 2/22/2006.
Lower Enhancement I reach near station 40 +50
showing excessive sand deposition and over -wide
condition. Taken 2/22/2006.
Riparian buffer in forested area showing thick stand
of Rhododendron and limited hardwood germination.
Taken 10/10/2006.
Eroding stream bank near station 19 +50, along edge
of field with no trees to stabilize the stream bank and
mowin to to of bank. Taken 2/22/2006.
1
r: a
End of project (46 +50) at Hwy.64 showing excessive
sand deposition, but good riparian vegetation.
Taken 2/22/2006.

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 14
0
a

3.0 SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project is entirely
contained within property owned by Cow Rock Mountain Inc. (Figure 3.1) and site protection instruments
are referenced below and are included in the Appendix A. Cow Rock Mountain Inc. has their property at
this development split into various parcels; however, this project was located on only two parcels
referenced below.
3.1. Site Protection Instruments Summary Information
Page 15
Landowner
PIN
County
Site
Protection
Instrument
Deed Book and
Page Number
Acreage
protected
Parcel A
Cow Rock
7582 -58-
Jackson
Original
Original Deed of
12.71 A
Mountain Inc.
9244
Deed of
Easement is in:
in three
Conservation
Book 1720,
easement
Parcel B
Cow Rock
7582 -67-
Jackson
Easement
Page 238 -248
areas.
Mountain Inc.
2206
recorded on
02 Jan. 2008
Amendment of
Deed is in:
Amendment
Book 1974, Page
to
839 -851
Conservation
Easement
Plat recorded on
recorded on
3 Jan. 2013, in:
12 Feb. 2013
Book 19,
Slide 812
The above Plat
supersedes the Plat
of 28 May 07, in:
Book 16,
Slide 816
Page 15

*,fit
f
C
ti
.a
+, a, p
i
�' y w
Kim
v

4.0 BASELINE INFORMATION
Project Information characteristics
Project Name
Logan Creek Stream Restoration
County
Jackson County
Project Area (acres)
12.71 acres
Project Coordinates (latitude
and longitude)
Latitude 35.1328030 Longitude - 83.061046°
4.1 Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Blue Ridge
River Basin
Savannah River Basin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8 -digit
03060101 USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03060101010020
DWQ Sub -basin
Horse pasture River
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1331 A at beginning of project and 1709 A at end of project
Project Drainage Area
Percentage of Impervious
Area
<5%
CGIA Land Use Classification
76% Deciduous Forest; 8% Evergreen Forest; 4.6% Pasture Land
see table 2.3
4.2 Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach 1
Reach 2
UT5
6 small UTs in R1
Length of reach (linear feet)
3,051
1,018
556
503
Valley classification
VIII
VIII
II
H
Drainage area (acres)
1585
1709
117
16 — 52 acres
NCDWQ stream identification
score
52.5
52.5
32.5-41.5
38-48
NCDWQ Water Quality
Classification
Q Tr: + HQW
Q Tr: + HQW
C; Tr: + HQW
C; Tr: + HQW
Morphological Description
stream type)
C
C
B to C
B to C
Evolutionary trend
C -E
C -E
B -C
B -C
Underlying mapped soils
NkA
SaC
NkA & SaC
NkA
Drainage Gass
Poorly drained and very
poorly drained soils
Very deep, well drained
mod. Permeable soils
See other notes to
the side
Poorly drained and
very poorly drained
soils
Soil Hydric status
Non H dric
Non H dric
Non H dric
Non H dric
Slope
0 -3%
2 -60%
0 -60%
0 -3%
FEMA classification
AE
AE
AE
No classification
Native vegetation community
Mixed Forested/
Rhododendron and
grassland
Mixed Forested/
Rhododendron and
grassland
Mixed Forested/
Rhododendron
Mixed Forested/
Rhododendron
Percent composition of exotic
Invasive vegetation
<1%
<1%
<1%
<1%
4.3 Regulatory Considerations
Regulation
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting
Documentation
Waters of the United States —
Section 404
Yes
To Be Permitted
Waters of the United States —
Section 401
Yes
To Be Permitted
Endangered Species Act
No
Yes
USFWS letter
2/21/07
Historic Preservation Act
No
Yes
SHPO & TIPO
letters
Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMAy Coastal Area
Management Act CAMA
NO
N/A
N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
Will seek local
flood lain permit
No Rise Cert.
I
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
I N/A
N/A
Page 17

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 18
0
0
0

5.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
Mitigation credits presented in these tables are projections based upon site design. Upon completion of
site construction the project components and credits data will be revised to be consistent with the as-built
condition.
Logan Creek Stream Restoration, Jackson County
EEP Project Number 92515
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non - riparian
Wetland
Buffer
Nitrogen
Nutrient
Offset
Phosphorous
Nutrient Offset
Type
R
E
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
4,249
Project Components
Project Component -or-
Reach ID
Stationing/Location
Existing
Footage/Acreage
Approach
(PI, PII
etc. )
Restoration -or-
Restoration Equivalent
Restoration
Footage or
Acreage
Mitigation
Ratio
Logan Creek Reach 1
0 +00 to 31 +00
3650
PI
Restoration
3051
1:1
Logan Creek Reach 2
31 +64 to 41 +82
1050
Enhancement 1
1050
1.5:1
UT 1
Confluence at 0 +50
56
Enhancement 1
56
1.5:1
UT 2
Confluence at 5 +25
84
Enhancement 1
82
1.5:1
UT 3
Confluence at 12 +50
47
0
PI
Enhancement 1
Restoration
47
115
1.5:1
1:1
UT 4
Confluence at 16 +75
66
Enhancement 1
66
1.5:1
UT 5
Confluence at 35+75
560
Preservation
560
5:1
UT 6
Confluence at 8 +50
14
PI
Restoration
104
1:1
Component Summation
Restoration Level
Stream
linear feet) )
Riparian Wetland
(acres)
Non-riparian
Non - rip
Wetland acres(square
Buffer
feet)
Upland
(acres)
Riverine
Non- Riverine
Restoration
3270
Enhancement
Enhancement 1
1301
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
560
High Quality
Preservation
Page 19

,Ilk
19M
Ak-
411�
4t,

6.0 MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1. Description of target stream and plant communities
6.1.1 Existing Channel Geomorphic Characterization and Classification
Baker performed representative longitudinal profile and cross - section surveys of the existing stream
reaches to assess the current condition and overall stability of the channels. Baker also collected
substrate samples to characterize stream sediments. The following sections of this report summarize
the survey results and characterize existing conditions. Surveyed cross sections, results and analysis
of sediment sampling are included in Appendix C, as well as an illustration of the locations of cross -
section surveys on the project reaches.
Logan Creek Mainstem
Table 7.1 summarizes the geomorphic parameters of the mainstem of Logan Creek within Reach 1
and 2. In general, the bedform diversity of Logan Creek is fair with some pool habitat in existing
meanders and around woody debris. Most pools are scour features associated with woody debris
laying over or in the channel and debris buried in the substrate. Most of the stream bed is shallow and
is best described as a riffle with a few runs. Low velocity areas of the channel are primarily
composed of large sand particles and small gravel. Higher velocity pools and runs have some small
cobble and gravel. The project reach can be described as a gravel bed stream based on stream bed
sampling at Logan Creek. Table 7.2 shows the average size of sediment sampled at various locations
within the Reach 1.
Logan Creek flows through a locally broad, alluvial floodplain characteristic of a Rosgen Valley Type
VIII. Alluvial terraces typically present in a Valley Type VIII are low elevation rises and are
observed in a few places along Logan Creek; however historic agricultural manipulation of the
floodplain has likely altered the topography. The overall valley slope is 0.0045 ft /ft.
Within the project limits, Logan Creek is predominately classified as a Rosgen stream type C4.
However, some areas of the channel demonstrate Rosgen stream type E4 characteristics and indicate
that the stream either was an E in the past or is evolving into this stream type. Existing natural and
anthropogenic impacts have caused a shift away from the more stable E channel.
Table 6.1
Representative Geomorphic Data for Logan Creek- Stream Channel Classification Level II
Feature Type Riffle Run Riffle Pool
Bankfull Width (Wbkf)
38.7
36.0
34.9
80.96
Feet
Bankfull Mean Depth (dbkf)
1.51
1.55
1.56
1.6
Feet
Cross - Sectional Area (Abkf)
58.4
55.8
54.2
55.8
Sq. ft.
Width/Depth Ratio (W/D ratio)
25.7
23.2
22.4
23.2
Bankfull Max Depth (dbkf)
3.42
2.94
2.3
2.9
Feet
Floodprone Area Width (Wfpa)
>150
122
74.0
>150
Feet
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
>5
3.4
2.12
>5
Bank Height Ratio (BHR)
1.45
1.6
1.86
1.1
Water Surface Slope (S)
.0032
.0012
.0026
.0002
Feet per foot
Channel Sinuosity (K)
1.16
1.25
1.25
1.60
Rosgen Stream Type
C4
C4
C4
C4
Page 21

The mainstem project reach of Logan Creek starting at station 0 +00 and extending to US 64 has been
divided into two reaches which are described in Table 7.3. Reach divisions were based on an
assessment of need and the proposed actions being either Restoration or Enhancement I. Stationing is
based on the proposed channel and does not align with the existing thalweg. In the following
description reference is made to stationing on the proposed alignment and locations on the existing
channel are approximate. Future development by Lonesome Valley is planned for this watershed and
could impact the existing high quality. However, they are committed to maintaining the 25 foot
buffer in a natural condition and areas within the project limits will have at least a 30 foot buffer and
in many locations it will be wider.
Reach 1 (Restoration)
Reach 1 extends approximately 3,05 1. The left bank below the pond in the area of station 0 +00 is
vegetated by shrubs and herbaceous species with a few trees. The reach is unusually straight and may
have been straightened in the past to develop a trout hatchery facility which was formally in the area
that is now a pond. This reach has been impacted by beavers occasionally as a number of beaver
dams have been built in this reach over the past few years. This has caused the channel to erode in a
number of places, resulting in an over -wide condition and the channel continues to be diverted into
the bank between stations 0 +00 and 2 +00. The slope in this area of the reach is .0029.
The steepest slope (.0064 ft/ft) within the reach is between station 2 +00 and 9 +50. This relative steep
profile is caused by debris jams, over - widening and sediment deposition punctuated by short, steep
drops at the downstream ends of the debris jams. The banks are eroding between station 2 +50 and
6 +00. In part this is due to an unstable pattern and over -wide cross - section, and these conditions are
exacerbated by logjams and past beaver activity. Similar problems are also causing degradation and
bank erosion between stations 6 +00 and 10 +00. Within this reach the channel is exceptionally over -
wide and a large debris jams has formed at approximately station 8 +50. This appears to back water
up during storm flows causing the channel to aggrade. Much of the woody debris associated with
these blockages is rhododendron branches that have fallen in, entire plants that have been washed out
of the bank and more recently includes limbs and tree trunks from dead and dying hemlocks.
Between station 3 +50 and 10 +00 rhododendron plants are so thick that they have limited germination
of tree species. Because rhododendrons are not deeply rooted and shade out herbaceous species, they
do not stabilize the stream bank and allow for rapid erosion during storm flows. This is a critical
issue now as large numbers of hemlock have died out along the stream and there is a need for
hardwoods to replace these lost trees.
Beginning at approximately station 11+00 the right bank is a grass meadow with a few trees and
shrubs. The left bank continues to have thick rhododendron down to station 22 +00 where it is also a
grassed meadow with a few trees along the edge of the stream. At three sites along this reach (Station
Page 22

12+00, 10 +00 and 25 +00) the stream is overly sinuous. In each of these cases the stream is flowing
up- valley, resulting in excessive erosion and setting up the possibility for an avulsion to occur.
Station 12 +00 is proposed to be restored with a new extension of UT3 when the bypassed meander is
converted to a vernal pool. Between stations 17 +00 and 24 +50 the channel appears to be straighter
than one would expect given the low slope. It may be that in the past, the stream was straightened
over this length to increase farming opportunities in the adjoining fields. Just downstream of station
25 +50 (on existing channel) the existing channel flows into and along a steep, eroding right bank.
Downstream of this bank the channel is a long riffle to the end of Reach 2 at station 31+00. The
channel bed particle size through this reach is similar to the reach wide description in Appendix C;
however, there are areas within this reach were bedrock is exposed. Five unnamed tributaries enter
Logan Creek along this reach. From station 27 +50 to 28+00 there is a fifty foot reach that is excluded
from the easement so that the developer can construct a trail crossing of the creek. The reach ends
just upstream of the Lonesome Valley development's timber bridge which has been excluded from
the easement.
Reach 2 (Enhancement I)
Reach 2 begins just downstream of the timber bridge and extends 1,050 LF downstream and ends at
station 41 +82, just above a culvert crossing under US64. The slope of this reach is the lowest of the
three reaches at .0021. This relative flatness appears to be related to logjams through the reach and
this has caused sand to be deposited on the stream bed throughout the reach. Sand is the primary
particle size in this reach, though gravel and bedrock are present in to a limited degree. Aggradation
from the deposited sand appears to have caused the bed to rise and resulting in lower bank heights.
Thick stands of rhododendron and dog hobble are present at two locations along this reach but in
general the vegetation of this reach is more diverse than what is seen upstream. Bank erosion is a
problem between station 34+00 and 35 +50 due to a logjam diverting water into the bank and in the
area of station 37 +00 where the channel meanders against a steep bank. In this reach the channel
becomes over -wide in at least three different locations. This appears to be associated with log jams
that have caused erosion of the banks. In these areas the water is very shallow and provides little
habitat value. The largest tributary within the project reach (UT5) enters Logan Creek at station
35 +75.
Unnamed Tributaries
Along the project reach near stations 0 +50 (UT1), 5 +75 (UT2), 8 +50 (UT6), 12 +50 (UT3), 16 +75
(UT4) and 35 +75 (UT5), six unnamed tributaries enter Logan Creek. These tributaries range in their
drainage area size from 0.025 sq. mi. to 0.18 sq. mi and range in length within the easement from 14
LF to 535 LF. All of these tributaries are less than 6 feet in bankfull width but all are perennial
within the project area and all have bed material of silt or sand and are well forested. UT3 and UT6
both have reaches that are proposed for restoration. The proposed reaches where restoration will be
conducted are presently within the existing mainstem channel. Because the mainstem is being moved
away from the existing confluences with these two tributaries, these channels will be extended in
newly constructed channels, generating the reaches for which we are requesting restoration credit.
6.1.2 Vegetation and Habitat Descriptions
The habitat within and adjacent to the proposed project area consists of a Montane Alluvial Forest
and a Montane Oak- Hickory Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The riparian areas
ranged from minor disturbance to very disturbed. A general description of each community follows.
Montane Alluvial Forest
This ecological community covers approximately 85% of the project area and is located on large
alluvial floodplains adjacent to Logan Creek. The riparian buffer varied from narrow corridors of 5
to 15 feet in width at mid -reach to broad corridors exceeding 50 feet in width at the upstream and
downstream project limits. The dominant canopy species of the montane alluvial forest area
Page 23

included eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), red maple (Acer rubrum), yellow birch (Betula
alleghaniensis), white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white pine (Pinus
strobus), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). Understory and shrub species consisted of
rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboretum), black cherry (Prunus serotina), witch -hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), brook -side alder
(Alnus serrulata), fetterbush (Leucothoe fontanesiana), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), broad -
leaved viburnum (Viburnum cassinoides), and yellow -root (Xanthorhiza simplicissima).
Herbaceous species consisted of Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), woodfem
(Dryopteris spp.), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea arborescens), golden -rod (Solidago spp.),
smartweed (Polygonum spp.), trillium (trillium spp.), violets (Viola spp.), and club moss
(Lycopodium spp.).
Montane Oak - Hickory Forest
This ecological community is located on the steep hillsides along the left bank of Logan Creek, and
is an upland transition from the Montane Alluvial Forest. This ecological community covers
approximately 15% of the project area. The dominant canopy species included white oak (Quercus
alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut oak (Quercus montana), mockemut hickory
(Carya alba), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), white pine (Pinus
strobus), yellow birch (Betula alleghaniensis), and eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis).
Understory and shrub species consisted of American chestnut (Castanea dentata), rhododendron
(Rhododendron spp.), mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum),
flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), American holly (Ilex opaca), witch -hazel (Hamamelis
virginiana), viburnum (Viburnum cassinoides), huckleberry (Gaylussacia spp.), blueberry
(Vaccinium spp.), and yellow Bakereye (Aesculus octandra). Herbaceous vegetation is generally
sparse and included Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), New York fem (Thelypteris
noveboracensis), hayscented fern (Dennstaedtia punctilobula), wild hydrangea (Hydrangea
arborescens), golden -rod (Solidago spp.), galax (Galax aphylla), and club moss (Lycopodium spp.).
Disturbed Areas
At mid -reach of the project area, degraded riparian areas are present and consist of buffer widths
ranging from 0 to 10 feet. A mowed lawn is adjacent to the riparian areas and herbaceous plant
species consist of fescue (Fescue spp.), lamb's ear (Stachys lanata), arrow -leaf sida (Sida
rhombifolia), buttercups (Ranunculus spp.), clovers (Trifolium spp.), and fennel (Foeniculum spp.).
Some invasive species in and around the riparian buffer consisted of multi -flora rose (Rosa
mul fora), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica).
6.2 Narrative of Data Analysis and Design Parameters
6.2.1 Reference Streams
In an effort to determine suitable reference data for the design we employed the NCDOT reference
reach database, identified a reference reach within the watershed and collected dimensional data from
stable cross sections within the project reach. Reference reach geomorphic data, surveyed cross
sections, photos and profile data are included in Appendix C, part C.
One undisturbed reference reach was found within the same watershed as the project site and
surveyed for reference conditions. Additionally, the NCDOT database was reviewed for applicable
reference reach streams. No existing reference reach steams exist in this database for the Savannah
drainage, so we evaluated those sites that were closest to the project site. Two additional sites with
streams of similar type and substrate were chosen as appropriate reference reaches for the Logan
Creek Restoration.
The Right Prong reach is approximately .5 mile upstream of the project reach and has a watershed of
.83 square miles. It is similar in slope, stream type, substrate and riparian vegetation. Baker
conducted a survey of approximately 150 LF encompassing one pool and one riffle cross section.
Page 24

This data, along with that of the NCDOT database and on -site stable cross sections, were used to
determine the design parameters.
6.2.2 Design Criteria Selection and Data Analysis for Stream Restoration
Selection of natural channel design criteria is based on a combination of approaches including review
of reference reach databases, hydraulic modeling, sediment transport predictions, and evaluation of
results from past projects. Descriptions of the data analysis performed as part of the Logan Creek
design process are located in Appendix C, part D.
Selection of a general restoration approach was the first step in selecting design criteria at the Logan
Creek site. The approach was based on the reach's potential for restoration, as determined during the
site assessment. After selection of the general restoration approach, specific design criteria were
developed so that the plan view layout, cross - section dimensions, and profile could be described for
each reach, for the purpose of developing construction documents. The design philosophy at the
Logan Creek site is to use average values for the selected stream type when designing dimension and
profile and to work within the ranges expected for the selected stream type with regards to pattern and
in- stream structures used. This approach should allow for maximum diversity of pattern and habitat
while maintaining stable pools and riffles. Extreme variation in form will develop over long periods
of time under the processes of flooding, re- colonization by vegetation, and geologic influences.
After examining the existing conditions, recognizing the potential for restoration, and reviewing
reference reach data, design criteria were developed. Assigning an appropriate stream type for the
corresponding valley that will accommodate the existing and future hydrologic and sediment
contributions was considered conceptually prior to selecting reference reach streams. Design criteria
for the proposed stream were selected based on the range of the reference data and the desired
performance of the proposed channel. Following initial application of the design criteria, detail
refinements were made to accommodate the existing valley morphology, to avoid encroachment of
property boundaries and the valley wall, to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the existing large
trees, and to promote natural channel adjustment following construction. The proposed design
rationale for the project is summarized in Table 7.4.
Table 7.4
Project Design Stream Types and Rationale
A Restoration approach will be used to establish a stable, sinuous channel with
greater pool habitat. Over -wide sections will be narrowed to improve depth and
sediment transport. Eroding banks will be stabilized by correcting pattern and
Ke irh I C4 by installing wood/log based structures that direct flow to the thalweg and
improve aquatic habitat. Constructed channels will provide connectivity to
floodplains. Forest diversity and bank stability will be improved by reducing
the extent of rhododendron coverage, eliminating nonnative vegetation and
planting diverse tree, shrub and herbaceous species.
An Enhancement I approach will be used to move aggraded sediment through
the channel and to improve sediment transport through the reach. The thalweg
Reach 2 C4 will be centered using log structures to reduce erosion, address several over -
wide areas and improve habitat. Use of the existing channel will limit grading
and disturbance. Where necessary, trees will be planted to provide bank
stabilization, shading and vegetative diversity.
UTI, UT2, An Enhancement I approach will be used to stabilize existing short segments of
UT3(partial), C4 /E these tributaries within the easement. Log or rock drop structures will be used
UT4, UT6 to provide grade control and to ensure that the new confluence with the restored
Page 25

Table 7.4
Project Design Stream Types and Rationale
(partial)
main channel does not cause head cutting or other instability issues on these
tributaries.
A Restoration approach will be used on approximately 100 LF segments of
these two tributaries. This is required because both will need to be extended
U73(partial),
C4 /E
this length to reach the new channel of Logan Creek. Restoration will only be
UT6 (partial)
applied to these two new segments on tributaries. They will be stabilized with
structures to ensure no instability is created between the existing channels and
the new mainstem.
This stream will be preserved in its pristine condition. No work will be done on
UT5
E5
this channel, other than the potential of it being crossed to access the lower
reach of the mainstem. If this is needed it will be restored to its existing
condition at the crossing.
6.2.3 Design Parameters
The primary objective of the restoration design is to construct a stream with a stable dimension,
pattern, and profile that has access to its floodplain at bankfull flows while enhancing riparian and
aquatic habitat. The philosophy applied by Baker through the Logan Creek project reach consisted of
creating a low width -depth ratio C -type channel with the expectation that it will naturally adjust
toward a narrower E -type channel over time as the riparian buffers become more established. The
proposed design for the entire project reach is shown in Appendix C, part D and is presented in more
detail on the plans.
Dimension
Throughout the entire proposed design, the cross - section dimensions were adjusted to reduce
velocities and near -bank shear stress during storm flows. Channel width was designed to maintain
velocities that will move small grain particles through the reach and avoid aggradation. The
selected cross section dimensions provide access to the floodplain by storm flows greater than
bankfull. The lower end of the width -depth ratio for a C -type channel was chosen (11.6) so that the
channel may easily narrow to a lower width -depth E -type morphology over time. Low width -depth
ratio channels maintain their steep banks by high root densities. They are difficult to construct due
to having very little root mass immediately after construction, which results in high risk of
instability in the short term. The proposed channel has low sloping banks that are more stable and
will allow for sediment build up and plant colonization, leading to a future low width -depth
channel. A low bank height ratio (BHR) of 1.0 was designed so the channel has access to the
floodplain during events having flows in excess of bankfull. Typical cross sections are shown on
the attached plan sheets.
Pattern
The proposed channel alignment on Reach 1 will decrease the stream length and thus sinuosity
slightly; the stream length in Reach 2 will be essentially unchanged. This reduction in stream
length represents pattern changes that remove overly sinuous meanders. Higher meander width
ratios on the restored channel were intended to allow for lateral dissipation of energy and provide a
floodplain sufficient for future natural channel development. A wide range of radii of curvature
were used in the design to allow for connecting to sections of existing channel, to avoid as many
Page 26

large trees as possible and to provide diversity of pattern. Plan views of the main channel are
shown on the attached plan sheets.
ProfileBedform
Although moderately functional and somewhat stable, the channel profile of the existing mainstem
is lacking sufficient overall bedform diversity. During the construction of the proposed channel,
cross section dimensions will be achieved first, followed by structure placement and facet
development to mimic characteristics of the reference conditions. Average channel slope for the
total reach is .0035 which is a increase from the existing reach -wide slope of .0047. This reflects
the change in channel length. Riffles throughout the design reaches are between .6 and 2.0 times
the average slope of the channel. The low riffle slopes are associated with connecting to existing
ground sections were profile will not change. Design riffle slopes are usually between 1.5 and 2
times average slope. The maximum pool depth is proposed to be constructed from five feet
upstream of the meander curve apex to a point 10 feet along the profile from the apex were a glide
will begin to the head of the next riffle. Structural modifications to the existing profile will be done
primarily with log structures rather than rock structures because large rock is fairly rare in this
channel and large woody debris is common.
Design Reaches
A stable cross - section will be achieved by narrowing the channel where it is over -wide and laterally
unstable and decreasing the width/depth ratio. In other sections stability will be enhanced by
producing a cross - section with banks that are low sloping and the sinuosity will be increased by
adding meanders to lengthen the channel and increase the area of deep water habitat. Grade control
at the bed is not a major concern at this site due to the very low slope of the valley and the
occasional presence of bedrock knick points. A variety of in -stream log structures will be used to
enhance stability and improve habitat. These structures include log cross -vanes, log vanes, log step
structures and randomly embedded logs. Bioengineering and in- stream structures will be used at
the outside of meander bends (including root wads, vegetated geo -lifts, bunkers, log vanes and
cover logs) to promote additional bank stability and improve habitat. A discussion of the project
structures that are proposed in this design is presented in Appendix C, part D.
Reach 1 is approximately 3,051 LF in length (not including sections excluded from the easement)
and begins just below a pond, shown on the attached plan sheets as station 0 +00. This reach is
designed as a C4 -type stream and involves Restoration level work with the construction of a new
sinuous channel that meanders back and forth across the existing channel and utilizes short sections
of the existing channel. Sinuosity through this reach was designed to avoid as many existing large
trees as possible. At four different locations along the proposed channel the design alignment will
abandon existing small radius meander bends that are flowing up- valley (area of 2 +50, 12+00,
14 +50 and 25 +50) and construct a more stable pattern with larger radius meanders. Once stabilized
with vegetation these should provide a better long -term pattern.
Reach 2 includes the final 1,050 LF of the project and begins below the bridge where Reach 1 ends
and continues to the end of the project at US 64. The pattern over this reach is not being altered
significantly. As stated above in section 7. 1.1 the primary issue through this reach is deposition of
sand which has covered most gravel or larger rock and has aggraded to a point that the banks in this
area are appear lower. Alterations to dimension and profile will be those that reduce stream width,
improve sediment transport and improve aquatic habitat. To this end a variety of in -stream
structures will be installed in this reach including log cross vanes, log vanes, and a hanging cover
logs. All of these structures will be installed to improve sediment transport and develop more pool
habitat within the reach.
UT5 is the longest tributary that is included within the project area, being 535 linear feet, with a
small unnamed tributary to it within the easement that is 25 linear feet in length. This tributary is in
Page 27

pristine condition and will be preserved within the conservation easement. No work will be
performed on this channel.
UT 3 joins Logan Creek in the area of 15 +90 and UT 6 joins at 8 +50 both of these tributaries will
have their channels extended to confluence with the mainstem. Restoration credits are proposed on
these new segments. The abandonment of the small radius bend where UT 3 enters Logan Creek
requires that UT 3 be lengthened to reach the new mainstem alignment. The additional section to be
added to UT 3 will be created by the restoration of a portion of the abandoned meander bend as a
smaller channel. A small vernal pool will be constructed in this abandoned meander bend. UT3
will be connected to this pool and then a new section of channel will be constructed to connect to
the mainstem. UT5 is a small channel that begins in a wetland/spring area and presently runs only
about 14 feet before entering on the right bank of the mainstem. We are proposing to move the
mainstem to the left and this will require extending UT6 about 100 feet to this new channel. These
two unnamed tributaries are the only tributaries on which we are seeking restoration credit.
Short segments of four other unnamed tributaries (UT 1, UT2, UT3 (partial) and UT4) are included
in the project and will be restored using an Enhancement I level of improvement. This will
primarily include protection within the easement area and grade control structures added to the
channel within the easement area to create a stable transition from the existing channel into the new
mainstem. Structural improvements will also provide grade control so that any changes on the
mainstem do not cause instability upstream on these tributaries. Vegetation improvements will also
be made as described below.
6.2.4 Natural Plant Community Restoration
Native riparian vegetation will be established in the restored stream buffer. Also, any areas of
invasive vegetation such as multiflora rose and Japanese honeysuckle will be eradicated so as not to
threaten the newly - established native plants within the conservation easement.
Rhododendron Control
The riparian buffer along the upper part of the Reach 2 has a very thick stand of Rhododendron
maximum. The density of the 10 to 15 foot high shrubs is having an adverse impact on the riparian
zone and stream channel of Logan Creek. The dense stands of evergreen rhododendron appear to
be shading out small trees that attempt to germinate and grow under their canopy. This has resulted
in a forest with a few large, older trees but few young trees to replace them. Aquatic populations
depend on inputs of large woody debris so any factor that limits the growth of tree species is
detrimental to the overall health of the system (Flebbe and Dolloff 1995). This has impacted the
stability of the creek banks because rhododendrons are a shallow rooted species. They do not
create the root mass needed to provide stability to the stream banks and they are out - compering
more deeply rooted hardwood tree species. As limbs from the plants die and fall into the channel or
when plants are washed out of the banks they form dense debris jams that further increase channel
instability. Rhododendrons are also a less desirable stream side species because their leaves do not
easily decompose, limiting their support of aquatic food chains.
Riparian buffer management along this reach will include reducing the density of rhododendron
within 20 feet of the stream bank. We will cut back the existing plants within this area and
mechanically remove unwanted plants. Many of these will be transplanted to other areas along the
channel; however, some will be destroyed. Other more low growing species, such as yellow root
and dog hobble, will be planted or transplanted to this area. We will also plant tree species that will
grow to varying mature heights within this buffer area. The long -term goal of this management
plan is to increase vegetative diversity within the buffer zone, increase stream bank stability with
deeply rooted species and promote the growth of species that will provide shade, high quality leaf
litter and terrestrial wildlife habitat.
Page 28

Stream Buffer Vegetation
A 30 -foot buffer measured from the top of banks (sometimes slightly less and quite often,
substantially more, on average 45 feet) will be established along the restored stream reaches. This
buffer area will be protected by a conservation easement. Plantings in the buffer area will include
bare -root, balled and burlap, seedlings and transplanted trees and shrubs. Vegetation will be
planted at a target density of 500 stems per acre, with trees being planted on a minimum 10 -foot
spacing and shrubs on a 6 -foot spacing. Live stakes will also be planted along the stream banks on
a 3 -foot spacing. The proposed species to be planted are listed in Appendix C, Part E, Table 2.
Planting of bare -root trees and live stakes will be conducted during the first dormant season
following construction. If construction activities are completed in summer /fall of a given year, all
vegetation will be installed prior to the start of the growing season of the following calendar year.
Species selection for re- vegetation of the site will generally follow those suggested by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) and tolerances cited in the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetland
Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN- RS -4.1 (1997). Tree species selected for stream
restoration areas will be generally weakly tolerant to tolerant of flooding. Weakly tolerant species
are able to survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short
periods of time. Moderately tolerant species are able to survive in soils that are saturated or flooded
for several months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species are able to survive on sites in
which the soil is saturated or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997).
Observations will be made during construction regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted.
Planting zones will be determined based on these observations, and planted species will be matched
according to their wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of the planting area.
Live stakes will be installed at least three feet apart using triangular spacing at a density of 60 to
100 stakes per 1,000 square feet along the stream banks. Site variations may require slightly
different spacing. Transplanted material may be used in the place of live stakes when possible.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Appendix C, Part
E, Table 3 lists the species, mixtures, and application rates that will be used. Mixtures will include
temporary seeding (rye grain or browntop millet). The permanent seed mixture will be applied to
all disturbed areas of the restored stream channel and is intended to provide rapid growth of
herbaceous ground cover and biological habitat value. The species provided are deep - rooted and
have been shown to proliferate along restored stream channels, providing long -term stability.
Temporary seeding will be applied to all disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion.
These areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. Temporary
seeding will done with a millet species, most likely browntop, applied at a rate of 40 pounds per
acre.
In addition to seeding, Baker will mulch all bare ground areas after they are seeded with both
temporary and permanent seed mixtures to further ensure the establishment of sufficient ground
cover to meet requirements, in a short period of time and to reduce soil movement. To further
address the need to control erosion on site we will install silt fence, temporary construction access,
staging areas, temporary stream crossings and temporary check dams as needed and shown on the
plan set. The locations as shown on the plans appear the most appropriate at this time but the final
location may change based on field conditions, needs and landowner preferences.
On -site Invasive Species Management
The site has some limited amount of multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica) on the floodplains along Logan Creek. These plants will be mechanically
removed during construction and destroyed. These populations will be monitored to evaluate if
they begin to reestablish. If these species persist after removal, individual plants will be treated
with a direct application of herbicide and monitored to insure they are completely eradicated.
Page 29

Areas of infestation by these invasive species will be monitored to insure they do not threaten the
newly - planted riparian vegetation by becoming reestablished.
Page 30

7.0 MAINTENANCE PLAN
Baker shall monitor the site on an annual basis and shall conduct a physical inspection of the site a
minimum of once per year throughout the post - construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine
maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site
construction and may include the following:
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close -out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include
chinking of in- stream structures to prevent piping, securing of loose
Stream
coir matting, and supplemental installations of live stakes and other
target vegetation along the channel. Areas where stormwater and
floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require
maintenance to prevent bank failures and head-cutting.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the
targeted plant community. Routine vegetation maintenance and
repair activities may include supplemental planting, pruning,
Vegetation
mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species shall be
controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation
control requiring herbicide application will be performed in
accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear
distinction between the mitigation site and adjacent properties.
Site Boundary
Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker, bollard, post, tree -
blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or
conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or
destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an as needed basis.
Road Crossing, Trail Crossings
Road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed
and Trails
by Conservation Easement or existing easement, deed restrictions,
rights of way, or corridor agreements.
Stormwater Management
Storm water management devices will be monitored and maintained
Device
per the protocols and procedures defined by the NC Division of
Water Quality Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual.
Page 31

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 32

8.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The stream restoration success criteria for the project site will follow accepted and approved success
criteria presented in recent restoration and mitigation plans developed for numerous NCEEP full deliver
projects, as well as the Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003. Specific success criteria
components are presented below.
8.1. Stream Monitoring
Channel stability and vegetation survival will be monitored on the project site. Post - restoration
monitoring will be conducted for five years following the completion of construction to document
project success.
Geomorphic monitoring of restored stream reaches will be conducted for five years to evaluate the
effectiveness of the restoration practices. Monitored stream parameters include stream dimension
(cross sections), pattern (longitudinal survey), profile (profile survey), and photographic documentation.
The methods used and any related success criteria are described below for each parameter.
Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented by the use of a
crest gage and photographs. The crest gage will be installed on the floodplain within 10 feet of the
restored channel. The crest gage will record the highest watermark between site visits, and the gage
will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has occurred.
Photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the
floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Two bankfull flow events in separate years must be documented within the 5 -year monitoring period.
Otherwise, the stream monitoring will continue until two bankfull events have been documented in
separate years.
Cross Sections
Two permanent cross sections will be installed per 1,000 linear feet of stream restoration work, with
one located at a riffle cross - section and one located at a pool cross - section. Each cross - section will be
marked on both banks with permanent pins to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark
will be used for cross sections and consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year -to -year data.
The annual cross - section survey will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of
bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and thalweg, if the features are present. Riffle cross sections
will be classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification method.
There should be little change in as-built cross sections. If changes do take place, they should be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down -
cutting or erosion) or a movement toward increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes,
deposition along the banks, or decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross sections will be classified using the
Rosgen Stream Classification method, and all monitored cross sections should fall within the
quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type.
Longitudinal Profile
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed immediately after construction and once every year thereafter
for the duration of the five -year monitoring period. The as-built survey will be used as the baseline for
year one monitoring. Representative 3,000 LF segments of the restored Logan Creek project reach will
be surveyed. Measurements will include thalweg, water surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each
of these measurements will be taken at the head of each feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum
pool depth. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark.
The longitudinal profiles should show that the bedform features are remaining stable; i.e., they are not
aggrading or degrading. The pools should remain deep, with flat water surface slopes, and the riffles
should remain steeper and shallower than the pools. Bedforms observed should be consistent with
those observed for channels of the design stream type.
Page 33

Bed Material Analyses
Pebble counts will be conducted for at two permanent cross - sections (100 - counts per cross - section) one
in each project reach. Pebble counts will be conducted immediately after construction and at a two -year
interval thereafter (years three and five) during the five year monitoring period. Pebble count data will
be plotted and compared with data from previous years.
Photo Reference Sites
Photographs will be used to visually document restoration success. Reference stations will be
photographed following construction and continued annually for at least five years. Photographs will
be taken from a height of approximately five feet. Permanent markers will be established to ensure that
the same locations (and view directions) on the site are monitored in each monitoring period.
Lateral reference photos. Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross - section.
Photographs will be taken of both banks at each cross - section. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the bank. The water line will be located in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of
the bank as possible will be included in each photo. Photographers should make an effort to
consistently maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Structure photos. Photographs will be taken at each grade control structure along the restored stream,
limited to cross -veins and weir structures. Photographers should make every effort to consistently
maintain the same area in each photo over time.
Photographs will be used to evaluate channel aggradation or degradation, bank erosion, success of
riparian vegetation, and effectiveness of erosion control measures subjectively. Lateral photos should
not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks. A series of photos over time
should indicate successive maturation of riparian vegetation.
8.2. Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation on a site is dependent upon hydrologic restoration, active
planting of preferred canopy species, and volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. In
order to determine if the criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring quadrants will be installed across
the restoration site. The number of quadrants required will be based on the species/area curve method,
with a minimum of three quadrants. The size of individual quadrants will vary from 100 square meters
for tree species to 1 square meter for herbaceous vegetation. Vegetation monitoring will be done after
leaf -out has occurred. Individual quadrant data will be provided and will include diameter, height,
density, and coverage quantities. Relative values will be calculated, and importance values will be
determined. Individual seedlings will be marked to ensure that they can be found in succeeding
monitoring years. Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living,
planted seedlings and the current year's living, planted seedlings.
At the end of the first growing season, species composition, density, and survival will be evaluated. For
each subsequent year, until the final success criteria are achieved, the restored site will be evaluated
between July and November.
Specific and measurable success criteria for plant density on the project site will be based on the
recommendations found in the WRP Technical Note and past project experience.
The interim measure of vegetative success for the site will be the survival of at least 320, 3 -year old,
planted trees per acre at the end of year three of the monitoring period. The final vegetative success
criteria will be the survival of 260, 5 -year old, planted trees per acre at the end of year five of the
monitoring period. While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating
vegetation success on restoration projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of
additional plant community indices to assess overall vegetative success.
Page 34

9.0 MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
Annual monitoring data will be reported using the EEP monitoring template. The monitoring report shall
provide a project data chronology that will facilitate an understanding of project status and trends,
population of EEP databases for analysis, research purposes, and assist in decision making regarding
vroiect close -out.
Required
Paramete r
uanti
Frequency
Notes
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation
NO
Pattern
Guidelines
annual
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation
YES
Dimension
Guidelines
annual
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation
YES
Profile
Guidelines
annual
As per April 2003 USACE
Wilmington District
Stream Mitigation
YES
Substrate
Guidelines
annual
As per April 2003 USACE
A Crest Gauge will be installed on site; the device
Wilmington District
will be inspected on a semi - annual basis to
Surface Water
Stream Mitigation
document the occurrence of bankfull events on the
YES
Hydrology
Guidelines
annual
project
Groundwater
NO
H drolo
N/A
WA
N/A
Quantity and location of
vegetation plots will be
determined and reported
Vegetation will be monitored using the Carolina
YES
Vegetation
in the Restoration Plan.
annual
Vegetation Survey CVS) protocols
Exotic and nuisance
Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be
YES
vegetation
I
annual I
mapped and treated to eliminate populations
Locations of fence damage, vegetation damage,
boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped and
Semi-
easement violations will be discussed with
Yes
Project boundary
annual
landowner.
Page 35

Page Intentionally Left Blank
Page 36

10.0 LONG -TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NCDENR Division of Natural Resource Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program currently
houses EEP stewardship endowments within the non - reverting, interest- bearing Conservation Lands
Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North
Carolina General Statute GS I I3A- 232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only
for the purpose of stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if
applicable. The NCDENR Stewardship Program intends to manage the account as a non - wasting
endowment. Only interest generated from the endowment funds will be used to steward the
compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those purposes will be re- invested in the
Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation.
The Highlands- Cashiers Land Trust (HCLT) is working with the landowners at the Logan Creek project
site and they have placed a large area of public space within a conservation easement with HCLT. Upon
approval by NCEEP, Baker will contact the Highlands- Cashiers Land Trust (HCLT) to determine if they
will be amenable to accepting the stewardship responsibilities for the Logan Creek Stream Restoration
Conservation Easement. If the HCLT is willing to take on this responsibility then EEP will need to
transfer the endowment that they would otherwise place in NCDENR Division of Natural Resource
Planning and Conservation's Stewardship Program to HCLT for long -term stewardship. HCLT would be
responsible for periodic inspection of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation
easement or the deed restriction document(s) are upheld. Endowment funds required to uphold easement
and deed restrictions shall be negotiated prior to site transfer to the responsible party.
11.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction Baker will implement the post - construction monitoring protocols
previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described previously in
this document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards is jeopardized, Baker will develop a Plan of Corrective Action. The Plan of
Corrective Action will be reviewed with the EEP project manager and any suggestions implemented if
Baker feels they are appropriate. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized Baker will:
1. Notify the NCEEP, USACE and other regulatory agencies as necessary.
2. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring
requirements as necessary and/or required.
3. Obtain other permits as necessary.
4. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
5. Provide EEP a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions with the next monitoring report.
This document shall depict the extent and nature of the work performed.
12.0 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Ecosystem Enhancement Program's In -Lieu Fee
Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
has provided the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund
projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by EEP. This commitment provides financial
assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.
Page 37

13.0 DEFINITIONS
Morphological description — the stream type; stream type is determined by quantifying channel entrenchment,
dimension, pattern, profile, and boundary materials; as described in Rosgen, D. (1996), Applied River Morphology,
2"d edition
Native vegetation community — a distinct and reoccurring assemblage of populations of plants, animals, bacteria and
fungi naturally associated with each other and their population; as described in Schafale, M.P. and Weakley, A. S.
(1990), Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third Approximation
Project Area - includes all protected lands associated with the mitigation project
Page 38

14.0 REFERENCES
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands. US Army Corps of Engineers,
Waterways Exp. Stn. Tech. Rep. WRP -DE4. Washington, DC. 79 pp. + app.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects.
Washington, DC.
Faber - Langendoen, D., Rocchio, J., Schafale, M., Nordman, C., Pyne, M., Teague, J., Foti, T., Comer, P.
(2006), Ecological Integrity Assessment and Performance Measures for Wetland Mitigation.
NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Flebbe, P.A., C.A. Dolloff. 1995. Trout Use of Woody Debris and Habitat in Appalachian Wilderness
Streams of North Carolina. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 15:579 -590.
Goldsmith, R., Milton, D.J., and Horton, J.W. 1985. Geologic Map of the Charlotte 1° x 2° Quadrangle,
North Carolina and South Carolina. USGS Map 1- 1251 -E, 3p.
Hadley, J.B. and Nelson, A.E., 1971, Geologic map of the Knoxville quadrangle, North Carolina,
Tennessee, and South Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey, Miscellaneous Geologic Investigations
Map 1 -654, scale 1:250000. http: / /ngmdb. usgs .gov /Prodesc /proddesc_9432.htm m
Harman, W.A., D.E. Wise, M.A. Walker, R. Morris, M.A. Cantrell, M. Clemons, G.D. Jennings, D.
Clinton, and J. Patterson. 2000. Bankfull regional curves for North Carolina mountain streams. In
Proc. AWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, Alaska, ed. E.L.
Kane, pp. 185 -190. Middleburg, VA.: American Water Resources Association.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234 -1279.
Lindenmayer, D.B., and J.F. Franklin. (2002), Conserving forest biodiversity: A comprehensive
multiscaled approach. Island Press, Washington, DC.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985, Geologic map of North Carolina: North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development, scale 1:500000.
Peet, R.K., Wentworth, T.S., and White, P.S. (1998), A flexible, multipurpose method for recording
vegetation composition and structure. Castanea 63:262 -274
Reed, Jr., and Porter B. 1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: National
Summary. US Fish & Wildlife Service. Biol. Rep. 88(24). 244 pp.
Rosgen, D. L. 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169 -199.
_. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Pagosa Springs, CO: Wildland Hydrology Books.
_. 1997. A geomorphological approach to restoration of incised rivers. Proceedings of the Conference
on Management of Landscapes Disturbed by Channel Incision. Wang, S.S.Y, E.J. Langendoen,
and F.D. Shields, Jr., eds. 12 -22.
_. 1998. The reference reach - A blueprint for natural channel design (draft). ASCE Conference on
River Restoration. Denver CO. March, 1998. ASCE. Reston, VA.
2001 a. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal Interagency
Sediment Conference. Reno, NV. March, 2001.
Page 39

2001b. The cross -vane, w -weir and j -hook vane structures... their description, design and
application for stream stabilization and river restoration. ASCE conference. Reno, NV. August,
2001.
Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
andLandforms 14(1):11 -26.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, Wilmington District
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical,
Report Y -87 -1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
US Army Corps of Engineers. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note
VN- rs -4.1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army of Corps of Engineers (2002). HEC -RAS Hydraulic Reference Manual, Version 3.1.0. Davis,
CA: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Hydrologic Engineering Center.
US Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). 1997. Part 650,
Chapter 19 of the NRCS Engineering Field Handbook: Hydrology Tools for Wetland
Determination.
_. 1996. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States. G.W. Hurt, Whited, P.M., and Pringle,
R.F., eds. Fort Worth, TX.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil
Survey of Rutherford County, North Carolina. http : / /websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov /app/
WebSoilSurvey.aspx
Yang, C.T. 1973. "Incipient Motion and Sediment Transport," Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 99, No HY10, October, 1973, pp 1679 -1704.
Yang, C.T. 1984. "Unit Stream Power Equations for Gravel," Journal of the Hydraulics Division,
American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 110, No. 12, December, 1984, pp 1783 -1797.
Young, T.F. and Sanzone, S. (editors). (2002), A framework for assessing and reporting on ecological
condition. Ecological Reporting Panel, Ecological Processes and Effects Committee. EPA
Science Advisory Board. Washington, DC.
Page 40

APPENDIX A
SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENTS
Part 1. Recorded Conservation Easement/Deed Provided Pursuant to Full Delivery Mitigation
Contract, January 2, 2008. Recorded at Jackson Co. Register of Deeds; BK 1720, PG
238 -248.
Part 2. Amendment of Conservation Easement and Right Of Access Provided Pursuant to
DENR Full Delivery Mitigation Contract D06046 -A to Release a Portion of the
Easement Area, February 7, 2013. Recorded at Jackson Co. Register of Deeds; BK
1974, PG 839 -851.

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 1.
11111 111111111111 I11811UI I61181111 III 11
Doc ID: 008748570011 Type: CRP
Recorded: 01/02/2006 at 0451:81 PH
Fee : 644.00 Page 1 of it
Jackson County. NC
Joe Hamilton Register of Deeds
BK 1720 Pa238 -248
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA CONSERVATION EASEMENT
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT
JACKSON COUNTY
SPO File Number 50-F
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
THIS CONSERVATION EASEMENT DEED, made this A T4 day of December,
2007, by Cow Rock Mountain, Inc., successor in interest to LVC -1, Inc. ( "Grantor "),
whose mailing address is Cow Rock Mountain, c/o Thomas Bates, PO Box 3269,
Cashiers, NC 28717, to the State of North Carolina, ( "Grantee "), whose mailing address
is State of North Carolina, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321
Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321. The designations of Grantor and Grantee
as used herein shall include said parties, their heirs, successors, administrators, agents,
and assigns, and shall include singular, plural, masculine, feminine, or neuter as required
by context.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et sea.• the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known
as the Wetlands Restoration Program) within the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring, enhancing, creating and
preserving wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and
improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife
habitat, and recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, this Conservation Easement from Grantor to Grantee has been negotiated,
arranged and provided for as a condition of a full delivery contract between Baker
Engineering NY, Inc., and the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural

Resources, to provide stream, wetland and/or buffer mitigation pursuant to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Purchase and Services
Contract Number D06046 -A.
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers,
Wilmington District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed
by all parties in Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003, which recognizes that the Ecosystem
Enhancement Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection
of the land, water and natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and
preserving ecosystem functions; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina was granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by
the Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh,
North Carolina, on the 8h day of February 2000; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources, which has been delegated the authority authorized by the
Governor and Council of State to the Department of Administration, has approved
acceptance of this instrument; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Cashiers Township, Jackson County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 733 acres
and being conveyed to the Grantor's predecessor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 190
at Page 54 of the Jackson County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to grant a Conservation Easement over the herein
described areas of the Property, thereby restricting and limiting the use of the included
areas of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes hereinafter set forth, and
Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement. This Conservation Easement
shall be for the protection and benefit of Logan Creek, portions of its tributaries and
associated wetlands.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, Grantor unconditionally and irrevocably hereby grants
and conveys unto Grantee, its successors and assigns, forever and in perpetuity, a
Conservation Easement of the nature and character and to the extept hereinafter set forth,
over a described area of the Property legally described in Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference, referred to hereafter as the "Easement Area ", for the
benefit of the people of North Carolina, and being all of the tract of land as shown on a

plat of survey entitled "Logan Creek Conservation Easement Survey for State of North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program" dated May 28. 2007, certified by Lloyd
DeWMe Brown of Vaughn & Melton, and recorded in Cabinet 16 at Slide 816 of the
Jackson County Registry.
The purposes of this Conservation Easement are to maintain, restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or riparian resources in the Easement Area that contribute to the
protection and improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat,
wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities; to maintain permanently the Easement
Area in its natural condition, consistent with these purposes; and to prevent any use of the
Easement Area that will significantly impair or interfere with these purposes. To achieve
these purposes, the following conditions and restrictions are set forth:
I. DURATION OF EASEMENT
This Conservation Easement shall be perpetual. It is an easement in gross, runs with the
land, and is enforceable by Grantee against Grantor, their personal representatives, heirs,
successors, and assigns, lessees, agents, and licensees.
II. GRANTOR RESERVED USES AND RESTRICTED ACTIVITES
The Easement Area shall be restricted from any development or usage that would impair
or interfere with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Unless expressly reserved
as a compatible use herein, any activity in, or use of, the Easement Area by the Grantor is
prohibited as inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Any rights
not expressly reserved hereunder by the Grantor have been acquired by the Grantee. The
following specific uses are prohibited, restricted, or reserved as indicated:
A. Recreational Uses. Grantor expressly reserves the right to undeveloped recreational
uses, including hiking, bird watching, hunting and fishing, and access to the Easement
Area for the purposes thereof. Usage of motorized vehicles in the Easement Area is
prohibited, except as they are used exclusively for management, maintenance, or
stewardship purposes, and on existing trails, paths or roads.
B. Educational Uses. The Grantor reserves the right to engage in and permit others to
engage in educational uses in the Easement Area not inconsistent with this Conservation
Easement, and the right of access to the Easement Area for such purposes including
organized educational activities such as site visits and observations. Educational uses of
the property shall not alter vegetation, hydrology or topography of the site.
C. Vegetative Cutting. Except as related to the removal of non - native plants, diseased
or damaged trees, and vegetation that obstructs, destabilizes or renders unsafe the
Easement Area to persons or natural habitat, all cutting, removal, mowing, harming, or
destruction of any trees and vegetation in the Easement Area is prohibited.

D. Industrial, Residential and Commercial Uses. All are prohibited in the Easement
Area.
E. Agricultural Use. All agricultural uses within the Easement Area including any use
for cropland, waste lagoons, or pastureland are prohibited.
F. New Construction. There shall be no building, facility, mobile home, antenna, utility
pole, tower, or other structure constructed or placed in the Easement Area.
G. Roads and Trails. There shall be no construction of roads, trails, walkways, or
paving in the Easement Area except as described herein. Existing roads or trails located
in the Easement Area may be maintained by Grantor in order to minimize runoff,
sedimentation and for access to the interior of the Property for management,
maintenance, stewardship purposes, or undeveloped recreational and educational uses of
the Easement Area. Existing roads, trails or paths may be maintained with loose gravel
or permanent vegetation to stabilize or cover the surfaces. The existing trail network
includes a planned wildlife observation deck and suspension bridge across the stream,
immediately downstream of the largest wetland along Logan Creek. Grantor retains the
right to construct this deck and bridge, the foundations of which may fall within the
Easement Area. The bridge will be suspended at least 6 feet above the floodplain and
span at least 30 feet on both sides of the channel.
H. Signs. No signs shall be permitted in the Easement Area except interpretive signs
describing restoration activities and the conservation values of the Easement Area, signs
identifying the owner of the Property and the holder of the Conservation Easement, signs
giving directions, or signs prescribing rules and regulations for the use of the Easement
Area may be allowed.
I. Dumping or Storing. Dumping or storage of soil, trash, ashes, garbage, waste,
abandoned vehicles, appliances or machinery, or other material in the Easement Area is
prohibited.
I Grading, Mineral Use, Excavation, Dredging. There shall be no grading, filling,
excavation, dredging, mining, or drilling; no removal of topsoil, sand, gravel, rock, peat,
minerals, or other materials.
K. Water Quality and Drainage Patterns. There shall be no diking, draining, dredging,
channeling, filling, leveling, pumping, impounding or diverting, causing, allowing or
permitting the diversion of surface or underground water. No altering or tampering with
water control structures or devices, or disruption or alteration of the restored, enhanced,
or created drainage patterns. All removal of wetlands, polluting or discharging into
waters, springs, seeps, or wetlands, or use of pesticide or biocides is prohibited. In the
event of an emergency interruption or shortage of all other water sources, water from
within the Easement Area may temporarily be used for good cause shown as needed for
the survival of livestock and agricultural production.

L. Subdivision and Conveyance. Grantor voluntarily agrees that no subdivision,
partitioning, or dividing of the underlying fee that is subject to this Easement is allowed.
Unless agreed to by the Grantee in writing, any future conveyance of the underlying fee
for the Easement Area and the rights as conveyed herein shall be as a single block of
property. Any future transfer of the fee simple shall be subject to this Conservation
Easement. Any transfer of the fee is subject to the Grantee's right of ingress, egress, and
regress over and across the Property to the Easement Area for the purposes set forth
herein.
M. Development Rights. All development rights are removed from the Easement Area
and shall not be transferred.
N. Disturbance of Natural Features. Any change, disturbance, alteration or impairment
of the natural features of the Easement Area or any intentional introduction o_ f non - native
plants, trees and/or animal species by Grantor is prohibited.
The Grantor may request permission to vary from the above restrictions for good cause
shown, provided that any such request is consistent with the purposes of this
Conservation Easement. The Grantor shall not vary from the above restrictions without
first obtaining written approval from the N.C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program, whose
mailing address is 1652 Mail Services Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652.
III. GRANTEE RESERVED USES
A. Ingress, Egress, Regress and Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents,
successors and assigns, receive the perpetual right of general ingress, egress, and regress
to the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable times to undertake any activities to
restore, manage, maintain, enhance, and monitor the wetland and riparian resources of the
Easement Area, in accordance with restoration activities or a long -term management
plan. Unless otherwise specifically set forth in this Conservation Easement, the rights
granted herein do not include or establish for the public any access rights.
B. Restoration Activities. These activities include planting of trees, shrubs and
herbaceous vegetation, installation of monitoring wells, utilization of heavy equipment to
grade, fill, and prepare the soil, modification of the hydrology of the site, and installation
of natural and manmade materials as needed to direct in- stream, above ground, and
subterraneous water flow.
IV. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES
A. Enforcement. To accomplish the purposes of this Conservation Easement, Grantee is
allowed to prevent any activity within the Easement Area that is inconsistent with the
purposes of this Easement and to require the restoration of such areas or features of the
Easement Area that may have been damaged by such activity or use. Upon any breach of
the terms of this Conservation Easement by Grantor, their successors or assigns, that
comes to the attention of the Grantee, the Grantee shall, except as provided below, notify
0

0
the Grantor, their successors or assigns in writing of such breach. The Grantor shall have
ninety (90) days after receipt of such notice to correct the conditions constituting such
breach. If the breach remains uncured after ninety (90) days, the Grantee may enforce
this Conservation Easement by appropriate legal proceedings including damages,
injunctive and -other relief. The Grantee shall also have the power and authority,
consistent with its statutory authority: (a) to prevent any impairment of the Easement
Area by acts which may be unlawful or in violation of this Conservation Easement; (b) to
otherwise preserve or protect its interest in the Property; or (c) to seek damages from any
appropriate peison or entity. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Grantee reserves the
immediate right, without notice, to obtain a temporary restraining order, injunctive or
other appropriate relief if the breach of the term of this Conservation Easement is or
would irreversibly or otherwise materially impair the benefits to be derived from this
Conservation Easement. The Grantor . and Grantee acknowledge that under such
circumstances damage to the Grantee would be irreparable and remedies at law will be
inadequate. The rights and remedies of the Grantee provided hereunder shall be in
addition to, and not in lieu of, all other rights and remedies available to Grantee in
connection with this Conservation Easement.
B. Inspection. The Grantee, its employees and agents, successors and assigns, have the
right, with reasonable notice, to enter the Easement Area over the Property at reasonable
times for the purpose of inspection to determine whether the Grantor, their successors or
assigns are complying with the terms, conditions and restrictions of this Conservation
Easement.
C. Acts Beyond Grantor's Control. Nothing contained in this Conservation Easement
shall be construed to entitle Grantee to bring any action against Grantor, their successors
or assigns, for any injury or change in the Easement Area caused by third parties,
resulting from causes beyond the Grantor's control, including, without limitation, fire,
flood, storm, and earth movement, or from any prudent action taken in good faith by the
Grantor under emergency conditions to prevent, abate, or mitigate significant injury to
life, damage to property or harm to the Property resulting from such causes.
D. Costs of Enforcement. Beyond regular and typical monitoring, any costs incurred by
Grantee in enforcing the terms of this Conservation Easement against Grantor, their
successors or assigns, including, without limitation, any costs of restoration necessitated
by Grantor's acts or omissions in violation of the terms of this Conservation Easement,
shall be borne by Grantor.
E. No Waiver. Enforcement of this Easement shall be at the discretion of the Grantee
and any forbearance, delay or omission by Grantee to exercise its rights hereunder in the
event of any breach of any term set forth herein shall not be construed to be a waiver by
Grantee.
V. MISCELLANEOUS
A. This instrument sets forth the entire agreement of the parties with respect to the

0
Conservation Easement and supersedes all prior discussions, negotiations, understandings
or agreements relating to the Conservation Easement. If any provision is found to be
invalid, the remainder of the -provisions of the Conservation Easement, and the
application of such provision to persons or circumstances other than those as to which it
is found to be invalid, shall not be affected thereby.
B. Any notices shall be sent by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested to the
parties at their addresses shown above or to other address(es) as either party establishes in
writing upon notification to the other.
C. Grantor shall notify Grantee in writing of the name and address and any party to
whom the Property or any part thereof is to be transferred at or prior to the time said
transfer is made. Grantor further agrees to make any subsequent lease, deed, or other
legal instrument by which any interest in the Property is conveyed subject to the
Conservation Easement herein created.
D. The Property is subject to certain Deeds of Trust described in Exhibits B and C hereto,
and such Deeds of Trust have been subordinated by their holders to this Conservation
Easement in accordance with Exhibits B and C.
E. The Grantor and Grantee agree that the terms of this Conservation Easement shall
survive any merger of the fee and easement interests in the Property or any portion
thereof.
F. This Conservation Easement may be amended, but only in writing signed by all
parties hereto, and provided such amendment does not affect the qualification of this
Conservation Easement or the status of the Grantee under any applicable laws, and is
consistent with the purposes of the Conservation Easement.
G. The parties recognize and agree that the benefits of this Conservation Easement are in
gross and assignable provided, however, that the Grantee hereby covenants and agrees;
that in the event it transfers or assigns this Conservation Easement, the organization
receiving the interest will be a qualified holder under N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -34 et seq. and
§ 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code, and the Grantee further covenants and agrees that
the terms of the transfer or assignment will be such that the transferee or assignee will be
required to continue in perpetuity the conservation purposes described in this document.
VI. QUIET ENJOYMENT
Grantor reserves all remaining rights accruing from ownership of the Property, including
the right to engage in or permit or invite others to engage in only those uses of the
Easement Area that are expressly reserved herein, not prohibited or restricted herein, and
are not inconsistent with the purposes of this Conservation Easement. Without limiting
the generality of the foregoing, the Grantor expressly reserves to the Grantor, and the
Grantor's invitees and licensees, the right of access to the Easement Area, and the right of
quiet enjoyment of the Easement Area.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the said rights and easements perpetually unto the State of
North Carolina for the aforesaid purposes.
AND Grantor covenants and warrants that Grantor is seized of said premises in fee and
has the right to convey the permanent Conservation Easement herein granted; that the
same are free from encumbrances except those specifically referenced in Article V,
paragraph D above, and that Grantor will warrant and defend title to the same against the
claims of all persons whomsoever.
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor, as a fully authorized act of the corporation,
has hereunto set its hand and seal, the day and year first above written.
Attest:
Printed name:
Its Secretary
NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF 4Cyli.N It
(CORPORATE SEAL)
I, /. "Alld, s _, a Notary Public in and for the County and State
aforesaid, do hereby certify that T &4 , who is known
personally to me or who has presented satisfactory eviderike of his identity, personally
appeared before me this day, and, being duly sworn, acknowledged that he is the
Secretary of Cow Rock Mountain, Inc., a corporation, and that by authority duly given
and as an act of the corporation, the foregoing instrument was signed in its name by its
President, sealed with its corporate seal, and attested by himself as its _- Secretary.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notary Seal this the
Z -7 day of December, 2007.
`,Z Notary Public
(panted name of notary)
My commission expires:
i
E���
f "NOTARY
PUBLIC s�
2; % .r
�6 `0 ~%.�uM�L `
0
0
0

EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
In Cashiers Township, being all of that Property designated E1, E2, E3, E4, and E5,
consisting of 20.79 acres, more or less, as shown on a plat of survey entitled "Logan
Creek Conservation Easement Survey for State of North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program" dated May 28, 2007, certified by Lloyd DeWayne Brown of
Vaughn & Melton, and recorded in Cabinet 16 at Slide 816 of the Jackson County
Registry, to which reference is hereby specifically made, and
Being a portion of that same tract of land described in the deed to Lonesome Valley
Company from M.C. Jennings and wife, Louise J. Jennings, and R.G. Jennings,
unmarried, dated February 7, 1948 and recorded in Deed Book 190 at Page 54 of the
Jackson County Registry, to which reference is specifically made.

EXHIBIT "B"
JOINDER AND CONSENT OF MORTAGEE
Carolina Fist Bank, ( "Mortgagee "), the holder of the mortgage encumbering the Property in
the amount of $12,398,745.00 recorded at Book 1661, Page 835 in the office of the Jackson
County, North Carolina Register of Deeds (the "Mortgage "), hereby consents to the terms of
this Conservation Easement and agrees that the lien of the Mortgage shall be fully subordinate
to this Conservation Easement and the rights of the Grantee to enforce this Conservation
Easement.
Without limitation of the foregoing, Mortgagee agrees that, in the event of the foreclosure of
the Mortgage or a judgment obtained under the Mortgage or any promissory note secured
thereby, the Property described in the Conservation Easement shall remain under and subject
to the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Conservation Easement, as fully as if the
Mortgage was executed, delivered, and recorded after the dates of the execution, delivery, and
recording of this Conservation Easement.
This Joinder and Consent of Mortgagee shall be binding upon Mortgagee's successors and
assignees as holders of the Mortgage and any amendment thereof.
MORTGAGEE:
Carolina Fast Bank
By: (seal)
Printed n r v
Its (title)
STATE OF SO CAROL I
COUN'T'Y OF re l'
I, cc e r o
hereby certify that )-16a _<figj
acknowledged that is the duly q
South Carolina corporation, an
signed by him for the purposes
corporation.
a Notary Public in and for said County and State do
sonally a ared before me this day and duly
•< V fT of Carolina Fist Bank, a
i that by authority duly given, the foregoing instrument was
stated therein, on behalf of and as a duly authorized act of the
$S d 0 notarial seal, this day of 2007
11,0K A
o*tary Public 66,1011' 11 t o 1, �
Mycommission expires: / jj -�Rd� 6 .`� P ;•61cC'�q�,��
p4TA
R '
PI 13 �..�
� P
'A` o```��

EXHIBIT "C"
JOINDER AND CONSENT OF MORTAGEE
LVC -1, Inc., ("Mortgagee'), the holder of the mortgages encumbering the Property in the
amount of $10,890,552.00 recorded at Book 1649, Page 845 and in the amount of
$6,819,342.90 recorded at Book 1635, Page 851 in the office of the Jackson County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds (the "Mortgages'), hereby consents to the terms of this
Conservation Easement and agrees that the lien of the Mortgage shall be fully subordinate to
this Conservation Easement and the rights of the Grantee to enforce this Conservation
Easement.
Without limitation of the foregoing, Mortgagee agrees that, in the event of the foreclosure of
the Mortgage or a judgment obtained under the Mortgage or any promissory note secured
thereby, the Property described in the Conservation Easement shall remain under and subject
to the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Conservation Easement, as fully as if the
Mortgage was executed, delivered, and recorded after the dates of the execution, delivery, and
recording of this Conservation Easement.
This Joinder and Consent of Mortgagee shall be binding upon Mortgagee's successors and
assignees as holders of the Mortgage and any amendment thereof.
MORTGAGEE:
LVC -1,
By: _
It's
STATE NORTH CAROLINA
CO F JiE96itT 8,A(-
I, C a Notary Public in and for said County and State do
hereby certify that 01,44 ,4 / T� ms- 0personally appeared before me this day and duly
acknowledged that is the duly qualified President of LVC -1, Inc. a North Carolina
corporation, and that by authority duly given, the foregoing instrument was signed by him for
the purposes stated therein, on behalf of and as a duly authorized act of the corporation.
WITNESS my hand and notarial seal, this 2 7 day of ?1& 2007.
Lo G.
ri-
Notary Public
My commission expires: (�/701 2
�uOTARY =
PUBLIC

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 2. , " -
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JACKSON COUNTY
SPO File Number 50 -028.005
EEP Site ID 92515
Prepared by: Office of the Attorney General
Property Control Section
Return to: NC Department of Administration
State Property Office
1321 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321
I�II�����IlII����I�IIW ®IWHN
Doc ID: 004697810013 Type: CRP
Recorded: 02 /07/2013 at 02.58:01 PM
Fee Amt!: Page 1 of 13
Jackson County, NC
Joe Hamilton Register of Deeds
BK 1974 Po839 -851
AMENDMENT OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
AND RIGHT OF ACCESS
PROVIDED PURSUANT TO
DENR FULL DELIVERY
MITIGATION CONTRACT D06046 -A
TO RELEASE A PORTION OF THE
EASEMENT AREA
THIS AMENDMENT OF THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND RIGHT OF
ACCESS, made this i II day of F�r.�►,. , 201$, by and between Cow Rock
Mountain, Inc., successor in interest to LVC -1, In . ( "Grantor "), whose mailing address is, Cow
Rock Mountain, P.O. Box 3269, Cashiers, NC 28717, and the State of North Carolina whose
mailing address is, Department of Administration, State Property Office, 1321 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, NC 27699 -1321 ( "Grantee "). The designations 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:
This amendment is intended to modify the previous Conservation Easement as recorded
in Deed Book 1720, Page 238 -248, of the Jackson County Registry (the "Conservation
Easement"). Grantor and Grantee (collectively, the "Parties ") have agreed to modify the land
areas included in the easement area. Areas which the Parties agree should not be encumbered by
the Conservation Easement are released to the Grantor and the Conservation Easement on all
remaining areas will continue to be subject to the Conservation Easement conveyed to the
Grantee.
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143 -214.8 et se4., the State
of North Carolina has established the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (formerly known as the
Wetlands Restoration Program) (as defined in N.C. Gen. Stat. 143 - 214.8) within the Department
of Environment and Natural Resources for the purposes of acquiring, maintaining, restoring,
enhancing, and creating wetland and riparian resources that contribute to the protection and

improvement of water quality, flood prevention, fisheries, aquatic habitat, wildlife habitat, and
recreational opportunities; and
WHEREAS, The State of North Carolina is qualified to be the Grantee of a Conservation
Easement pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 121 -35; and
WHEREAS, the Ecosystem Enhancement Program in the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources has approved acceptance of this instrument; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District entered into a Memorandum of Agreement, (MOA) duly executed by all parties in
Greensboro, NC on July 22, 2003. This MOA recognizes that the Ecosystem Enhancement
Program is to provide for compensatory mitigation by effective protection of the land, water and
natural resources of the State by restoring, enhancing and preserving ecosystem function; and
WHEREAS, the acceptance of this instrument for and on behalf of the State of North
Carolina has been granted to the Department of Administration by resolution as approved by the
Governor and Council of State adopted at a meeting held in the City of Raleigh, North Carolina,
on the 5's day of June 2011; and
WHEREAS, Grantor owns in fee simple certain real property situated, lying, and being
in Cashiers Township, Jackson County, North Carolina (the "Property "), and being more
particularly described as that certain parcel of land containing approximately 733 acres conveyed
to the Grantor's predecessor by deed as recorded in Deed Book 190, Page 54, of the Jackson
County Registry, North Carolina; and
WHEREAS, Grantor is willing to allow the Conservation Easement to remain in place
on the described areas of the Property as set forth in Exhibit A, thereby restricting and limiting
the use of the included areas of the Property to the terms and conditions and purposes set forth,
and Grantee is willing to accept such Conservation Easement. This Amended Conservation
Easement shall be for the protection and benefit of the waters of Logan Creek.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, terms, conditions, and
restrictions hereinafter set forth, the Parties agree to amend the Conservation Easement to only
encumber the tracts of land identified as "Revised Conservation Easement Areas" as shown
on a plat of survey entitled "Logan Creek Conservation Easement Survey for the State of
North Carolina, Ecosystem Enhancement Program -EEP Site ID No. 92515" dated
November 15, 2012 Oast revision), recorded in Plat Book 19 Page 812 .
Jackson County Registry (the "Plat"), said Easement Area being more particularly described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.
2

The effective date of this Amendment of the Conservation Easement as recorded in Deed
Book 1720, Pages 238 -248, of the Jackson County Registry, shall be January 2, 2008, the date
the Conservation Easement being modified by this document was recorded.
FURTHERMORE, all property interests in the area defined in the easement recorded in
Deed Book 1720, Pages 238 -248, of the Jackson County Registry, that are not included within
the Easement Area as defined above are hereby quitclaimed and released to the Grantor by the
State of North Carolina, through its authorized representatives signing below. These interests are
set forth in the Plat and are more particularly described on Exhibit B attached hereto and
incorporated by reference herein.
J
[Remainder of page left blank intentionally.]

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the Grantor and Grantee have hereunto set their hand
and seal, the day and year first above written.
By:
Printed N
President
MOUNTAIN, INC.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF ��502L-,
(SEAL)
I,&ftec , a notary Public for said County and State, certify that
"?%61Aa C1. no" MT personally came before me this day and acknowledged that he
is TMOdent of '%&,✓'Bock Hourdain T.,a , a corporation,
and that by authority duly given and as the act of the corporation the foregoing instrument was
signed in its name by its f V- silent , sealed with its corporate seal, and
attested by himself as its -i restBen+
Witness my hand and official seal, this the N day of 4nwz , 20 �.
(Notary Seal)
• _ RY
���►VJL
Notary Public " ;c7. •
My Commission Expires:
Qu.�S ao�
4

IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, the STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA has caused this
instrument to be executed in its name by SPEROS FLEGGAS, Senior Deputy Secretary,
Department of Administration.
STATVRTH CAROLINA
By.
S ros Fleggas
Senior Deputy Secretary
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
COUNTY OF WAKE
1, A40-%,e &, a Notary Public in and for the aforesaid County of
a jtj and the State of North Carolina, do certify that Speros Fleggas, personally
came before me this day and acknowledged that he is Senior Deputy Secretary, Department of
Administration, State of North Carolina, and that by authority duly given and as the act of the
State, has signed the foregoing instrument.
sr
II�L PTNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and Notarial Seal, this the
day of t !�K 4 w , 2013.
Notary Public
Print name: Aq&x-
My Commission Expires:
%,*'. 4"��"py % a e
pTA p

Exhibit A
Legal Description
Easement Area
State of North Carolina Conservation Easement
The following areas remain subject to the Conservation Easement:
Logan Creek Conservation Easement Survey for State of North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Conservation Easement Area Legal Descriptions
-EEP Site ID Number 92515 -
Cashiers Township, Jackson County, North Carolina
Lying and being in the Cashiers Township in Jackson County, North Carolina and being located
north of Highway 64 as it is found and to be fully shown and designated that a revised easement
survey known as "Logan Creek Conservation Easement and Survey for the State of North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program! ' EEP site ID number 92515 prepared by Vaughn and
Melton Consulting Engineers. This easement was last revised on June 11, 2007 and sealed on
September 6, 2007. It was then recorded in the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and Plat Cabinet 16 on Slide 816 and currently is being
updated to show the tracts of conservation and easements of the areas of land to be released or
retained All areas are shown as follows as of the November 15'', 2012 revision of the plat.
All Deeds and Plats listed in the following area descriptions can be found in the Jackson County
North Carolina Register of Deeds unless otherwise noted.
Area El
Beginning at a Rebar and Cap set in the lands of Cow Rock Mountain Inc. (hereby known as
CRMI) as described in Deed Book 1635 Page 836, Deed Book 1592 Page 634, Plat Cabinet 15
Slide 41 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331; said Rebar and Cap set being the starting point of a line
designated as "Ll," as found on the Plat recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816, thence running
across the CRMI property N 10°21'38" E — 406.78 feet to a Rebar and Cap set at the apparent
edge of a 50 foot Access and Utility Easement as shown in Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 41 and Plat
Cabinet 15 Slide 331, thence running with the Easement the following four courses and
distances: N 69 °56'04" E — 40.83 feet to a point not set, thence S 84 152'47" E — 64.50 feet to a
point not set, thence S 74 °39'01" E — 29.40 feet to a point not set, thence S 74 °39'01" E — 55.96
feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence turning and leaving the Access and Utility Easement and
striking a line, P�ross the aforementioned CRMI property the following eleven courses and
distances: S 20 °37'33" W — 206.53 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 57 °39'43" E — 128.34
feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 87 °56'05" E — 66.67 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N
52 056'53" E — 142.70 feet to a point not set, thence S 43057'17" E — 118.31 feet to a point,
thence S 60°24'06" W — 263.31 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 29 °13'22" W — 153.08 feet
to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 15 °00'03" E — 277.95 feet to a Rebar and Cap set near U.S.
Hwy. 64, thence N 52 °52'41" W — 127.37 feet to a point not set, thence N 28 °07' 18" W —
289.97 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 54'12'12" W — 119.02 feet to the Point and Place

of Beginning and containing *3.83 Acres, more or less, and also being noted as area El and
being a revision of the same area as recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and as recorded in
Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
Area E2
Beginning at a Rebar and Cap set in the lands of Cow Rock Mountain Inc. (hereby known as
CRMI) as described in Deed Book 1635 Page 836, Deed Book 1592 Page 634, Plat Cabinet 15
Slide 41 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331; said Rebar and Cap set being the starting point of a line
designated as "L21," as found on the Plat recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 and also lying S
48 002'49" W — 99.08 feet from a 1 inch pipe found on the common comer between the CRMI
property and the now or former Michael and Linda Stone property as described in Deed Book
1622 Page 856 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 and also lying in the common line between the
aforementioned CRMI property and now or former Cow Rock Mountain Inc. property as
described in Deed Book 1551 Page 597, Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 and Plat Cabinet 17 Slide 218
thence naming with the common line between CRMI and the Cow Rock Mountain Inc. property
in Deed Book 1551 Page 597the following four courses and distances: S 26 001'37" E — 59.13
feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 05 °32'31" W — 66.88 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S
21 045'55" W — 114.87 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 07°23140" W — 72.75 feet to a
Rebar and Cap set on the apparent edge of a 50 foot Access and Utility Easement as shown in
Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 41 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 and the common corner with the Cow
Rock Mountain Inc. property as described in Deed Book 1551 Page 597, thence turning and
leaving the common line with Cow Rock Mountain Inc. and travelling along the apparent 50 foot
Access and Utility Easement line the following three courses and distances: N 74 °39'01" W —
32.65 feet to a point not set, thence N 74 °39'01" W — 33.88 feet to a point not set, thence N
84 052'47" W — 37.13 feet to a point not set, thence turning and leaving the apparent Access and
Utility Easement and striking a line across the CRMI property N 15 °22'47" E — a total distance
of 192.11 feet (crossing over a Rebar and Cap set on line at 0.92 feet) to a Rebar and Cap set,
thence N 10020'11" E — 130.59 feet to a Rebar and Cap set thence S 58 °37'42" E — 69.36 feet to
the Point and Place of Beginning and containing ±0.68 Acres, more or less, and also being noted
as area E2 and being a revision of the same area as recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and as
recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
Area E3
Beginning at a Rebar and Cap set in the lands of Cow Rock Mountain Inc. (hereby known as
CRMI) as described in Deed Book 1635 Page 836, Deed Book 1592 Page 634, Plat Cabinet 15
Slide 41 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331; said Rebar and Cap set being the starting point of a line
designated as "L36," as found on the Plat recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816; said point also
lying in the common line with the now or former Trustees of Gail L. Phillip property as
described in l?�id Book 1620 Page 413 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 332 thence running with the
common line with the now or former Trustees of Gail L. Phillip property S 23°31' 16" E — 256.79
feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 11 °56'38" W — 22.88 feet to a Nail found in a rock, thence
leaving the common line with the now or former Trustees of Gail L. Phillip property and striking
a line across the CRMI property S 14 °4447" E — 201.00 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S
35045'14" W — 358.61 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 32 °43'22" E — 128.76 feet to a
Rebar and Cap set, thence N 57 157'09" E — 85.05 feet to a point not set, thence S 44 °23'52" E —
88.40 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 20 °31'33" E — 73.52 feet to a Rebar and Cap set,
7

thence S 18 008'43" W — 180.83 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 53030'12" E — 65.48 feet
to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 56°29'21" E — 92.60 feet to a 1 inch Iron Pipe; said Iron Pipe
being a common comer with CRMI and the now or former Marcia B. Moore property as
described in Deed Book 1635 Page 801 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 and the now or former
Manse Foster property as described in Deed Book 1627 Page 440 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331
thence running with the common line of the now or former Foster property S 23 °28'24" E — a
total distance of 411.89 feet; passing over a 1 inch Iron Pipe at 299.99 feet; said Iron Pipe also
being a common corner with CRMI, the now or former Foster property and the now or former
Gryphon Investment Partners Ltd. property as described in Deed Book 1819 Page 652 and Plat
Cabinet 15 Slide 331, thence continuing along the same bearing and along the common line with
the now or former Gryphon Investment Partners Ltd. property for 111.90 feet to a 1 inch Iron
Pipe, thence S 31118'54" E — 79.37 feet to a 1 inch Iron Pipe, thence leaving the common line
with the now or former Gryphon Investment Partners Ltd. property and naming across the CRMI
property S 17 °25'46" W — a total distance of 249.17 feet, passing over a Rebar and Cap set on
line at 3.78 feet, to a Rebar and Cap set, thence S 24 057'27" E — 183.17 feet to a Rebar and Cap
set, thence S 11 °32'52" W — 118.06 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 45 °03'39" W — 346.09
feet to a Rebar and Cap, thence N 19037'32" E — 320.55 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N
25 037'45" W — 317.70 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 85 °37'31" W — 156.27 feet to a
Rebar and Cap set, thence N 21 °04'29" W — 67.96 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N
13 °07' 12" E — 87.80 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 23 °25'48" E — 45.70 feet to a Rebar
and Cap set, thence N 00 °39'30" W — 99.85 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 42045'15" W
— 104.02 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 26 044'09" W — 266.16 feet to a Rebar and Cap
set, thence N 37 °30'39" E — 223.81 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 19°22'59" E — 96.00
feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 62 039'52" W — 128.56 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence
N 17 035'29" E — 209.65 feet to a Rebar and Cap set, thence N 19 °31'20" W — 156.49 feet to a
point not set, thence N 70 °28'40" E — 123.94 feet to the Point and Place of Beginning and
containing ±8.20 Acres, more or less and also being noted as area E3 and being a revision of the
same area as recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and as recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide
\ 816.
Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers
1318 -F Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Lloyd D. Brown, PE, PLS
PIS #3929

Exhibit B
Legal Description
Area of Conservation Easement Release
The following areas are released from the Conservation Easement:
Logan Creek Conservation Easement Survey for State of North Carolina Ecosystem
Enhancement Program
Conservation Easement Area Legal Descriptions
-EEP Site ID Number 92515 -
Cashiers Township, Jackson County, North Carolina
Lying and being in the Cashiers Township in Jackson County, North Carolina and being located
north of Highway 64 as it is found and to be fully shown and designated that a revised easement
survey known as "Logan Creek Conservation Easement and Survey for the State of North
Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program" EEP site ID number 92515 prepared by Vaughn and
Melton Consulting Engineers. This easement was last revised on June 11, 2007 and sealed on
September 6, 2007. It was then recorded in the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and Plat Cabinet 16 on Slide 816 and currently is being
updated to show the tracts of conservation and easements of the areas of land to be released or
retained All areas are shown as follows as of the November 15a', 2012 revision of the plat.
All Deeds and Plats listed in the following area descriptions can be found in the Jackson County
North Carolina Register of Deeds unless otherwise noted.
Area RE1
Beginning at a Point Not Set in the lands of Cow Rock Mountain Incorporated (hereby known as
CRMI) in the Deed Book 1592 Page 634; said point lying South 52 056'53" East —
142.70' from a 5/8" rebar and cap set which is the terminus of call "L8," as noted on the plat
recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County Register of Deeds, thence running
across the CRMI property the following five courses and distances: North 52 °56'53" East —
341.58' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 34 027'32" East — 167.17' to a 5/8" rebar and
cap set, thence South 62 °49'43" West — 180.43' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South
60 °24'06" West — 143.25' to a point not set, thence North 43057'17" West — 118.31' to the point
and place of Beginning and being noted as area REl and containing 11.07 acres. REl being
revised from the original area noted and recorded in as El in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and on
the original plat recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina
Register of Deeds.
Area RE2A
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar and cap set in the lands of Cow Rock Mountain Incorporated AKA
CRMI as recorded in Deed Books 1635 and 1592 at Pages 836 and 634. Thence running with the
western most line of area E2, as described in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and Plat Cabinet 16
Slide 816, across the CRMI property North 01' 45' 51" East - 116.31' to a 5/8" rebar and cap
set; said rebar lying South 69° 35' 58" - 137.08' from the terminus of call "L56," of area noted
9

as E3 on Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816. Thence North 60 ° 29' 00" East - 86.69' to a point not set;
said point not set lying in the western most line of the Michael and Linda Stone property as
described in Deed Book 1622 Page 856, thence turning and running with the common line with
Stone, South 22 ° 41' 49" East - 139.66 feet to an existing 1" iron pipe; said iron pipe being a
common comer with the Stone property and the Cow Rock Mountain Inc. property as described
in Deed Book 1551 Page 597 and Plat Cabinets 15 and 17 at Slides 331 and 218. Thence leaving
the common line with Stone and running with the common line with the aforementioned CRMI
property South 480 02' 49" West - 99.08' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence turning and leaving
said common line with CRMI and running along a new line across area E2, North 58° 37' 42"
West - 69.36' to the point and place of the Beginning with the new area being noted as RE2A
and containing ±0.39 acres. This easement area is revised from the original area; the original
being noted as E2 and recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in
the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds.
Area RE3A
Beginning on a 1" existing iron pipe; said iron pipe being the common comer of the Marsha B
Moore property as described in Deed Book 1635 Page 801 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 and the
northernmost corner of the Malise Foster property as described in Deed Book 1627 Page 440 and
Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331 in the Jackson County Register of Deeds. Thence turning and leaving
the common comer of Moore and Foster and striking a new line across the former easement area
E3, North 56°29'21" West - 92.60' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence North 16 ° 54' 09" East -
126.04' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence North 380 19' 09" East - 65.96' to a 5/8" rebar and
cap set. Thence North 52° 34' 56" East a total distance of 52.98' to a point not set - passing over
a 5/8" rebar and cap set on line at 48.44', thence South 090 25' 08" West a total distance of
259.15' passing over an 1" iron pipe on line at 29.69' to the point of Beginning. This area noted
as area RE3A containing ±0.34 acres and is revision of area E3 as originally recorded in Deed
Book 1720 Page 238 and Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina
Register of Deeds.
Area) RE3B
Beginning at a 51e rebar and cap set in the eastern line of area E3 as described in Plat Cabinet 16
Slide 816 and striking a new line across area E3 North 4410 23' 52" West - 88.40' to a point not
set, thence North 57 °57' 09" East - 85.05' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence North 87° 14' 29"
East with 163.40' to a point not set; said point not set lying S 09 ° 25' 08" West - 23.52' from an
existing 1" iron pipe and also lying in the common line with the Marcia Moore McCarley
property as described in Deed Book 1658 Page 178 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331. Thence
turning and running with the common line with McCarley S 09 ° 25' 08" East a total distance of
75.00' passing over an existing 1" iron pipe on line at 17.14' to a point not set, thence turning
and leaving the common line with McCarley and running across the Cow Rock Mtn. Inc.
property as described in Deed Books 1635 and 1592 Pages 836 and 634 and Plat Cabinet 15
Slides 41 and 331, South 75 ° 20' 27" West a total distance of 166.60'; passing over a 5/8" rebar
and cap set on line at 3.99' back to the point and place of Beginning and being noted as area
ROB and containing ±0.42 acres. Said area being revised from the original area which was
noted as E3 in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and on the recorded plat found at Plat Cabinet 16 Slide
816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds.
10

Area REX
Beginning at a 5/8 "rebar and cap set in the western line of area E3 as shown in Plat Cabinet 16
Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds and being the terminus point
of call "L68," and the beginning of call "L69," on the aforementioned recorded Plat. 'Thence
running North 74 ° 27' 38" West - 82.77' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence North 35 °19' 59"
West - 36.69' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set. Thence North 620 08' 06" East - 268.36' to a 5/8" rebar
and cap set. Thence striking a new line across area E3, South 371 30'39" West - 223.81' to the
point and place of Beginning and being noted as area RE3C and containing ±0.31 acres. Said
area being revised from the original area which was noted as E3 in Deed Book 1720 Page 238
and on the recorded plat found at Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North
Carolina Register of Deeds.
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar with cap set in the eastern line of Easement Area E3 as described in
Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and on a recorded plat found in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the
Jackson County North Carolina Register of Deeds; said rebar and cap lying at the terminus of
call "L40," and the beginning of call "141," and being more particularly in the Cow Rock Mtn.
Inc. property as described in Deed Books 1635 and 1592 at Pages 836 and 634, thence striking a
new line across area E3, North 14 144'47" West — 201.00' to an existing nail in a rock; said nail
in rock being a common corner with the (Trustees of ) Gail L. Phillip property as described in
Peed Book 1620 Page 413 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 332. Thence turning and running with the
common line with the Phillip property South 49 °31'58" East — 171.01' to an existing 1" iron
pipe; said iron pipe being the common corner between Phillip and the Tyra Hornsby property as
described in Deed Book 1619 Page 316 and Plat Cabinet 15 Slide 331. Thence leaving the
common line with Phillip and continuing along the common line with Hornsby South 15 °16' 18"
West — 45.19' feet to a point not set on the common line between Hornsby and the
aforementioned Cow Rock Mtn. Inc. property. Thence turning and leaving the common line
between Hornsby and Cow Rock Mtn. Inc., South 59 °18'06" West a total distance of 77.96',
passing over a 5/8" rebar and cap set on line at 9.65' to the point and place of Beginning and
containing ±0.25 Acres, more or less, and also being noted as area ROD and being a revision of
area E3 as recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and as recorded in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
ME
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar with cap set in the western line of easement area E3 as described in
Deed Book 1720 Page 283 and Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina
Register of Deeds; said rebar and cap lying in the Cow Rock Mtn. Inc. property as described in
Deed Books 1635 and 1592 at Pages 836 and 634 and lying at the terminus of call "L74," and the
beginning of call "L75." Thence running with the western line of easement area E3 the
following four calls and distances: South 88129'47" West — 222.84' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set,
thence North 19 °31'20" West — 194.96' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 05 °32'50" East
— 153.56' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 73 °57'31" West a total distance of 272.46
feet, passing over a 5/8" rebar and cap set on line at 268.07' to a point not set on the margin of
Lonesome Valley Drive. Thence turning and nwning with the margin of Lonesome Valley
Drive the following eight courses and distances: North 15 °37'07" East — 64.98' to a point not
set, thence North 23 008'33" West — 53.59' to a point not set, thence North 37 04635" West —
11

55.23' to a point not set, thence North 17"16'18" East — 43.85' to a point not set, thence North
40 054'37" East — 45.09' to a point not set, thence North 55 °29' 10" East — 54.70' to a point not,
set, thence North 74 050'27" East — 44.67' to a point not set, thence North 84 °10'25" East —
11.72' to a point not set. Thence turning and leaving the margin of Lonesome Valley Drive and
continuing across the Cow Rock Mtn. Inc. property the following 5 courses and distances: South
03'23'19" West a total distance of 166.66'; passing over a 518" rebar set on line at 1.57' to a
5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 68 °3334" East — 189.95' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence
North 84014'19" East — 147.55' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 22 °03' 13" East —
243.89' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set; said rebar and cap lying South 10 °29'59" West — 32.97' from
V&M GPS 2 and whose coordinates are N 529915.73 / E 785744.60. Thence South 62 °59'31"
East — 100.02' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence turning and striking a new line across easement
area E3 the following two courses and distances: South 70 °28'40" West — 123.94' to a point not
set, thence South 19 °31'20" East — 156.49' to the point and place of Beginning and containing
±3.54 Acres, more or less, and being denoted as area RE3E; a revision of easement area E3 as
recorded in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and as found in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
RE4
Beginning at a 518" rebar and cap set in the Cow Rock Mtn. Inc. property as described in Deed
Books 1635 and 1592 at Pages 836 and 634 and Plat Cabinet 15 at Slides 41 and 331 in the
Jackson County, North Carolina Register of Deeds; said rebar and cap lying more specifically at
the terminus of call "L95," and the beginning of call "L87," in easement area E4 as described in
Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816. Thence running
North 35 021'48" East — 70.19' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set; said rebar lying South 45 °35'52"
West — 65.50' from a 5/8" rebar and cap set — this same rebar and cap also being the terminus of
call "L103," and the beginning of call "L104," of easement area E5 in the aforementioned plat,
thence continuing along the line of easement area E4 the following eight courses and distances:
South 21 °45'50" West — 210.66' to a 518" rebar and cap set, thence South 43 °17' 17" East —
203.14' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 43 °16'47 "East — 191.85' to a 5/8" rebar and
cap set, thence South 06016'15" East — 91.36' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North
59020'44" West — 129.88' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 39 016'07" West — 206.11' to
a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 39 °19'22" West — 162.30' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set,
thence North 18° 13'45" West — 174.16' to the point and place of Beginning and containing
11.08 Acres, more or less. This area to be re- designated RE4 from easement area E4 as recorded
in Deed Book 1720 Page 238 and in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
RES
Beginning at a 5/8" rebar and cap set; said rebar lying the in the Cow Rock Mtn. Inc. property as
described in Deed Books 1635 and 1592 at Pates 836 and 634 and being the terminus of call
"Ll07," and the beginning of call "L96," for easement area ES as recorded in Deed Book 1720
Page 238 and in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816 in the Jackson County, North Carolina Register of
Deeds, thence running along the perimeter of area E5 the following twelve courses and
distances: North 65 °41'26" East — 45.03'to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 54 °10'51"
East — 68.14' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 67 °44'35" East — 35.52' to a 5/8" rebar
and cap set, thence South 10 °16'37" East — 108.63' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South
00 °13'51" East — 84.58' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 58 001'54" East — 84.06' to a
5/8" rebar and cap set, thence South 33 050'24" East — 41.82' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence
12

South 04 056'41" East — 77.39' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 58 °41'47" West —
72.86' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North 42 °3756" West — 138.75' to a 5/8" rebar and
cap set, thence North 11 *43'23" West — 100.04' to a 5/8" rebar and cap set, thence North
31059'54" West — 138.90' to the point and place of Beginning and containing ±0.65 Acres, more
or less. This area is to be re- designated as RE5 from easement area E5 in Deed Book 1720 Page
238 and in Plat Cabinet 16 Slide 816.
Vaughn & Melton Consulting Engineers
1318 -F Patton Avenue
Asheville, North Carolina 28806
Lloyd D. Brown, PE, PLS
PLS #3929
u
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
13

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 1.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley
Latitude: 035-08 -08N
Evaluator. AS Site: Logan Creek
Longitude: 083-0348W
Total Points:
Stream is at least intamtittent 11�77,' f%
County: Jackson
other
!ia 19 or mnnial Ka 30
2
e.g. quad Name: Cashiers
'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= 3'5-tpj
Absent- -
Weak
Moderate
Strom
10. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3p
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: riffle-pool sequence e
0
1
2
('3J
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorUng
0
1
2
3
5. Acttvelrelic floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. De ositlonal bars or benches
0
1
2
1.5
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
98 Natural levees
0
1
2 )
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagaway
0
0.5
1
.5
13. Second or greater order channel on exisflna
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes =
man -made naanes are not rates; see clscusslcns In manusl
B. Wdroloov (subtotal = 11 ° 1
14. Groundwaterflow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rein, or
Water in channel - dry or growIng season
0
1
2
3p
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
FBT 5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris 11nes or plies (Wrack lines )
0
0.5
1 1
1.5
19. Hydric sops (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes = .5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = on .C2 i
200. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2 )
1
0
21". Rooted plants In channel
3
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
1
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.
25. Amphlbians
0
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance )
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; parlphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/rungus.
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW
= 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
-a cw anu - iwua un wa p-nce - upiana punts, rem ca tocuses on the presence or squanc or weuano puns.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2/22106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035.08.08N
Evaluator. AB Site: Logan Creek V`r 1 Longitude: 083.03 -48W
Total Points: other
Steam Is at least Intermfftent 4 ff a 3D % y
ffz 19 or erennlal County: Jackson ea, quad Name: Cashiers
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1. Continuous bad and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuoslty
0
1
2
0
3. In-channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Soll texture or stream substrate sortin
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depoeitional bars or benches
0
.5 )
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
9a Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No
Yes = 3
- man -made aimnes are mn rated; see discussions in mane/
B. Wdroioav tubtotal = 9 1
14. Gmundwaterflow /discharge
0
1
-Cl)
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - dry or growina season
0
1
2
0
16. Leatiittter
1.5
1
.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack fines )
1 0
1 0.5
1
1.5
19. Hydrlc solls (mdo)imorphlc features) resent?
I No = 0
Yes 40
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1h i
2. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
210. Rooted plants in channel
3
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
MET>
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note divw tly and abundance)
0
.5 )
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bactede tungus.
0
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other - 0
- Items 20 and 21 focus on me presence at upland prangs. Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or weuana plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Verslon 3.1
Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 03548.08N
Evaluator. AB Site: Logan Creek - VT?- Longitude: 083- 03-48W
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least lntarmMent 1j�', County: Jackson e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
tf a 19 or perennial ft 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal= Zh 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1°. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3U
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel sttuctunw: dfflwpool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depostdonal bars or benches
0
1
zy
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
B. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
1
3
9° Natural levees
0
= 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
2
3
10. Headcuts
D
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagewa
0
0.5
1
1.5
i3. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No=
Yes = 3
Man -mane ommes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = (o A i
14. Gmundwaterflow /discharge
0
1
1
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, sr
Water In channel - d or rowin season
0
1
2
3U
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
Qy
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines)
1 0
.5
1
1.5
19. Hydrlc sous (redo)imorphic features) present?
I No 0
Yes =1.5
C. Bloloav (subtotal = '1.* ti
200. Fibrous roots In channel
3
1
0
21b. Rooted plants in channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
04
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note dlvenelty and abundance )
0
0.
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. iron oxidizing bactedatrun us.
-1975.
0
0.5
1
1.5
Wetland plains in streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW
= 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items zu ana zi Torus on me presence of uprano plants, Item 2e focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additlonal notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
i Date: 2122106 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035 -08 -08N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek - trrS Longitude: 083-034OW
I oral Points:
Stream Is at least Intermittent County: 5 County: Jackson eg Quad Name: Cashiers
Na 19 orperennlat if t 30
A. Geomorphology (subtotal= 751 1
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1B. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
0
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
3
3. In- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Boll texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
1.5
S. Active/relic floodplain
0
1
2
1.5
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Braided channel
0
cy
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
98 Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on a )dst1
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No 0V
Yes = 3
man-mace aucnes are nor rarea; see ciscussions in manual
B. Hvdrolotiv (subtotal = i02 1
14. Groundwaterflow /discharge
0
1
1
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water In channel - dry or provAng season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflltter
1.5
1
0.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
18. Organic debris lines or piles (Wrack Ones )
0
1 0.5
1
1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No 0
Yes =1.5
C. Bioloav (subtotal = ",y i
20P. Flbrous roots to channel
3
CD
1
0
210. Rooted plants In channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
CTD
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.5
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; perlphyton
0
cy
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
0.5
1
1.5
29 . Wetland plants In streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
-!rams zu an0 21 focus an me presence of upum plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
(Votes: (use track side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality - Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
I Date: 2122/06 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035.08 -08N
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek _ ur+ Longitude: 083- 03-48W
Total Points: other
Stream la at least lnfermittent ?� o, b County: Jackson
e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
If a 19 orperennAd if 2:30
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal - 2 .yam
Absent
Weak = ;
Moderate :
Stro_ng '
1B. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
0
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
0
3. in- channel structure: riffle -pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relic flood lain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
W
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
98 Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway
0
0.5
1
.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No =E)
Yes = 3
man -maoe aimnes ere not rama; see olsci1 ions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (subtotal = (, 5 I
14. Groundwaterlow /discharge
0
1
2
3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hm since rain, gr
Water In channel - dry or growina season
0
1
2
0
16. Leaflitter
1.5
1
1
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
%.53
1
1.5
I B. Organic debris Unes or plies (Wrack lines)
0
1 .5
1
1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No igP
Yes =1.5
C. Bloloav (Subtotal= 'I.o i
20'. Fibrous roots in channel
3
1
0
21t'. Rooted plants In channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
CD
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
92F
1
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
0.
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton
0
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria!(ungus.
0.5
1
1.5
29'. Wetland plants In streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW
= 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
items LV anu z i Tocus on me presence or upiana punts, item za tocuses on me presence of aquouc or waoena plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: 2122108 Project: Lonesome Valley Latitude: 035- 08-OBN
Evaluator: AB Site: Logan Creek - UTV Longitude: 083.03 -48W
■ - -- - -165\ .
Stream !sat least fntermilterrt �t Jb •V
ffz 19 orperennial flit 30
County: Jackson
Other
e.g. Quad Name: Cashiers
A. Geomorphology (subtotal = �1��
Absent-
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1B. Continuous bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity
0
1
2
0
3. In- channel structure: rffile -pooi sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting
0
1
2
3
5. Activa/relic floodplain
0
1
2
3
B. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
1
3
7. Braided channel
0
1
2
3
8. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
1 1.5
1 Natural levees
0
1
2
3
10. Headcuts
0
1
3
11. Grade controls
0
0.5
1.5
12. Natural valley or drainagaway
0
0.5
1
13. Second or greater order channel on e)dsdnci
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
No = 0
Yes .�
- Man -made ditches are not rated; see discussions In manual
B. Hvdroloav isubtotai= 9•° 1
14. Groundwaterflow /discharge
0
1
CD
3
15. Water In channel and > 48 his since rain, or.
Water In channel - dry or growinil season
0
1
2
(D
18. Leaflitter
1.5
1
.5
0
17. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
d
1.5
18. Organic debris tines or piles (Wrack lines )
0
1 0.5
CD
1.5
19. Hydrlc soils (redoximorphic features) present?
No = 0
Yes 1.
C. Bioloav (subtotal = 1,G i
. Fibrous roots in channel
3
2
1
0
21 . Rooted plants In channel
3
2
1
0
22. Crayfish
0
.5
1
1.5
23. Bivalves
0
2
3
24. Fish
0
0.5
CD
1.5
25. Amphibians
0
1
1.5
28. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
1.5
27. Filamentous algae; parlphyton
1
2
3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteria/fungus.
92
0.5
1
1 1.5
29 b. Wetland plants In streambed
FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- Items zu and 27 focus on the presence of upland plants, Item zit focuses on me presence or aquadc or weuano plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.)
Sketch:
n
1.J

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ' } ;�;)• I I.', ; w: a : < t,r�,� ,,lei`
Project/Site: U" v (_ )
Latitude: f t,
Evaluator: W)\(.
County:
Longitude: gi
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent 1 a ,
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
219 or perennial f 2 30"
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e. Quad Name: �J
A. Geomorphology Subtotal = L,
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2')
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
>
2
3
3. In- channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple-pool sequence
0
(1�
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active /relict floodplain
0
1
(2)
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
(2)
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
0.5
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
(2)
3_
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
(1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
X1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
arancim ancnes are not ratea; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloov (Subtotal = L,. i� 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
(0-51
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0,53
1
1.5•
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.6
1
i 1.5i
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
'No = 0%
Yes = 3
U. tttoloav (subtotal = iv i
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
( 2)
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
(3 .
2,
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
COV
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
(0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
( 1.5 ")
25. Algae
(Oj
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5\, Other = 0',
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: ,<,,.t ,;� .i�,� 4tyc�(n! I a.r�c�.: °,is� PefenN,A
4 ; ��cam i� :)r "_� `�C} �4,, .ih�,�r�,lti'�,�` a'�c1 11as a 5�.nr-t
- «k) 2;
f i• •�
�,)

Page Intentionally Left Blank

Part 2.
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
-
Project Name:
Project
Lo an Creek Stream Restoration
Count Name:
Jackson County
EEP Number:
Project Sponsor:
ClearWater Environmental Consultants Inc.
Project Contact Name:
Chris Grose
Project Contact Address:
718 Oakland St; Hendersonville, NC 2979-1
Project Contact E -mail:
rose cwenv.com
EEP Project Mana er: Guy Pearce
Project Description
The Logan Creek Stream Restoration project will restore the proper dimension, pattern, and profile to approximately
5,000 linear feet of the main -stem of Logan Creek. Approximately 3,100 linear feet of tributaries to Logan Creek and
several small wetland areas will be preserved through the creation of conservation easements. Restoration and
enhancement work will address erosion, stream bank instability and impaired habitat throughout the project area.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
-. ..
Coastal Zone Mana ement Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
El
Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground - disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑
Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
El
Yes
❑
N/A
N/
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑
Yes
Program?
❑
No
[7N
/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full-delivery' project?
ErYes
❑
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
rofflNo
❑
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑
Yes
Mo
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
o
R/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
0
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
[�N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
Yes
❑
No
9N
/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
El
Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
❑
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
Yes
❑
No
❑
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
El
Yes
❑
No
❑
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real PropeM Acquisition Policies Act Unifo
rm
Act
1. Is this a 'full-delivery' project?
WYes
❑
o
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
ff
Yes
❑
No
❑
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
Yes
PrNo
❑
NIA
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
Yes
• prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑
No
• what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question
American Indian Reli ious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
EYes
Cherokee Indians?
❑ No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
Yes
0
❑
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
El
Yes
Places?
ff
No
❑
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
El
Yes
❑
o
N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1. Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑
Yes
[•�No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
Yes
of antiquity?
n
No
t4rN/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
Yes
❑
Po
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
0
Yes
❑
o
N/A
Archaeolo ical Resources Protection Act ARPA
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
U
Yes
[ZNo
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑
Yes
o
AYes
/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Flo
/A
4. Has a permit been obtained?
bXN
❑
Yes
❑
Flo
N/A
Endan ered Species Act ESA
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
Yes
listed for the county?
❑ o
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
LffYes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Are T &E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
ffN0
N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect' the species and /or "likely to adversely modify"
�es
P
Designated Critical Habitat?
No
❑ /A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA- Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
MYes
❑
No
El
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA- Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ es
Lo
El N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
Yes
by the EBCI7
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
Yes
project?
❑ No
['N /A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
es
H�l
important farmland?
❑ /A
3. Has the completed Form AD -1006 been submitted to NRCS?
GrYes
❑ No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or othermse control /modify any
9Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
es
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
Yes
outdoor recreation?
o
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑
Yes
❑
No
a /A
Ma nuson- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
es
No
2. Is.suitable habitat present for EFH- protected species?
❑
Yes
❑
No
2
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑
Yes
project on EFH?
❑
No
/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑
Yes
El
No
WN
/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA- Fisheries occurred?
Yes
❑
No
N// A
Mi-gratory Bird Treaty Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
Yes
R"No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑Yes
0
2. Has a special use permit and /or easement been obtained from the maintaining
El Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
PUA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Determination: No effect
Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) prepared a Radius Map Report with Geocheck for
the Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project on August 14, 2006. Based on the EDR report,
there are no known or potential hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area.
The Executive Summary of the EDR report is included in the Appendix.
National Historic Preservation Act
Determination: No effect (with conditions)
Comments from the NC State Historic Preservation Office were received on August 30, 2006.
This letter stated that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures and that no
archaeological sites are known to exist with the project boundaries.
However, the NC State Historic Preservation Office also stated that "there is a high probability
for the presence of prehistoric or historic archeological sites in the project area". They
recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted prior to the initiation of construction
activities. Currently, associates from Buck Engineering, Inc. are negotiating this matter with
Linda Hall of the NC Office of State Archeology. A Categorical Exclusion should be issued with
the condition that this point will be resolved to satisfaction before beginning any ground -
disturbing activities. There is a copy of an email correspondence indicating negotiation between
Andrea Spangler of Buck Engineering and Linda Hall included in the packet for your review.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
Determination: No effect
The property owners with land involved in the stream restoration project were notified prior to
signing the Option Agreement for the Conservation Easement, that Buck Engineering did not
have condemnation authority and what the fair market value is of the land involved. Copies of
the Option Agreement are included.
Part 3: Ground - Disturbing Activities
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
Determination: No effect (with condition)
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was contacted on August 1, 2006 regarding this portion
of the checklist. On November 8, 2006 Mr. Donnie Brew and Mr. Guy Pearce were contacted to
determine if they had received a response directly. On November 9, 2006, both stated that they
had not. Mr. Tyler Howe of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was phoned on November
15, 2006 to determine if they had any comments. He requested an email copy of the original
scoping letter, which was forwarded to him the same day. On November 21, 2006, an response
letter was attached to an email from Mr. Howe with a follow -up stating that a signed hard copy
would be placed in the mail.

His letter states that the project is within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee and that any
information that is required by and forwarded to the NC State Historic Preservation Office
should also be forwarded to his office for review.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Determination: No effect
ClearWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) has reviewed the US Fish and Wildlife
Service ( USFWS) list of rare and protected animal and plant species and found that a total of six
(6) species are known to occur in Jackson County: Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii;S /A),
Carolina northern flying squirrel, (Glaucomys sabrinus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist),
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Small whorled pagonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Swamp pink (Helonias bullata).
Since the project primarily involves degraded streams riparian areas, federally protected
species are not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. No suitable habitat for the
Carolina northern flying squirrel or Appalachian elktoe is located within the limits of disturbance
for the property. Suitable habitat for bog turtle and swamp pink was found in the some of the
larger wetland areas adjacent to the project area. Suitable habitat was found in some upland
hardwood forests for small whorled pagonias. Summer habitat for the Indiana bat does exist in
the riparian corridor, but no winter habitat was found.
CEC personnel conducted a pedestrian preliminary protected species survey on May 18 and
May 24, 2005. The site was visited again by CEC personnel on September 28, 2005 to view fall
blooming species during another pedestrian survey. A summary of the results of these surveys
follows.
Suitable habitat was found for bog turtle and swamp pink in the larger wetland areas located
adjacent to Logan Creek. No examples of these species were observed during any of the
pedestrian surveys. Furthermore, no ground disturbing activities will take place within the
wetland areas. Suitable habitat for small whorled pagonia was found in some second -third
growth upland forest. However, no small whorled pagonia was observed during on -site surveys.
Lack of individual observations as well as limited disturbance activities within the habitat indicate
a "no effect" determination in regards to the project's relation to Bog turtle, Small whorled
pagonia, and Swamp pink.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature
northern hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet. The project area consists of floodplain with
maximum elevations of approximately 3,500 feet. Therefore, a "no effect" determination was
made for the Carolina northern flying squirrel due to lack of suitable habitat.
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for
the Indiana bat; however USFWS records indicate that Jackson County N.C. records of this
species have all been winter records. No winter hibernation habitat was observed on the project
site. Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.
Based on the heavily degraded conditions on Logan Creek a "no effect" determination was
made regarding the Appalachian elktoe. The Appalachian elktoe prefers morphologically stable
stream segments with no silt accumulation or heavily shifting substrate, which does not currently

exist on the site as the proposed project is to perform restoration activities on Logan Creek and
its unnamed tributaries so that they become more morphologically stable.
Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access roads
will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream portion of the
project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream end. These roads are
fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of materials and equipment in and out
of the site.
The US Fish and Wildlife Service and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration were
contacted on August 1, 2006 regarding this portion of the checklist. As of September 25, 2006,
no response has been received and it is assumed that they have no comments.
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
Determination: No effect (with condition)
The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was contacted on August 1, 2006 regarding this portion
of the checklist. On November 8, 2006 Mr. Donnie Brew and Mr. Guy Pearce were contacted to
determine if they had received a response directly. On November 9, 2006, both stated that they
had not. Mr. Tyler Howe of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians was phoned on November
15, 2006 to determine if they, had any comments. He requested an email copy of the original
scoping letter, which was forwarded to him the same day. On November 21, 2006, a response
letter was attached to an email from Mr. Howe with a follow -up stating that a signed hard copy
would be placed in the mail.
His letter states that the project is within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee and that any
information that is required by and forwarded to the NC State Historic Preservation Office
should also be forwarded to his office for review.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
Determination: No effect
A completed Form AD -1006 was completed by the local NRCS office and returned. It indicates
no prime, unique, statewide, or locally important farmland present on the project site. A copy of
the completed form is included and no additional documentation was provided by NRCS.
Fish & Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
Determination: No effect
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission was contacted on August 1, 2006 with a response
dated August 21, 2006. The Commission stated that there would be no major resource
concerns provided sedimentation from construction is minimized. Furthermore, in- stream
construction and bank grading should occur outside of the trout spawning season (October 15 —
April 15).
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META)
Determination: No effect
The US Fish and Wildlife Service was contacted on August 1, 2006 regarding this portion of the
checklist. As of September 25, 2006, no response has been received and it is assumed that
they have no comments.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527 -05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
ADDRESS
JACKSON COUNTY
SAPPHIRE, NC 28774
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranver.
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.133700 - 35' 8' 1.3"
83.062200 - 83' 3'43.9"
se Mercator. Zone 17
312109.2
3889618.5
3179 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35083 -B1 BIG RIDGE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1991
South Map: 35083 -A1 CASHIERS, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1991
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL--- -- ------------- ------- National Priority List
Proposed NPL----- --- - - - - -- Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL---------- - - - - -. National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY ------------- Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS----------- ---- - - - - -. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
. System
CERC- NFRAP ---------------- CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS ------------------
Corrective Action Report
RCRA- TSDF -----------------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA- LQG ------------------
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRASQG___ _______________
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS_ ___ _____ _______________
Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS__________ _____________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS ---------
Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL ---------
Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD___ ___________ ___________
Department of Defense Sites
FUDS________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS ----------
A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT_ __________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD_________________________
Records Of Decision
UMTRA_____________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODL________ ______________ ___
Open Dump Inventory
TRIS___ ____________________ __
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCA________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
FTTS_______ ________ __ __ ______
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS -------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS_______________ __ _________
Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS________________________
PCB Activity Database System
MILTS________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES_____________________ __
Mines Master Index File
FINDS ------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
RAATS -----------------------
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS____________ ____________
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS______________ ______
Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD____ ___________ ___________
Incident Management Database
SWF/LF__________ ____________
List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLL --------------------------
Old Landfill Inventory
LUST -------------------------
Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST_____________ ___
State Trust Fund Database
UST______________________ ____
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST_______________________ ___
AST Database
INST CONTROL ------------- No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
VCP_ _____ __________ __________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS_____________ Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS -------------- Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES_______________________ NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV_____________ Indian Reservations
INDIAN LUST_ ___________ ____ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST ------------------ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants___ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical Cleaners____. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
ROGERS GULF CASHIERS FRMR
MTN HIGH INC - FAIRFIELD
NICHOLS PROPERTY
CASHIERS EXXON
SOUTHERN PUMP & TANK CO.
FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY
COUNTY CLUB OF SAPPHIRE VALLE
ROGER'S GULF STATION
CASHIERS EXXON
STEWARTS TEXACO INC
TOXAWAY CONCRETE CO.
FRANK'S GROCERY 90
CONTEL OF N.C. CENTRAL OFFICE
KWIK SNAK
D.H. SMITH
MCCOY'S GULF STATION
HAROLD A. DARGEL
JIM'S LANDING
SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONVENIENCE
PRICE'S GROCERY
SAPPHIRE COUNTRY STORE
L.B.M. INDUSTRIES. INC.
RESOURCES PLANNING CORPORATION
CEDAR CREEK WWTP
STUART N YOUNGBLOOD PROJECT
BOND FUEL CO.
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - AST
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - DRUMS
BIG SHEEPCLIFF WATER SYS
BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL
WADE HAMPTON GOLF CLUB WWTP
JACKSON UTILITY WWTP
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #1
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #2
Database(s)
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
FINDS, LUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
FINDS, NPDES
FINDS, NPDES
FINDS
IMD
IMD
IMD
ICIS
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
Renee Gledhill- Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office
MSC 4617
Raleigh, NC 27699 -4617
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Ms. Gledhill - Earley,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to prime, unique, statewide or locally important
farmland related to a potential wetland and stream restoration project. A site topographic map
and a soils map have been included for your review as well as three (3) copies of Form AD-
1006 for Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have
been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained in pasture suitable for livestock
grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove forest consisting primarily of
hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as either stream or wetland.
On the enclosed soils map, please notice the limits of disturbance include Nikwasi and
Cullowhee soils with small inclusions into Saunook soils. This map should be utilized within
a limited scope as it represents approximate soil type boundaries only and is limited in its
scale and detail. Nikwasi and Cullowhee soils are frequently flooded, active floodplain types.
Saunook is more typical of well - drained ridge tops, benches, and toe slopes. Preliminary
examination of this information by a third party indicates that there is a higher likelihood of
potentially significant sites in the areas of Saunook soils.
No disturbance is expected to take place in Saunook soils and due to level of detail and scale,
the soils map presented overestimates work in Saunook soils. The vast majority of ground
disturbance will take place within the floodplain (i.e., not ridge tops, benches, or toe slopes)
where in- the -field observation of topography verified the soil type as either Nikwasi or
Cullowhee and much less likely to contain archeological or religious sites. The limits of
disturbance will further be adjusted to avoid ground disturbance to Saunook soils that may be
accurate according to the soils map.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fa c 828- 698 -9003
www.cwenv.com

Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access
roads will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream
portion of the project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream
end. These roads are fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of
materials and equipment in and out of the site.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you
know of any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please let us
know the level your future involvement with this project needs to be (if any). If we have
not received a response from you within 30 days, we will assume that you have no
comment regarding the project. This letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Respectfully,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

Source: Delorme 3D TopoQuads
Big Ridge USGS Quad
1-1earWater 718 OAKLAND ST 6=.1momw LOGAN CREEK PROJECT SHEET NO.
HENDERSOMLLE NC 28791 1 wcx a 2000 Far
PHONE: [phone] D.Ayme..
ftnmental Consuftants, InC. Fax: [phone] a*L swman
.�APrcM rJU., Nr nc�

'f35
r'
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 30, 2006
Clement Riddle
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, NC 28791
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: EEP, Logan Creek Wetland and Stream Restoration, Jackson County, ER 06 -2135
Dear Mr. Riddle:
Thank you for your letter of August 1, 2006, concerning the above project.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the project area
has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological resources.
Based on the topographic and hydrological situation, and the proximity of previously recorded archaeological
sites, there is a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or historic archaeological sites in the project
area.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist to identify and
evaluate the significance of archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed
project. Potential effects on unknown resources must be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
Two copies of the resulting archaeological survey report, as well as one copy of the appropriate site forms,
should be forwarded to us for review and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of any
construction activities.
A list of archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North
Carolina is available at www.arch.dcr. state. nc. us /consults.httn. The archaeologists listed, or any other
experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)7334763!133 -8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Marl Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 (919)733 - 6547!!15-0801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699 -4617 (919)733- 65451115 4801

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733 -4763 ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�..�1.�2tdlJl�C
eter Sandbeck

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
Michelle Hamilton, Tribal Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Ms. Hamilton,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any
possible issues that might emerge with respect to archaeological or religious resources
associated related to a potential wetland and stream restoration project. A site
topographic map and a soils map have been included for your review.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation
for unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have
been identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or archeological
artifacts have been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for
restoration purposes. Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained in
pasture suitable for livestock grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove
forest consisting primarily of hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as
either stream or wetland.
On the enclosed soils map, please notice the limits of disturbance include Nikwasi and
Cullowhee soils with small inclusions into Saunook soils. This map should be utilized
within a limited scope as it represents approximate soil type boundaries only and is
limited in its scale and detail. Nikwasi and Cullowhee soils are frequently flooded, active
floodplain types. Saunook is more typical of well - drained ridge tops, benches, and toe
slopes. Preliminary examination of this information by a third party indicates that there
is a higher likelihood of potentially significant sites in the areas of Saunook soils.
No disturbance is expected to take place in Saunook soils and due to level of detail and
scale, the soils map presented overestimates work in Saunook soils. The vast majority of
ground disturbance will take place within the floodplain (i.e., not ridge tops, benches, or
toe slopes) where in -the -field observation of topography verified the soil type as either
Nikwasi or Cullowhee and much less likely to contain archeological or religious sites.
718 Oakland Sheet
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com
tL ,

The limits of disturbance will further be adjusted to avoid ground disturbance to Saunook
soils that may be accurate according to the soils map.
Stages areas are planned to be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2)
access roads will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the
upstream portion of the project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the
downstream end. These roads are fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the
moving of materials and equipment in and out of the site.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you
know of any existing resource's that we need to know about. In addition, please let us
know the level your future involvement with this project needs to be (if any). This
scoping letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the American Indian Religious
Freedom Act and the National Historic Preservation Act that may arise as a result of this
project.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Respectfully,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

DATE: 21 - November - 06
TO: FHWA, NC
Donnie Brew
Environmental Protection Specialist
EEP Liaison
310 Newbern Ave.
Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828488 -0237 Fax [phone]
PROJECT(S): Proposed streambank restoration, Logan Creek, Jackson County,
North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians is in
receipt of the above - referenced project information and would like to thank you for the
opportunity to comment on this proposed NHPA Section 106 activity.
The project's location is within the aboriginal territory of the Cherokee people. This area
may have cultural, archaeological, or religious significance to the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians. Potential cultural resources are subject to damage or destruction from
land disturbing activities requiring new ground disturbance, or vegetation manipulation.
Adverse effects to ethnographic sites, such as traditional Native American campsites or
burials, can reduce the interpretative or spiritual significance of a site to Tribal and
United States culture and history. The EBCI THPO requests any cultural resource data,
including phase I archeological reports, topographic maps, historical research, or archives
research, forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for comment
also be sent to this office in accordance with Section 106 of the NHPA. The EBCI THPO
looks forward to participating in the project review process as a consulting party as
stipulated in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966. If we can be
of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free to contact
me at (828) 488 -0237 ext 2.
Sincerely,
Tyler B. Howe
Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Cc: Chris Grose

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
USFWS Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Ms. Buncick,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species related to a potential wetland and
stream restoration project. A site topographic map and a soils map have been included for your
review.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained
in pasture suitable for livestock grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove forest
consisting primarily of hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as either stream
or wetland.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, -Inc. (CEC) has reviewed the US Fish and Wildlife
Service ( USFWS) list of rare and protected animal and plant species and found that a total of six
(6) species are known to occur in Jackson County: Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii;SIA),
Carolina northern flying squirrel, (Glaucomys sabrinus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist),
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Small whorled pagonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Swamp pink (Helonias bullata).
Since the project primarily involves degraded streams riparian areas, federally protected species
are not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. No suitable habitat for the Carolina
northern flying squirrel or Appalachian elktoe is located within the limits of disturbance for the
property. Potentially suitable habitat for bog turtle and swamp pink was found in the some of the
larger wetland areas adjacent to the project area. Potentially suitable habitat was found in some
upland hardwood forests for small whorled pagonias. Summer habitat for the Indiana bat does
exist in the riparian corridor, but no winter habitat was found.
CEC personnel conducted a pedestrian preliminary protected species survey on May 18 and May
24, 2005. The site was visited again by CEC personnel on September 28, 2005 to view fall
718 Oaldand Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com

blooming species during another pedestrian survey. A summary of the results of these surveys
follows.
Suitable habitat was found for bog turtle and swamp pink in the larger wetland areas located
adjacent to Logan Creek. No examples of these species were observed during any of the
pedestrian surveys. Furthermore, no ground disturbing activities will take place within the
wetland areas. Suitable habitat for small whorled pagonia was found in some second -third
growth upland forest. However, no small whorled pagonia was observed during on -site surveys.
Lack of individual observations as well as limited disturbance activities within the habitat
indicate a "no effect" determination in regards to the project's relation to Bog turtle, Small
whorled pagonia, and Swamp pink.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature
northern hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet. The project area consists of floodplain with
maximum elevations of approximately 3,500 feet. Therefore, a "no effect" determination was
made for the Carolina northern flying squirrel due to lack of suitable habitat.
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for the
Indiana bat; however USFWS records indicate that Jackson County N.C. records of this species
have all been winter records. No winter hibernation habitat was observed on the project site.
Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.
Based on the heavily degraded conditions on Logan Creek a "no effect" determination was made
regarding the Appalachian elktoe. The Appalachian elktoe prefers morphologically stable stream
segments in silt accumulation or heavily shifting substrate, which does not currently exist on the
site as the proposed project is to perform restoration activities on Logan Creek and its unnamed
tributaries so that they become more morphologically stable.
Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access roads
will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream portion of the
project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream end. These roads are
fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of materials and equipment in and out
of the site.
Please provide comments on, any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and/or stream
restoration project on the subject property. If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will
assume that our species list is correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated
laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time. This
scoping letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the Endangered Species Act, Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that'you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
1*� �&-4a
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center'
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
Ron Sechler, Fishery Biologist
NOAA- Fisheries
Beaufort Field Office
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Mr. Sechler,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species related to a potential wetland and
stream restoration project. A site topographic map and a soils map have been included for your
review.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained
in pasture suitable for livestock grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove forest
consisting primarily of hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as either stream
or wetland.
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc. (CEC) has reviewed the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) list of rare and protected animal and plant species and found that a total of six
(6) species are known to occur in Jackson County: Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergii, SIA),
Carolina northern flying squirrel, (Glaucomys sabrinus), Indiana bat (Myotis sodalist),
Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana), Small whorled pagonia (Isotria medeoloides),
and Swamp pink (Helonias bullata).
Since the project primarily involves degraded streams riparian areas, federally protected species
are not expected to be impacted by the proposed project. No suitable habitat for the Carolina
northern flying squirrel or Appalachian elktoe is located within the limits of disturbance for the
property. Potentially suitable habitat for bog turtle and swamp pink was found in the some of the
larger wetland areas adjacent to the project area. Potentially suitable habitat was found in some
upland hardwood forests for small whorled pagonias. Summer habitat for the Indiana bat does
exist in the riparian corridor, but no winter habitat was found.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fa c 828- 698 -9003
www.cwenv.com

CEC personnel conducted a pedestrian preliminary protected species survey on May 18 and May
24, 2005. The site was visited again by CEC personnel on September 28, 2005 to view fall
blooming species during another pedestrian survey. A summary of the results of these surveys
follows.
Suitable habitat was found for bog turtle and swamp pink in the larger wetland areas located
adjacent to Logan Creek. No examples of these species were observed during any of the
pedestrian surveys. Furthermore, no ground disturbing activities will take place within the
wetland areas. Suitable habitat for small whorled pagonia was found in some second -third
growth upland forest. However, no small whorled pagonia were observed during on site surveys.
Lack of individual observations as well as limited disturbance activities within the habitat
indicate a "no effect" determination in regards to the project's relation to Bog turtle, Small
whorled pagonia, and Swamp pink.
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature
northern hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet. The project area consists of floodplain with
maximum elevations of approximately 3,500 feet. Therefore, a "no effect" determination was
made for the Carolina northern flying squirrel due to lack of suitable habitat.
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for the
Indiana bat; however USFWS records indicate that Jackson County N.C. records of this species
have all been winter records. No winter hibernation habitat was observed on the project site.
Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.
Based on the heavily degraded conditions on Logan Creek a "no effect" determination was made
regarding the Appalachian elktoe. The Appalachian elktoe prefers morphologically stable stream
segments in silt accumulation or heavily shifting substrate, which does not currently exist on the
site as the proposed project is to perform restoration activities on Logan Creek and its unnamed
tributaries so that they become more morphologically stable.
Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access roads
will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream portion of the
project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream end. These roads are
fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of materials and equipment in and out
of the site.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to endangered
species, migratory birds or other trust resources from the construction of a wetland and/or stream
restoration project on the subject property. If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will
assume that our species list is correct, that you do not have any comments regarding associated
laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this project at the current time. This
J

scoping letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the Endangered Species Act that may
arise as a result of this project.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
9- yj"�
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

CLEARWATER ENVmONmENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
John Ottinger
Natural Resource Conservation Service
Bryson City Service Center
Federal Building Suite 232
Bryson City, North Carolina 28713
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Mr. Ottinger,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to prime, unique, statewide or locally important
farmland related to a potential wetland and stream restoration project. A site topographic map
and a soils map have been included for your review as well as three (3) copies of Form AD-
1006 for Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. No architectural structures or archeological artifacts have
been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained in pasture suitable for livestock
grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove forest consisting primarily of
hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as either stream or wetland.
On the enclosed soils map, please notice the limits of disturbance include Nikwasi and
Cullowhee soils with small inclusions into Saunook soils. This map should be utilized within
a limited scope as it represents approximate soil type boundaries only and is limited in its
scale and detail. Nikwasi and Cullowhee soils are frequently flooded, active floodplain types.
Saunook is more typical of well- drained ridge tops, benches, and toe slopes. Preliminary
examination of this information by a third party indicates that there is a higher likelihood of
potentially significant sites in the areas of Saunook soils.
No disturbance is expected to take place in Saunook soils and due to level of detail and scale,
the soils map presented overestimates work in Saunook soils. The vast majority of ground
disturbance will take place within the floodplain (i.e., not ridge tops, benches, or toe slopes)
where in -the -field observation of topography verified the soil type as either Nikwasi or
Cullowhee and much less likely to contain archeological or religious sites.
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
www.cwenv.com

The limits of disturbance will further be adjusted to avoid ground disturbance to Saunook
soils that may be accurate according to the soils map.
Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access
roads will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream
portion of the project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream
end. These roads are fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of
materials and equipment in and out of the site.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine if you
know of any existing resources that we need to know about. In addition, please let us
know the level your future involvement with this project needs to be (if any). If we have
not received a response from you within 30 days, we will assume that you have no
comment regarding the project. This letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the
Farmland Protection Policy Act.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to
contact the below referenced EEP Project Manager with any questions that you may have
concerning the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Respectfully,
R. Clement Riddle, P.W:S.
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 8/1/06
Name Of Project Logan Creek Project
Federal Agency Involved FHWA (through NCEEP)
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration Project
County And State Jackson County, NC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply — do not complete additional parts of this form). ❑ Qr
Acres Irrigated
Average Farm Sae
Major Crop(s)
Farmable Land In GovL Jurisdiction
Acres: %
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: %
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Ratin
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
21.6
C. Total Acres In Site
21.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
0
0
0
0
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Ma)amum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On -Farm Investments
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
0
0
0
0
21ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
D
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
p
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
0
0
0
0
iite Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes 0 No
teason For Selection:
>ee Instructions on reverse side) Form AD -1006 (10 -83)
Ala f— u.ee de..,.....f..en.......w......w �... u.at.... -� o.- .:...... -- r - -: W n. -a
41

CLEARWATER ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS, INC.
August 1, 2006
Shannon Deaton
NCWRC Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
RE: Logan Creek Project
Jackson County, NC
Dear Ms. Deaton,
The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) requests review and comment on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to endangered species related to a potential wetland and
stream restoration project. A site topographic map and a soils map have been included for your
review.
The Logan Creek site has been identified for the purpose of providing in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel and wetland impacts. Several sections of channel have been
identified as significantly degraded. Approximately 50% of the project area has been maintained
in pasture suitable for livestock grazing. Approximately 40% of the project area is cove forest
consisting primarily of hemlock overstory. The remaining 10% can be classified as either stream
• or wetland.
Staging areas will be located within the proposed riparian buffer limits. Two (2) access roads
will be necessary for restoration activities. One will be located at the upstream portion of the
project site and the other will cross a meadow area near the downstream end. These roads are
fifteen (15) feet wide and will be necessary for the moving of materials and equipment in and out
of the site.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that might emerge with respect to wildlife
related issues from the construction of a wetland and/or stream restoration project on the subject
Property. If we have not heard from you in 30 days we will assume that you do not have any
comments regarding associated laws, and that you do not have any information relevant to this
project at the current time. This scoping letter is intended to satisfy any requirements of the Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act that may arise as a result of this project.
718 Oakland Street
• Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
Phone: [phone] Fax. [phone]
www.cwenv.com

We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning the extent of site disturbance associated
with this project.
Sincerely,
G.Q.
Clement Riddle, PWS
Principal
Cc: Guy Pearce
EEP Project Manager
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1652
0

rn
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Richard B. Hamilton, Executive Director
August 21, 2006
Clement Riddle
C1earWater Environmental Consultants
718 Oakland Street
Hendersonville, North Carolina 28791
SUBJECT. EEP Wetland and Stream Mitigation Project in Jackson County
Logan Creek
Dear Mr. Riddle:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (Commission) received your letter
dated August 1, 2006 regarding the Ecosystem Enhancement Program project on Logan Creek in Jackson
County. Comments from the Commission are provided under provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661 et seq.).
Logan Creek supports trout. Functional restoration of streams and wetlands in this watershed has the
potential to improve trout habitat.
Jackson County is a "trout county" per an agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE)
and the Commission. As such, Commission biologists review all Nationwide Permit applications here
and make recommendations to minimize the adverse effects associated with some activities, including
restoration work. Once a permit application is prepared for this project, a copy must be sent to me in
order to solicit Commission concurrence and recommendations for the consideration by the ACOE.
The Commission does not anticipate any major resource concerns with this project provided
sedimentation from construction is minimized. Instream construction and bank grading should occur
outside of the trout spawning season (October 15 — April 15) in the ACOE permit. Also, the stream
channel dimensions, patterns, and profiles should reflect stable, reference conditions. If stream channel
• modifications are warranted, overly and unnaturally sinuous channels should be avoided. The use of
balled or container grown trees is recommended in the outside of channel bends to expedite long -term
bank stability.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If there are any questions regarding
these comments, please contact me at (828) 452 -2546 ext. 24.
0
• Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699 -1721
Telephone: [phone] - Fax: [phone]

Logan Creek EEP scopmg Page 2 August 21, 2006
Jackson
Sincerely,
�4r.
Dave McHenry
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
0
0

Part 3.
Y
�r�
os
stem effiF
nt
P ROGRAM
December 5, 2006
Mr. James A. Buck
Buck Engineering, A Unit of Michael Baker
8000 Regency Parkway, Suite 200
Cary, North Carolina 27511
Subject: Conditional Approval of Categorical Exclusion Form for
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Savannah River Basin – CU# 03060101
Jackson County, North Carolina
Contract No. D06046 -A
Dear Mr. Buck:
Attached please find the CONDITIONAL approval of the Categorical Exclusion Form for the
subject full delivery project. I have approved your invoice for completion of the Task i
deliverable in the amount of $54,750.00 (5% of contract). You may also move forward to
completion of Task 2 (submittal of a recorded conservation easement on the site). Please be
advised however, that payment for Task 2 or any subsequent tasks will not be approved until
FINAL approval of Task 1 has been granted by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
If you have any questions, or wish to discuss this matter further, please contact me at any time. I
can be reached at (919) 715 -1656, or email me at auv.aearceOlncmail.net.
Sincerelyi;lr—t� t c.
Guy C. Pearce
EEP Full Delivery Program Supervisor
cc: file
WtortWg... Proj7", OW 0
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 21699 -1651 / 919 -115 -0416 / www.nceep.net

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: I Logan Creek Stream Restoration
County Name: Jackson County
EEP Number:
Project Sponsor: ClearWater Environmental Consultants Inc.
Project Contact Name: Chris Grose
Project Contact Address: 718 Oakland St; Hendersonville, NC 28791
Pro ect Contact E -mail: [e-mail]
EEP Pro ect Manager: Guy Pearce
Project Description
The Logan Creek Stream Restoration project %mH restore the proper dimension, pattern, and profile to approximately
5,000 linear feet of the main -stem of Logan Creek. Approximately 3,100 linear feet of tributaries to Logan Creek and
several small wetland areas will be preserved through the creation of conservation easements. Restoration and
enhancement work will address erosion, strewn bank instability and impaired habitat throughout the project area.
For -
Reviewed By:
2 - - C9 4z,
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
2,- S` c2 fo
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Af Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18105

Part 4.
" iia tent
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain Mapping
program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects. The form is
intended to summarize the floodplain requirements during the design phase of the projects. The
form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator with three copies submitted to
NFIP (attn. Edward Curtis), NC Floodplain Mapping Unit (attn. John Gerber) and NC Ecosystem
Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Name if stream or feature:
Logan Creek
County:
Jackson
Name of river basin:
Savannah River Basin Cat. #03060101
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Jackson County
DFIRM panel number for
entire site:
7582J
Consultant name:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc
Phone number:
828 - 350 -1408
Address:
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville, NC, 28806
FEMA Compliance—EEP Checklist 28 Aug 07_Logan.docPage 1 of 5

Design Information
Provide a general description of project (one paragraph). Include project limits on a reference
orthophotograph at a scale of 1" = 500 ".
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) proposes to restore, enhance or preserve 5,177 linear feet (LF)
of stream along Logan Creek. The project site is located in Jackson County, approximately three miles
east of Cashiers. The project site is on property owned by the Cow Rock Development Corp. and was
previously held by the Jennings family for many years. Logan Creek is a low gradient, gravel bed stream
that supports a good trout population. Logan Creek is within the Savannah River Watershed and is also
within the N. C. Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) targeted local watershed 10020, the
Horsepasture River basin. There are sections of Logan Creek that are highly sinuous and other reaches
that appear to have been straightened in the past. The channel is eroding its banks in many locations
where woody vegetation has been removed and a grass field developed. There are other areas where
dense stands of rhododendron have shaded out deep rooted tree species producing unstable, eroding banks
and an over -wide condition. Baker will restore stable dimension, pattern and profile along 3,315 linear
feet of stream, we will enhance 1,306 linear feet of stream, and preserve 556 linear feet of high quality
stream.
Summarize of stream reaches or wetland areas according to their restoration priority:
Reach
Len linear feet
Priority
Reach 1
3,100
1 Restoration
Reach 2
1,018
Level Enhancement
Reach 3
556
Preservation
Reach 4
215
1 Restoration on 2 short segments
of unnamed tributaries
Reach 5
288
Level l Enhancement on 6 short
segments o unnamed tributaries
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes r No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
Redehneation
r Detailed Study
V, Limited Detail Study
r Approximate Study
r Don't know
List flood zone designation: AE
Check if applies:
r AE Zone
r Floodway
r Non - Encroachment
FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 28 Aug 07_Logan.docPage 2 of 5

r None
r A Zone
r Local Setbacks Required
I i No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how many feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway /non - encroachment/setbacks?
rYes rNo
Land Acquisition (Check)
r State owned (fee simple)
r Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
W, Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state - owned, then all requirements should be addressed to the Department
of Administration State Construction Office attn: Herbert Neil 919 8074101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
r Yes r No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to NFIP (attn: Edward
Curtis, 919 715 -8000 x369
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Tony Elders, CFM, Land Development
Administrator /Jackson County Floodplain Manager (Point of Contact Is Robert Shelton, CFM)
Phone Number: Contact number. 828 - 631 -2284 for Tony (2261 general)
Jackson County Justice Center
401 Grindstaff Cove Road.,Suite A -258
Sylva, NC 28779
Email. ton elders acksonnc.or
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer /applicant following verification with the LFPA
r No Action
F, No Rise
R, Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
2' freeboard for bridges, culverts designed for 25-year.
FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist-28 Aug 07_Logan.docPage 3 of 5

Comments:
The project proposes to redesign the stream with a slightly reduced stream length. No bridges or culverts are
proposed. The anticipated action is no -rise followed up with a LOMR post - project (assuming that the reduction in
BFE is >O.10'). If modeling results in small rise, CLOMR will be submitted. No structures are in the project
vicinity so redesijzn is not likely to be required for a small rise.
Name: Jacob P McLean Signature:
ML-1
Title: PE CFM Date: " b 13 1 ) 3
Criteria for Flooding Requirements
Grading less than 5ac:
Notify LFPA
Not Regulated, No Community
Set -backs Grading more - No Impact Study
(i„l,,, z,is,c.} than 5 ac: - LOMR if.
Site BFE not< Establish Oft < Rise < 1 ft
Defined W /Community BFE data. - CLOMR & LOMR if / ( wik \) Set -backs —. Rise > I ft
(SFHA)
(Al .1111 A I'.
�'\I -\111)
No Floodway
(I ft No -Rise)
Floodway defined
(0 ft Nail
(0 ft N
No Impact Study \
CLOMR, LOMR if Rise not met
LOMB, if Rise < 0.1 ft
Summary of Scenarios
Zone
SFHA
BFE
loodway
Comm.
loodplain Criteria
(map)
Or Non-
et -back
ncroachment
,B,C
o
0
0
o
a. Notify Floodplain Administration
. FP Dev. Permit maybe required
Yes
No
0
No
a. If grading < 5 ac, notify LFPA.
Yes
No
o
Yes
a. If No -Rise = 0 ft, LOMB not required
. If Rise > 0 ft, LOMR is Required
c. If Rise > 1 ft, CLOMR is required
E,
Yes
Yes
o
/a
a. No -Rise Study
1 -A30
b. CLOMR if > 1ft
les
c. LOMR
EFW
Yes
Yes
/a
a. No -Rise Study
1 -A30
. CLOMR if > 0 ft
c. LOMR
FEMA Compliance_EEP Checklist 28 Aug 07_Logan.docPage 4 of 5

J
a $
�� � � k 3j •
A
l t
w.3lk

Clemmons, Micky
Subject: FW: Logan Creek
Attachments: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT.pdf
From: Robby Shelton [ mailto :robertshelton @jacksonnc.org]
Sent: Friday, June 28, 2013 10:02 AM
To: McLean, Jake
Cc: tonyelders @jacksonnc.org
Subject: RE: Logan Creek
Good Morning Jake
On or about May 23,2013, we spoke over the phone about the Ecosystem Enhancement Program on Logan Creek in
Jackson County, NC.
As we discussed, there are currently no structures in the proximity of the SFHA and that I had visited the Cow Rock
Development on May 15,2013 for an erosion control inspection on an unrelated project. While on the phone with you, I
opened up our "ArcGIS" program and we were able to discuss the site while I looked at the orthos
I have reviewed your EEP Requirement Checklist, and found it to be accurate. This project will be very helpful to this
valuable trout stream.
The attached Floodplain Development Permit is required for this project. 2013 468 will be your permit number. A $50.00
permit fee is required.
Please feel free to call me at 828 - 631 -2256 if additional information is required.
Robert S. Shelton, CFM
From: McLean, Jake ( mailto:JMclean(&mbakercorp.coml
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2013 12:40 PM
To: 'Robby Shelton'
Cc: Tony Elders; Clemmons, Micky
Subject: RE: Logan Creek
Robby,
Can you please verify in email that we've discussed the project, you understand our activities and that what is in this
checklist is accurate, particularly as it pertains to our discussions (see pg 3 and 4).
Thanks,
Jake
7acob P. McLean, PE, CFM I Civil Engineer I Michael Baker Corp
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201 1 Asheville, NC 28806 1 828.350.1408 x2007 (ofc) 1 828.545.3865
jmclean0mbakercoro.com I www.mbakercorl2.com
•

Part 5
The EDR Radius Map
with GeoCheck®
Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
Jackson County
Sapphire, NC 28774
Inquiry Number: 01735558.1r
August 14, 2006
EDR® Environmental
Data Resources Inc
The Standard in
Environmental Risk
Management Information
440 Wheelers Farms Road
Milford, Connecticut 06461
Nationwide Customer Service
Telephone: 1- 800 - 352 -0050
Fax: 1- 800 - 231 -6802
Internet: www.edrnet.com

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary ------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- ES1
OverviewMap----------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 2
DetailMap-------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 3
Map Findings Summary ---------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 4
MapFindings------------------------------------------------------ - - - - -- 6
OrphanSummary --------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 7
Government Records Searched /Data Currency Tracking- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - GR -1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------ - - - - -- A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary -------------------------------------- - - - - -- A -2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map------------------------------------- - - - - -- A -5
Physical Setting Source Map------------------------------------------ - - - - -- A-15
Physical Setting Source Map Findings---------------------------------- - - - - -- A -16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched.------------------------------ - - - - -- A-33
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1- 800 - 352 -0050
with any questions or comments.
and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from op a variety of puublic and other sources rreasonably available to Eppnvironmental Data
oother souurces. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED R IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. NVIRONMENTAL exist from
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS ". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to Provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2006 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners
TC01735558.1 r Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527 -05) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
JACKSON COUNTY
SAPPHIRE, NC 28774
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (Vilest):
Universal Tranven
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.133700 - 35° 8' 1.3"
83.062200 - 83° 3'43.9"
;e Mercator: Zone 17
312109.2
3889618.5
3179 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 35083 -B1 BIG RIDGE, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1991
South Map: 35083 -A1 CASHIERS, NC
Most Recent Revision: 1991
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ( "reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL---- ------- ----- --- - - - - -- National Priority List
Proposed NPL-------- --- - -- Proposed National Priority List Sites
Delisted NPL---- ----- --- - -- National Priority List Deletions
NPL RECOVERY------ ---- - -- Federal Superfund Liens
CERCLIS--------------------. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Information
System
CERC- NFRAP-- ----- --- - - - - -. CERCLIS No Further Remedial Action Planned
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CORRACTS------------ - - - - -.
Corrective Action Report
RCRA- TSDF----------- - - - - --
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA- LQG------------ - - - - --
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
RCRA-SQG------------ - - - - --
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Information
ERNS------------------ - - - - --
Emergency Response Notification System
HMIRS----------------- - - - - --
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
US ENG CONTROLS--- - - - - -.
Engineering Controls Sites List
US INST CONTROL--- - - - - --
Sites with Institutional Controls
DOD------------------- - - - - --
Department of Defense Sites
FUDS------------------ - - - - --
Formerly Used Defense Sites
US BROWNFIELDS---- - - - - --
A Listing of Brownfields Sites
CONSENT------------- - - - - --
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
ROD------------------- - - - - --
Records Of Decision
UMTRA---------------- - - - - --
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
ODL------------------- - - - - --
Open Dump Inventory
TRIS------------------- - - - - --
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
TSCk----------------- - - - - --
Toxic Substances Control Act
FITS------------------- - - - - --
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, &
Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
SSTS------------------ - - - - --
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ICIS-------------------- - - - - --
Integrated Compliance Information System
PADS------------------ - - - - --
PCB Activity Database System
MLTS------------------ - - - - --
Material Licensing Tracking System
MINES----------------- - - - - --
Mines Master Index File
FINDS------------------ - - - - -.
Facility Index System /Facility Registry System
RAATS----------------- - - - - --
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
SHWS------------------ - - - - -.
Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
NC HSDS-------------- - - - - --
Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
IMD-------------------- - - - - --
Incident Management Database
SWF /LF---------------- - - - - --
List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLL-------------------- - - - - -.
Old Landfill Inventory
LUST------------------ - - - - --
Regional UST Database
LUST TRUST---------- - - - - --
State Trust Fund Database
UST-------------------- - - - - --
Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST-------------------- - - - - --
AST Database
INST CONTROL
No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
------------
VCP-------------------------- Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
DRYCLEANERS------- - - - - -- Drycleaning Sites
BROWNFIELDS-------- - - - - -. Brownfields Projects Inventory
NPDES----------------- - - - - -. NPDES Facility Location Listing
TRIBAL RECORDS
INDIAN RESERV------- - - - - -- Indian Reservations
INDIAN LUST---------- - - - - -- Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
INDIAN UST------------ - - - - -. Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
Manufactured Gas Plants - -- EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Historical Auto StationsEDR Proprietary Historic Gas Stations
EDR Historical Cleaners - - - -. EDR Proprietary Historic Dry Cleaners
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were not identified.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC01735558.1r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Due to poor or inadequate address information, the following sites were not mapped:
Site Name
ROGERS GULF CASHIERS FRMR
MTN HIGH INC- FAIRFIELD
NICHOLS PROPERTY
CASHIERS EXXON
SOUTHERN PUMP & TANK CO.
FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY
COUNTY CLUB OF SAPPHIRE VALLE
ROGER'S GULF STATION
CASHIERS EXXON
STEWARTS TEXACO INC
TOXAWAY CONCRETE CO.
FRANK'S GROCERY 90
CONTEL OF N.C. CENTRAL OFFICE
KWIK SNAK
D.H. SMITH
MCCOY'S GULF STATION
HAROLD A. DARGEL
JIM'S LANDING
SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONVENIENCE
PRICE'S GROCERY
SAPPHIRE COUNTRY STORE
L.B.M. INDUSTRIES. INC.
RESOURCES PLANNING CORPORATION
CEDAR CREEK WWTP
STUART N YOUNGBLOOD PROJECT
BOND FUEL CO.
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - AST
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - DRUMS
BIG SHEEPCLIFF WATER SYS
BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL
WADE HAMPTON GOLF CLUB WWTP
JACKSON UTILITY WWTP
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #1
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #2
Database(s)
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
LUST, IMD
FINDS, LUST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
UST
FINDS, NPDES
FINDS, NPDES
FINDS
IMD
IMD
IMD
ICIS
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
NPDES
TC01 735558.1 r EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
•

OVERVIEW MAP - 01735558.1 r
J
N
9 �
•` 1
S
f
t
C,
*
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
•
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
'
Dept. Defense Sites
U 111 1 2 Mika
EMOMMMMMMMMEMW
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
Power transmission lines Disposal Sites
/V Oil & Gas pipelines
® National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774 INQUIRY #: 01735558.1 r
LAVLONG: 35.13371 83.0622 DATE: August 14, 2006
coWght o 2008 EDR, Ina O 2006 T@b Atlas Rel 07800.5.

DETAIL MAP - 01735558.1 r
1.11
Y II1v �"--
* Target Property
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property El Indian Reservations BIA 0 Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than /V Oil & Gas pipelines Disposal Sites
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants
i Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Landfill Sites
Fr, fl Dept. Defense Sites
SITE NAME: Logan Creek Stream Restoration Project
CLIENT: Buck Engineering
ADDRESS: Jackson County
CONTACT: Andrea Spangler
Sapphire NC 28774
INQUIRY #: 01735558.1r
LAT /LONG: 36.1337 / 83.0622
DATE: August 14, 2006
Copyrlpht O 2008 EOR, lea. 0 2006 Tab Attu Rol OMAN.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
TC01735558.1 r Page 4
Search
Target
Distance
Total
Database Property
(Miles)
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2-1
> 1
Plotted
FEDERAL RECORDS
NPL
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
Proposed NPL
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
Delisted NPL
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
NPL RECOVERY
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
CERCLIS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
CERC -NFRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
CORRACTS
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
RCRA TSD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RCRA Lg. Quan. Gen.
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
RCRA Sm. Quan. Gen.
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
ERNS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
HMIRS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
US INST CONTROL
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DOD
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
FUDS
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
US BROWNFIELDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
CONSENT
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
ROD
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
UMTRA
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
ODI
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
TRIS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TSCA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
FTTS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SSTS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ICIS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
PADS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
MLTS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
MINES
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
FINDS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
RAATS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
STATE AND LOCAL RECORDS
State Haz. Waste
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
NC HSDS
1.500
0
0
0
0
0
0
IMD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State Landfill
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
OLI
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
LUST
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
LUST TRUST
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
UST
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
AST
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
INST CONTROL
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
VCP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
DRYCLEANERS
0.750
0
0
0
0
NR
0
BROWNFIELDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPDES
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC01735558.1 r Page 4

Database
TRIBAL RECORDS
MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Target Distance Total
Property (Miles) < 1/8 1/8-1/4 1/4-1/2 1/2-1 > 1 Plotted
INDIAN LUST
INDIAN UST
EDR PROPRIETARY RECORDS
1.500
1.000
0.750
Manufactured Gas Plants 1.500
EDR Historical Auto Stations 0.750
EDR Historical Cleaners 0.750
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
NR 0
0 0
0
0
NR 0
0 0
0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0
NR 0
0 0
0
0
NR 0
TC01735558.1r Page 5
•

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
Distance (ft.)
Elevation Site
NO SITES FOUND
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
TC01735558.1r Page 6

ORPHAN SUMMARY
Cdy EDR ID Site Name Site Address
Zip Database(s)
COUNTY
S107779927
BLUE RIDGE SCHOOL
NC HWY 107
28736
NPDES
CASHIER
0003136771
COUNTY CLUB OF SAPPHIRE VALLE
HWY 64 EAST PO BOX 1100
28717
UST
CASHIERS
S106520436
ROGERS GULF CASHIERS FRMR
HIGHWAY 107
28717
LUST, IMD
CASHIERS
0001192188
ROGER'S GULF STATION
HIGHWAY 107
28717
UST
CASHIERS
0003145120
CASHIERS EXXON
41 HWY 107 NORTH
28717
UST
CASHIERS
0003134807
STEWARTS TEXACO INC
HWY 107/PO BOX 739
28717
UST
CASHIERS
0001192300
TOXAWAY CONCRETE CO.
HWY 64 E.
28717
UST
CASHIERS
0001202969
FRANKS GROCERY 90
HWY 64 EAST PO BOX 405
28717
UST
CASHIERS
1004551135
RESOURCES PLANNING CORPORATION
CEDAR HILL DEVELOPMENT
28717
FINDS, NPDES
CASHIERS
S101643652
MTN HIGH INC - FAIRFIELD
CHEROKEE TRAIL
28717
LUST, IMD
CASHIERS
S103717720
NICHOLS PROPERTY
CORNER OF US HIGHWAY 64 / 107
28717
LUST, IMD
CASHIERS
0001199634
CONTEL OF N.C. CENTRAL OFFICE
U.S. HIGHWAY 64
28717
UST
CASHIERS
S105764115
CASHIERS EXXON
NC HWY 107 / US HWY 64
28717
LUST, IMD
CASHIERS
S107780762
WADE HAMPTON GOLF CLUB WWTP
NC HWY 107
28717
NPDES
CASHIERS
1004547719
CEDAR CREEK WWTP
NCSR 1120
28717
FINDS, NPDES
CASHIERS
S105893547
SOUTHERN PUMP & TANK CO.
SAPPHIRE VALLEY CO. CLUB
28717
LUST, IMD
CASHIERS
1009253252
BIG SHEEPCLIFF WATER SYS
STATE RD 107
28717
ICIS
CHOCOWINITY
0003134178
KWIK SNAK
3570 HWY 17 8 33
28717
UST
CHOCOWINITY
0001187947
D.H. SMITH
HIGHWAY 33
28717
UST
GLENVILLE
S105912019
BOND FUEL CO.
HIGHWAY 107
28736
IMD
GLENVILLE
0001192572
MCCOY'S GULF STATION
HIGHWAY 107
28736
UST
GLENVILLE
0001206177
HAROLD A. DARGEL
HWY 107
28736
UST
GLENVILLE
0003138367
JIM'S LANDING
HWY 107
28736
UST
GLENVILLE
S107672100
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - AST
4735 NC HIGHWAY 107
28736
IMD
GLENVILLE
S107672101
SIGNAL RIDGE MARINA - DRUMS
4735 NC HIGHWAY 107
28736
IMD
GLENVILLE
0003943159
SOUTHERN MEADOWS CONVENIENCE
6188 N HIGHWAY 107
28736
UST
HOT SPRINGS
0001436039
PRICE'S GROCERY
RT. 1 BOX 128
28736
UST
SAPPHIRE
1007721037
FAIRFIELD SAPPHIRE VALLEY
4000 HIGHWAY 64 WEST
28774
FINDS, LUST
SAPPHIRE
0003146995
SAPPHIRE COUNTRY STORE
3 HWY 64 E
28774
UST
SAPPHIRE
0001191675
L.B.M. INDUSTRIES. INC.
P.O. BOX 40 - HIGHWAY 281
28774
UST
SAPPHIRE
S107780256
JACKSON UTILITY WWTP
4000 US HWY 64 W
28774
NPDES
SAPPHIRE
S107780598
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #1
1600 US HWY 64 W
28774
NPDES
SAPPHIRE
S107780599
SAPPHIRE LAKES WWTP #2
1600 US HWY 64 W
28774
NPDES
SW/LAKE TOXAWAY
1007726677
STUART N YOUNGBLOOD PROJECT
NORTH C 281 BOHAYNEE ROAD
28774
FINDS
TC01735558.1r Page 7

Part 6.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
January 12, 2007
Micky Clemmons
Buck Engineering
787 Haywood Road, Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
Office of Archives and History
Division of Historical Resources
David Brook, Director
Re: Logan Creek, Puzzle Creek and Blockhouse Creek Stream Restorations, Jackson, Rutherford, and.
Polk Counties, ER 06 -2135, ER 06 -2190, and ER 06 -2191
Dear Mr. Clemmons:
Thank you for your letter of December 1, 2006, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. for the above projects.
During the course of the survey, one site was located within the project area. The report authors have
recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We
concur with this recommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CPR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733 -4763 ext. 246. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Q "'
eter Sandbeck
cc: Bobby Southerlin, Archaeological Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919)733. 4763/7334653
RESTORATION 513 N. Blount Strut, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (919)733 - 6547/7154801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4617 (919)733. 6545/715 -4801

DATE: 24 - January - 07
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Ph: 828 -554 -6852 Fax [phone]
TO: FHWA NC Division
Donnie Brew
EEP Liaison
310 New Bern Ave., Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601 -1418
PROJECT(s): Phase I archeological assessment of Logan Creek stream bank
restoration in Jackson County, Puzzle Creek stream bank restoration
in Rutherford County, and Blockhouse Creek stream bank restoration
in Polk County, North Carolina.
The Tribal Historic Preservation Office of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians would
like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed Section 106 activity
under 36 C.F.R. 800.
This office agrees with the archeologist's recommendation that no significant cultural
resources were recovered during the archeological field work.
In the event that project design plans change, this office should be notified to continue the
Section 106 review process. In the event that cultural resources or human remains are
inadvertently discovered, all work should cease and immediate Section 106 consultation
between the federal government and the sovereign government of the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians should begin.
If we can be of further service, or if you have any comments or questions, please feel free
to contact me at (828) 488 -0237 ext 2.
mcerel
Tyler B. Howe
Tribal Historical Preservation Specialist
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
Cc: Mickey Clemmons

Part 7
Endangered/Threatened Species Considered
Some populations of plants and animals are declining as a result of either natural forces or their own
difficulties in competing with humans for resources. Plants and animals with a federal classification of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected
under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Seven species
that the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) lists under federal protection for Jackson County
as of March 1, 2007 are listed in Table 2.4. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements of the species under federal protection follows in Table 2.4, along with a conclusion
regarding potential project impact.
Table 1. Species Under Federal Protection in Jackson County
Vertebrates
Clemmys Bog Turtle T(S /A) N/A Yes/No effect
Em didae muhlenber ii
Carolina
Glaucomys sabrinus Northern Flying
Sciuridae coloratus Squirrel E E No/No effect
Indiana Myotis
Ves ertilionidae M otis sodalit bat E E No/No effect
Invertebrates
Alasmidonta Felktoe ppalachain
Unionidae raveneliana E E No/No effect
Plants
Small whorled
Orchidaceae Isotoria medeoloides pogonia T E Yes/No effect
Liliaceae Helonias bullata Swamp pink T T -SC Yes/No effect
Lichen
Rock Gnome
Cladoniaceae G mnoderma lineare Lichen E T No/No effect
Notes:
E An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora or fauna is
determined to be in jeopardy.
SC A Special Concern species is one that requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold under
regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the
Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants).
T Threatened
T(S /A) Threatened due to similarity of appearance. A species that is threatened due to similarity of appearance
with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not biologically endangered or threatened
and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
2.0.1 Federally Protected Vertebrates
2.6.1.1 Clemmys muhlenbergii (Bog Turtle)
The Bog Turtle is among the smallest turtles of North America at only 3 -4.5 inches in length
and with an average weight of 4 ounces. Its shell is light brown to ebony in color and it has a

notable bright orange, yellow or red blotch on each side of its head. The bog turtle's preferred
habitat in the southern Appalachians include sphagnum bogs, slowly drained swamps, and
mucky, slow moving spring -fed streams in meadows and pastures that are typically less than
4 acres in size. Suitable habitat was found for the bog turtle in the larger wetland areas
located adjacent to Logan Creek. However, no examples of this species were observed
during pedestrian surveys of the site on May 18 and 24, 2005 and on September 28, 2005
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Project design for Logan Creek will be such that minimal land disturbing activities will take
place in the wetland areas identified. By avoiding adverse impacts to potential habitat to the
greatest extent possible, and referencing a lack of bog turtle observations, a "no effect"
determination was assigned.
2.6.1.2 Glaucomys sabrinus coloratus (Carolina Northern Flying Squirrel)
The Carolina northern flying squirrel is a small nocturnal gliding mammal some 260 to 305
millimeters (10 to 12 inches) in total length and 95 -140 grams (3 -5 ounces) in weight. It
possesses a long, broad, flattened tail (80 percent of head and body length), prominent eyes,
and dense, silky fur. The broad tail and folds of skin between the wrist and ankle form the
aerodynamic surface used for gliding. Adults are gray with a brownish, tan, or reddish wash
on the back, and grayish white or bully white ventrally. Juveniles have uniform dark, slate -
gray backs, and off -white undersides. The northern flying squirrel can be distinguished from
the southern flying squirrel by its larger size; the gray base of its ventral hairs as opposed to a
white base in the southern species; the relatively longer upper tooth row; and the short, stout
baculum (penis bone) of the males.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Carolina northern flying squirrel prefers the ecotone between coniferous and mature
northern hardwood forests usually above 4,500 feet. The project area consists of floodplain
with maximum elevations of approximately 3,500 feet. Due to the lack of suitable habitat on
the project site, a "no effect" determination was made for the Carolina northern flying
squirrel.
2.6.1.3 Myods sodalis (Indiana Myotis)
The Indiana bat is 3.5 inches long, with mouse -like ears, plain nose, dull, grayish fur on the
back, and lighter, cinnamon -brown fur on the belly. Its "wingspread" ranges from 9.5 to 10.5
inches. From early October until late March and April, Indiana bats hibernate in large
clusters of hundreds or even thousands in limestone caves and abandoned mines, usually near
water. During summer, females establish maternity colonies of two dozen to several hundred
under the loose bark of dead and dying trees or shaggy - barked live trees, such as the shagbark
hickory. Hollows in live or dead trees are also used. Most roost trees are usually exposed to
the sun and are near water. Males and non - reproductive females typically roost singly or in
small groups. Roost trees can be found within riparian areas, bottomland hardwoods, and
upland hardwoods (Nature Serve Explorer, 2006).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Riparian corridors adjacent to Logan Creek may provide suitable summer foraging habitat for
the Indiana bat; however USFWS records indicate that Jackson County N.C. records of this
species have all been winter records. No winter hibernation habitat was observed on the
project site. Therefore a "no effect" determination was made.

2.6.2 Federally Protected Invertebrates
2.6 2.2 Alasmidonta raveneliana (Appalachain Elktoe)
The Appalachian elktoe has a thin, but not fragile, kidney- shaped shell, reaching up to about
3.2 inches in length, 1.4 inches in height, and one inch in width (Clarke 1981). Like other
freshwater mussels, the Appalachian elktoe feeds by filtering food particles from the water
column. The specific food habits of the species are unknown, but other freshwater mussels
have been documented to feed on detritus, diatoms, phytoplankton, and zooplankton
(Churchill and Lewis 1924). The mussel's life span is unknown.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The Appalachian elktoe prefers morphologically stable stream reaches with no silt
accumulation or heavily shifting substrate, which does not currently exist on the site. Given
the degraded conditions on Logan Creek a "no effect" determination was made.
2.6.3 Federally Protected Plants
2.6.3.1 Isotria medeoloides (Small Whorled Pogonia)
Small whorled pogonia is a small, perennial member of the Orchidaceae. These plants arise
from long slender roots, with hollow stems terminating in a whorl of five or six light green
leaves. The single flower is approximately one inch long, with yellowish -green to white
petals and three longer green sepals. This orchid blooms in late spring, from mid -May to
mid -June. Populations of this plant are reported to have extended periods of dormancy and to
bloom sporadically. This small spring ephemeral orchid is not observable outside of the
spring growing season. When not in flower, young plants of Indian cucumber -root (Medeola
virginiana) also resemble small whorled pogonia; however, the hollow stout stem of Isotria
separates it from the genus Medeola, which has a solid, more slender stem (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service County Listing, 2007).
Small whorled pogonia may occur in young as well as maturing forests, but typically grows
in open, dry, deciduous woods and areas along streams with acidic soil. It also grows in rich,
mesic woods in association with white pine and rhododendron.
The primary threat to small whorled pogonia is habitat destruction resulting from residential
or commercial development or forestry. Other threats, such as recreational use of habitat and
inadvertent damage from research activities, have also been identified.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Second -Third growth upland forest in the vicinity of the project area was found to contain
suitable habitat for the small whorled pogonia. However, no small whorled pogonia was
observed during on -site surveys conducted May 18, and May 24, 2005. Lack of observations
as well as limited disturbance activities within the habitat area resulted in a "no effect"
determination.
2.6.3.2 Helonias bullata (Swamp Pink)
A perennial, the Swamp Pink usually is one of the first wildflowers to bloom in the spring.
The plant usually blooms from March to May. Its fragrant flowers are pink and occur in a
cluster of 30 to 50. Its dark evergreen, lance- shaped, and parallel- veined leaves form a basal
rosette which arises from a stout, hollow stem. This stem can grow from a height of 2 to 9
decimeters during flowering, and to 1.5 meters during seed maturation (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1990). The plant's stout rootstock has many fibrous rootlets. During the
winter, the leaves often turn reddish brown and will lie flat on, or slightly raised, from the

ground. These winter leaves are often hidden by leaf litter, but a visible large button, in the
center of the leaves, represents next season's flowerhead. The plant produces three -lobed fruit
of an inverted heart shape. Each fruit has many ovules; each ovule opens into six lobes which
release linear shaped seeds with appendages on both ends.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Larger wetland areas adjacent to Logan Creek contain suitable habitat for swamp pink.
However, no species were located during on -site surveys conducted May 18 and May 24,
2005. In addition, no ground disturbing activities will occur in these wetlands areas.
Therefore, a "no effect" determination was issued.
2.6.4 Federally Protected Lichen
2.6.4.1 Gymnoderma lineare (Rock Gnome Lichen)
Rock Gnome Lichen grows in dense colonies of narrow straps ( squamules) that appear a
bluish -grey on the surface and a shiny white on the lower surface. The squamules are about 1
millimeter across near the tip, tapering to the blackened base, sparingly and
subdichotomously branched, and generally about I to 2 centimeters (.39 to .79 inches) long,
although they can vary somewhat in length, depending upon environmental factors.
Flowering occurs between July to September; fruiting bodies are located at the tips of the
squamules and are also black. The squamules are nearly parallel to the rock surface, with the
tips curling away from the rock, in a near perpendicular orientation to the rock surface.
The rock gnome lichen is endemic to the southern Appalachian Mountains of North
Carolina and Tennessee, where it is limited to 32 populations. Only seven of the remaining 32
populations cover an area larger than 2 square meters (2.4 square yards). Most populations
are 1 meter (3.3 feet) or less in size.
Rock gnome lichen habitat is located around humid, high elevation rock outcrops or vertical
cliff faces or in rock outcrops in humid gorges at lower elevations. Most populations occur
above an elevation of 1,524 meters (5,000 feet).
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
The project area is in a broad valley setting of mixed meadows and forested areas and does not
meet the habitat criteria for the rock gnome lichen. A Biological Conclusion of No Effect is
expected from the proposed project construction.

APPENDIX C
MITIGATION WORK PLAN DATA and ANALYSES
Part 1. Existing Condition Geomorphic Data
Part 2. Substrate Data
Part 3. Reference Reach Data
Part 4. Design Data and Analysis
Part 5. Design Geomorphology and Vegetation Parameters

Page Intentionally left Blank

Feature
Pool
3176
c
3174
° 3172
3170
W
3168
3166
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Type B, e th De th W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
C4 60.7 32.89 1.85 4.47 17.82 1.2 6.8 3172.66 3173.38
Pool Cross - section, station 5 +77 on Logan Creek
50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150
Station - - a - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone
b

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle C4 58.4 38.72 1.51 3.42 25.68 1.5 3.4 3170.78 3172.33
Riffle Cross - section, station 11 +10 on Logan Creek 7
3175
3174
3173
g 3172
3171
w 3170
3169
3168
3167
rh ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Station a Bankfull - - O - - Floodprone

Feature
Stream
Type
B
I BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
IMaxBKFI
De th
W/D
Il
BH Ratio
ER
Ii
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Pool
E4
1 55.2
24.92
2.22
4.02
11.25
1.4
10.7
3166.5
3168.1
0
0
m
w
3172
3170
3168
3166
3164
3162
Pool Cross - section, station 21 +00 on Logan Creek
45 55 65 75 85 95 105
Station r> Ban (full o - - Floodprone

Feature
Pool
U: 1
3175
ca
3170
3165
W
3160
3155
Stream
Max BKF
e JBKF Areal Width Depth Depth W/D BH Ratio
C4 55.8 36.01 1.55 2.94 23.22 1.6 3.4
Pool Cross - section, station 29 +25 on Logan Creek
.55 1 3
0 50 100 150 200 250
Station o - - Bankfull o - - Floodprone

I*
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E4
59.5
23.7
2.51
3.4
9.44
1
15.9
3164.2
3164.23
Riffle Cross - section, station 32 +05 on Logan Creek
3170
C
�a
3166
3164
W
triI:N
�T[I1]
255 265 275 285 295 305 315 325
Station a - - Bankfull o - Floodprone
•

Feature
Stream
Type
I BKF Areal
I BKF
Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
E4
55.8
23.83
2.34
3.66
10.17
1.1
17.8
3162.48
3162.99
Riffle Cross - section, station 36 +70 on Logan Creek
3166
_
0 3164
w 3162
3160
3158
275 285 295 305 315 325 335 345
Station o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone
10

Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Feature Type BKF Area Width De th -ems /D BH Ratio ER BKF Elev TOB Elev
Riffle E4 58.4 1 22.86 2.56 3.84 8.94 1 8.1 3161.35 3161.35
Riffle Cross - section, station 41 +50 on Logan Creek
3165 --------------------- _ - -
3163
3161
3159
w
3157 -
3155
120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190
Station - - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Fioodprone

Feature
Pool
3175
3170
c
3165
3160
W
3155
3150
Stream BKF BKF Max BKF
Type BKF Area Width Depth Depth
C4 63.5 36.1 1.76 4.19 20.5 1.1
Pool Cross - section, station 46 +05 on Logan Creek
0 20 40 60
•I
1.3 1 3159.5 1 3159.87
80 100 120 140 160
Station - - o - - Bankfull - - o - - Floodprone

Logan Creek Existing Profile
3190
3185
3180
3175
c
0
3170
a�
W
3165
3160
3155
TWG
WSF
RTB
LTB
3150 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i I
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000
Station

Page Intentionally Left Blank

b
N
100%
90%
80%
70%
L 60%
a�
c
E_ 50%
m
a�
a 40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
—A— Reach Composite
Logan Creek - Reach -Wide Pebble Count
Pebble Count Particle Size Distributions
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size (mm)
L: \projects \109243 - Logan Creek \Modeling \Sediment Samples \LoganPebbleCount, Reach -Wide Distribution 4/10/2007

100
90
80
70
60
Y
Q
50
a>
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
I•
--W- Cumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
0.1
1
Pavement Particle Distribution
Logan Creek - Pt. Bar 2nd Pool X -Sec.
10
100
1000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
4 10.
10000

100
90
80
70
60
50
a.,
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
Subpavement Particle Distribution
Logan Creek - Pt. Bar 2nd Pool X -Sec.
—F Cumulative Percent
■ Class Percent
0.1 1 10 100
Particle Size Class (mm)
1000
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
10000

100
90
80
70
60
c
a�
50
a
40
30
20
10
0
0.01
Subpavement Particle Distribution
Logan Creek - Mid Channel Bar
--*— Cumulative Percent
IN Class Percent
0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
Particle Size Class (mm)
Silt/Clay Sand Gravel Cobble Boulder
►

.
w

Feature
Stream
Type_
BKF Area
I BKF Width
BKF
D
Max BKF
De th
W/D
BH Ratio
ev
TOB Elev
Pool
C4
20.1
15.88
1.27
2.28
12.53
1 1.4
2.6 I 99.37
100.21
102
0 100
r
99
w 98
97
Pool cross - section at 58.2, on unnamed tributary to Logan Creek
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - -- 0
100 105 110 115 120 125 130 135 140 145
Station - - a - - Bankfull - O - - Floodprone
I*

Profile Chart - UT to Logan s TWA
LTB
RTB
—WSF
wo
-10 10 30 50 70 90 110 130 150
Station

Table 1
Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Min Min Max I Max Min I Max Min Max
1. Stream Type
C4
E4
C4
E4
2. Drainage Area - square miles
.83
1.9
7.2
2.08 2.67
3. Bankfull Width Wbkf - feet
16.7
18.5
29.5
22.6
4. Bankf tll Mean Depth dbkf - feet
1.06
2.8
2.2
2.43
5. Width/Depth Ratio (w /d ratio )
15.76
6.6
13.4
9.3
6. Cross - sectional Area Abkf - SF
17.7
51
64.9
54.8
7. Bankfull Mean Velocity vbkf) - fps
3.55
-
5.5
3.28
8. Bankfull Discharge Qbkf - cfs
97.6
-
375
180
9. Bankf ill Max Depth (dmbkf) - feet
1.54
3.5
3.2
3.5
10. dmbkf / dbkf ratio
1.5
1.25
1.45
1.44
11. Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio
1.2
-
1.1
12. Flood prone Area Width w a) - feet
35
130
329
323
13. Entrenchment Ratio R
2.0
7.0
11.2
14.3
14. Meander length Lm - feet
150
185 1 260
350
-
15. Ratio of meander length to bankf ill width
Lm /Wbkf)
9.0
10.0
11.9
-
16. Radius of curvature R, - feet
23
42.3
63.1
40.1
69.3
-
17. Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width Re / w kf
1.38
2.29
3.41
1.36
2.35
-
18. Belt width wblt - feet
80
30.5
44
59
75
-
19. Meander Width Ratio Wblt/Wbkf
4.8
1.65
2.38
2.00
2.54
-
20. Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley
Distance
2.01
1.1
-
1.38
21. Valley Slope - feet per foot
.0160
-
-
..0045
22. Channel Sloe schannel - feet per foot
.0079
0.009
.0144
.0033
23. Pool Sloe ool - feet per foot
.0033
-
.0019
-
/24. Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
(Spool / Schannel)
2.01
-
-
-
25. Maximum Pool Depth ool - feet
2.28
3.5
4.1
2.2
2.8
4.2
26. Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull
Depth d 1 /dbkf)
2.15
1.25
1.46
1.00
1.27
1.73
27. Pool Width wool) - feet
15.88
18.5
19.7
35
68
27.9
28. Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(W ,I / -bkf)
.95
1.00
1.06
1.19
2.31
1.23
29. Pool Area (A,,001) - square feet
20.11
51
54.5
89.3
132.5
58.1
30. Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
A ool /Abkf
1.14
1.00
1.07
1.38
2.04
1.06
31. Pool -to -Pool Spacing - feet
75
97.5
179.8
271
334
-
32. Ratio of Pool -to -Pool Spacing to Bankfull
Width - /wb f
4.5
5.3
9.7
9.2
11.3
-
33. Riffle Sloe safe - feet per foot
0.019
0.015
0.019
0.020
-
34. Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope
Srift7e/ Sbkf
1.188
1.7
2.1
1.4
-
Particle Size Distribution of Riffle Material
Material d5o
d16 -mm
-
0.13
0.17
-
d35 - mm
-
0.3
29
-
d50 - mm
-
1.9
58
-
dg4 - mm
-
50
180
-
d95 - mm
-
100
300
-
- data not available
•

Part 4.
DESIGN DATA AND ANALYSIS
1.0 CHANNEL ASSESSMENT DATA
1.1 Channel Stability Assessment
A naturally stable stream must be able to transport the sediment load supplied by its watershed while
maintaining dimension, pattern, and profile over time so that it does not degrade or aggrade (Rosgen,
1994). Stable streams migrate across alluvial landscapes slowly, over long periods, while maintaining
their form and function. Instability occurs when scouring causes the channel to incise (degrade) or
excessive deposition causes the channel bed to rise (aggrade). A generalized relationship of stream
stability was proposed by Lane (1955) that states the product of sediment load and sediment size is
proportional to the product of stream slope and discharge, or stream power. A change in any one of
these variables causes a rapid physical adjustment in the stream channel.
A common sequence of physical adjustments has been observed in many streams following disturbance.
This adjustment process is often referred to as channel evolution. Disturbance can result from
channelization, increase in runoff due to build -out in the watershed, removal of streamside vegetation,
and other changes that negatively affect stream stability. All of these disturbances occur in both urban
and rural environments. Several models have been used to describe this process of physical adjustment
for a stream. The Simon (1989) Channel Evolution Model characterizes evolution in six steps,
including:
1. sinuous, pre - modified
2. Channelized
3. Degradation
4. Degradation and widening
5. Aggradation and widening
6. Quasi - equilibrium.
Figure 1 (at the end of this section) illustrates the six steps of the Simon Channel Evolution Model.
The channel evolution process is initiated once a stable, well - vegetated stream that interacts frequently
with its floodplain is disturbed. Disturbance commonly results in an increase in stream power that
causes degradation, often referred to as channel incision (Lane, 1955). Incision eventually leads to
over - steepening of the banks and, when critical bank heights are exceeded, the banks begin to fail and
mass wasting of soil and rock leads to channel widening. Incision and widening continue moving
upstream in the form of a head -cut. Eventually the mass wasting slows, and the stream begins to
aggrade. A new, low -flow channel begins to form in the sediment deposits. By the end of the
evolutionary process, a stable stream with dimension, pattern, and profile similar to those of
undisturbed channels forms in the deposited alluvium. The new channel is at a lower elevation than its
original form, with a new floodplain constructed of alluvial material (FISRWG, 1998).
The mainstem channel within the project area is a perennial stream with sections that appear to have
been channelized in the past. Other sections of the stream flow through forest areas that were probably
clear cut in the past, allowing thick stands of pioneering rhododendron to become established and to
limit the density of other woody species. This watershed carries a high load of large grained sand and
small gravels. The channel has a number of reaches within the forested sections that are impacted by
debris jams that have caused erosion and channel over - widening. The straightened sections are eroding
banks in order to reestablish a stable pattern of meandering. Some stable cross - sections within the
project reach indicate that when deeply rooted vegetation is allowed to grow along the banks the stream
takes on characteristics of an E channel. Table 1 summarizes the geomorphic parameters related to
channel stability.

Table 1
Stability Indicators — Logan Creek
Stream Type C C C
Riparian Vegetation
Wide buffer of mature
rhododendron plants with
some mature trees scattered
within the stand on the left
bank. On the right bank is a
thin forest of mixed trees,
shrubs and herbaceous veg.
Wide buffer of mature
rhododendron plants with
some mature trees scattered
within the stand on the left
bank. The right bank has only
fescue grass and this is
mowed.
The right and left banks
are fields of fescue grass
that is mowed. There are
a few scattered trees on
each bank.
Channel Dimension
Bankfull Area SF
58.4
55.8
54.2
Width/Depth Ratio
25.7
1 23.2
22.4
Channel Pattern
Meander Width Ratio
1.5
1.7
1.7
Sinuosity
1.16
1.25
1.25
Vertical
Stability
Bank Height Ratio (13HR)
1.45
1.6
1.86
Entrenchment Ratio ER
>5.0
3.4
2.12
Evolution Scenario
E- G -F -C -E
E- G -F -C -E
E- G -F -C -E
Simon Evolution Stage]
V
IV
IV
Notes:
1. Simon Channel Evolution see Figure 3.2.
1.2 Bankfull Verification
Baker applied several methods to verify the bankfull stage and discharge of the restoration reach of
Logan Creek. Field- identified physical indicators were collected during the topographic survey; these
indicators were used in conjunction with hydraulic modeling and discharge information from regional
curve data and the USGS rural regression equations to evaluate bankfull estimates for consistency and
accuracy.
Bankfull indicators on the mainstem channel were identified in the field; indicators include a break in
slope, an intermittent flat depositional feature, and a consistent scour line. Depth and area
measurements of stable cross - sections with bankf ill indicators were compared to regional curve data to
verify the quality of the indicators. Surveyed cross sections with bankf ill indicators were plotted on the
regional curve yielding estimates of cross - sectional area shown in Figure 2, below. Logan Creek data
points plotted on or near the North Carolina Mountain Rural Regional Curve (Harman et al, 2000);
indicating that the bankf ill stage selected in the field was comparable with that of other Mountain
streams of similar drainage area.
Using cross - sections extracted from the detailed topographic survey of the stream and floodplain, Baker
prepared a HEC -RAS hydraulic model (US Army Corps of Engineers 2002) with cross - sections spaced

every 20 to 40 feet. Water surface elevations in the riffle and run cross - sections were used to determine
which discharge most consistently hit bankf ill indicators throughout the project reach. Pool sections
were excluded from the analysis because enlarged cross - sectional area typical of pools would
overestimate conveyance area in the channel. This method was effective in determining a small range
of bankfull discharges that would serve for choosing a reliable "effective" discharge for design.
For comparison and verification, a curve of the most geographically- and size- relevant regional curve
data was used to create a mini -curve for discharge. The chosen design value and the 2 -year USGS rural
regression flow were plotted with the mini -curve in Figure 3.
In accordance with observed bankf ill recurrence intervals between 1 -2 years (and commonly in the 1.2-
1.5 year range), the 2 -year USGS flow plots just above the mini -curve. Furthermore, the design flow
rate plots well with existing regional curve data providing collaborative evidence for better confidence
in the methods used.
1.3 Discharge
Due to lack of gage data on Logan Creek, exhaustive efforts were made in an attempt to determine an
appropriate design discharge. The strongest evidence came from HEC -RAS modeling which was
produced from the existing conditions survey data. This data was used to create a surface model in
AutoCAD, from which cross - sections were exported to HEC -RAS at intervals of 20 to 40 feet.
Appropriate Manning's n values, slopes, and other model conditions were applied to provide a reliable
backwater model. Flow rates, including the USGS regression flows, NC regional curve flow rates, and
regional normalized flow duration curve flows from USGS gages in adjacent and regionally relevant
gages, were modeled in HEC -RAS in order to assess what flow or flows produce flooding or inundation
of the top of the bank and/or other floodplain formation ( bankfull) features such as benches in stable or
stabilizing sections of the project reach.
Since the project is located in an area of extremely high rainfall with significant fluctuations both within
basins and between adjacent basins in the region, the HEC -RAS model was able to provide confidence
in the design discharge that could not otherwise be achieved. We estimate the design bankfull
discharge downstream of the confluence at the uppermost end of the restoration reach to be 180 cfs.
Despite an increase in drainage area from the Right Prong Logan Creek confluence to the end of the
project, this discharge consistently hit bankfull indicators and the top of the bank in stable areas
throughout the restoration reach. This is thought to be a result of the diffuse nature of the flow paths
and high occurrence of wetlands in this lower portion of the valley. As a result, this discharge was used
for sediment transport and corresponding channel cross - section design throughout the project reach.
2.0 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
2.1 Methodology
The purpose of a sediment transport analysis is to ensure that the stream restoration design creates a
stable channel that does not aggrade or degrade over time. The overriding assumption is that the
project reach should be transporting all the sediment delivered from upstream sources, thereby
being a "transport" reach.
Sediment transport is typically assessed by computing channel competency, capacity, or both.
Sediment transport competency is a measure of force (lbs /ft2) that refers to the stream's ability to
move a given grain size. Quantitative assessments include shear stress, tractive force, and critical
dimensionless shear stress. Since these assessments help determine a size class that is mobile under
certain flow conditions, they are most important in gravel bed studies in which the bed material
ranges in size from sand to cobble (of which only a fraction are mobile during bankfull conditions).
In most sand and small gravel -bed systems, all particle sizes have potential during bankfull flows;

therefore, there is no need to determine the maximum particle size that the stream can transport.
Comparing the design shear stress values for a project reach to those for the existing conditions in a
system allows a quantitative determination of reduction of erosive forces.
2.2 Sediment Transport Analysis and Discussion
Existing channel form and sediment composition data, design data, hydraulic and sediment
transport models, design spreadsheets, and best judgment were used to perform sediment transport
analyses for Logan Creek. The small particle size makes sediment competence analysis secondary
to sediment capacity.
Adequate sediment transport capacity analysis provides confidence in the capability of the design to
transport a long -term balanced volumetric sediment load through all segments of the restoration
reach. A design incorporating sediment transport results has a higher likelihood of maintaining its
vertical stability while adjusting within stable limits to watershed and in- stream changes.
The existing project reach was modeled in HEC -RAS 4.0 (US Army Corps of Engineers 2006).
The HEC -RAS sediment transport module incorporates sediment distribution data from field
samples to estimate the concentration of sediment moving during design flow conditions based on
the results of the water surface profile and velocities produced by the physical characteristics of the
channel and floodplain. The result is a volumetric sediment discharge (or capacity) for the chosen
design flow rate.
Subpavement (or bulk) samples from point bar and mid - channel bar locations were used to
determine the sediment distributions for sediment transport (Table 2). Appendix G contains
cumulative frequency graphs for all sediment samples used in the sediment transport analyses.
Project reaches have median particle sizes ranging from fine to medium size gravel. Design
sediment sizes used in transport capacity analyses were D16 =0.7 mm, D50 =2.7 mm, and D84 =14mm.
The analyses were also checked for sensitivity to design sediment; transport capacity had an
acceptably small sensitivity to the variations in distribution exhibited in the sediment samples.
Table 2
Particle Size
Distribution
from different sediment samples of
Lo an Creek
Channel materials
article.
Size
Pebble
D16=
0.8
16.8 0.6
0.7
D35 =
5.8
19.9
2.1
2.0
D50 =
1 12.4
32.2
8.1
2.5
D84 =
35.4
43.0
19.8
10.5
D95 =
169.6
54.2
33.3
19.5
D100 =
> 2048
45-64
52.0
16-22.6
Volumetric sediment discharge was analyzed at existing stable cross - sections in the project reach.
These reference cross - sections are used to determine what the design sediment flow rate should be.
The stable channel design module within HEC -RAS allows the modeler to incorporate design
sediment discharge and design flow rate data in order to produce dimensions and energy slopes
which will capably transport the sediment and water. Various combinations of channel cross -
section and profile were assessed for their capability to move the design sediment discharge.

These stable dimensions and slopes were incorporated into the typical riffle cross - section and
design slope of the project.
While sediment competency is not considered to be a significant concern due to the presence of
primarily sand and small gravel sediment sizes, a design depth capable of moving the largest
sediment particles in the channel was determined. Sediment transport competency is measured in
terms of the relationship between critical and actual depth at a given slope, and it occurs when the
critical depth produces enough shear stress to move the largest (d,00) subpavement particle. The
critical design depth is 1.4 feet, and the critical slope is 0.00229 feet per foot. The design depth is
2.25 feet and the proposed slope is 0.0032 feet per foot as shown in Table 6.2 (in main paper). As a
second check of sediment transport competency, boundary shear stress was plotted on Shield's
curve to estimate the largest moveable particle. The Shield's curve predicts the mobility of particles
larger than the dioo observed in the subpavement. Both of these sediment transport competency
analyses confirm the ability of the design channel to transport the sediment load, not surprising for
a sand and small gravel system
3.0 FLOOD MODELING
During project design, efforts that occurred prior to the new floodplain maps becoming available, a
HEC -RAS model was built from the existing conditions survey to evaluate how bankfull indicators
aligned with the bankfull discharge and to evaluate sediment transport as explained in Section 2.0
above. At that time, there was no requirement to model this reach for impacts on Base Flood Elevations
(BFEs) in the Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHA) because the area was zoned "A ".
At this time, with new effective maps in Jackson County, Logan Creek is now mapped as a zone "AE"
stream and has published BFEs and non- enroachment areas. This project will require flood modeling
which has not been completed to date. However, there are no structures located in or adjacent to the
SFHA and the results of the flood modeling for this project will not impact the design regardless of
whether the result is a rise or decrease. Based on the design channel dimensions and slope, any change
in the BFEs is expected to be minimal ( <1' change). Baker has discussed this project with the local
Floodplain Administrator and they do not have any concerns related to the project and have concurred
with the assessment provided here and in the EEP Floodplain Checklist included in this report.
4.0 IN- STREAM STRUCTURES
A variety of in- stream structures are proposed for the Logan Creek site. Structures such as root
wads, log cross -vanes and log vanes, and bioengineering measures such as geolifts will be used to
stabilize the newly- restored stream. Wood (as opposed to rock )structures will primarily be used on
this site because that is the material observed in the existing system and it is being generated by the
development in the watershed and during the channel construction process. Table 3 summarizes the
use of in- stream structures at the site.
Table 3
Proposed In- Stream Structure Types and Locations
Log J -hook Vane
Riffles to turn water off of the stream bank and provide convergence for habitat
improvement.
Log Step
Riffles for habitat diversity.
Root Wad
Outside bank of meander bends for stability and habitat.
Log Cross Vane
Straight sections to reduce stream width, center thalweg and improve habitat.
0

Hanging Cover Log
Riffles to create pool habitat.
Root Wad and Log Sill
Riffles for grade control and pool habitat.
Embedded Los
Primarily riffles to improve habitat diversity.
Bunker
In meander bends for stability and habitat improvement
Vegetated Geo -lift
Outside meander bends for stability and vegetative cover.
Cover Log
In pools to provide habitat features.
Log Vane
In meander bends to turn water provide minimal pool habitat.
Log J -hook Vane
A log J -hook vane serves that same purposes and is constructed in the same manner as the log vane.
The difference is that at the end of the vane arm a "comma" shaped series of rocks is placed in the
channel to promote convergence of flow and scouring of the bed. This modification to the log vane
promotes pool formation and habitat improvement. One of these structures will be constructed in
Reach 2.
Log Step
A log step is used to enhance habitat and bed form diversity through longer riffle reaches. Log
steps are constructed from 20 -30 foot long logs with the rootwad attached. The length of a single
log is laid across and upstream on the channel and spans the channel width. A series of two to four
logs are installed to provide the bed diversity desired. A log step series is planned at one location
on Reach 1, at two locations on Reach 2 and at 1 location on Reach 3.
Root Wad
Root wads are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation
of habitat and for stream bank protection. Root wads include the root mass or root ball of a tree
plus a portion of the trunk. They are used to armor a stream bank by deflecting stream flows away
from the bank. In addition to stream bank protection, they provide structural support to the stream
bank and habitat for fish and other aquatic animals. They also increase substate surface area for
aquatic insects and other benthic organisms. Root wads will be placed throughout Reach 2 of the
Logan Creek project and at one location on both Reach 1 and Reach 3.
Log Cross Vane
Cross vanes are used to provide grade control, keep the thalweg in the center of the channel,
promote channel narrowing and protect the stream bank. A cross vane consists of two log vanes
joined by a center structure installed perpendicular to the direction of flow. This centering structure
sets the invert elevation of the stream bed. One of these structures will be placed in each of the
project reaches to center the thalweg and promote stream narrowing.
Hanging Cover Log
This structure is new and is being tried at one location in Reach 3. It is designed to act like a tree
that has fallen across the channel. It will be tied into the bank on one side of the channel and will
rise to rest at bankfull on the far side of the channel. When a log hangs over the channel in this
fashion it causes pressure and scour on the bed below the hanging cover log. This should help
move sediment through this reach and create pool habitat in an area that now has a shallow sand
bed.

Rootwad and Log Sill
Log sills consist of a footer log placed in the bed of the stream channel, perpendicular to stream
flow. The logs extend into the stream banks on both sides of the structure to prevent erosion and
bypassing of the structure. The logs are installed flush with the channel bottom upstream of the log.
The footer log is placed to the depth of scour expected, to prevent the structure from being
undermined. Rootwads are added into both left and right banks immediately below the sill to
narrow the convergence zone, extend the pool and support the sill. Log sills provide bedform
diversity, maintain channel profile, and provide pool and cover habitat. One of these structures will
be installed in Reach 1 and two in Reach 3.
Embedded Logs
Embedded log placement is proposed in riffle areas throughout the project. Some specific sites
have been identified for installation of these structures, but additional sites may be determined in
the field as opportunities arise. The woody structure placement produces lateral and vertical flow
diversity at low flows. At bankfull flows, the logs serve as energy dissipation features, adding to
the overall bed roughness and providing local downstream eddy and scour pool microhabitat.
Bunker
Bunkers are placed at the toe of the stream bank in the outside of meander bends for the creation of
habitat and for stream bank protection. The base is constructed like a rootwad installation with the
logs placed at or just below water level. Behind the rootwad and on the logs a deck is constructed
of treated wood or small tree trunks. This is covered with a geo- textile and filled to the bankfull
elevation. This structure provides an artificial undercut bank that benefits fisheries, particularly
trout fisheries. Bunkers will be placed throughout Reach 2.
Vegetated Geolift
Soil lifts of 1.0 to 1.5 feet thick are constructed on a stone base. The lift is filled and compacted to
the appropriate depth and is then wrapped with coir matting. A second layer of matting is laid
down and fill is compacted on it to the appropriate depth and then wrapped. This continues until
the desired elevation is reached. Vegetation can then be planted directly into the lifts as either live
stakes or rooted material. Vegetated geolifts help to establish vegetation on the bank to secure the
soil. Once the vegetation is established, the branches also provide cover and food for wildlife.
Vegetated geolifts will be placed throughout Reach 2 of the Logan Creek project.
Cover Log
A cover log is placed in the outside of a meander bend to provide habitat in the pool area. The log
is buried into the outside bank of the meander bend; the opposite end extends through the deepest
part of the pool and may be buried in the inside of the meander bend, in the bottom of the point bar.
The placement of the cover log near the bottom of the bank slope on the outside of the bend
encourages scour in the pool. This increased scour provides a deeper pool for bedform variability.
Cover logs will be used throughout Reach 2 in association with vegetated geolifts.
Log Vane
A log vane is used to protect the stream bank. The length of a single vane structure can span one-
half to two- thirds the bankfull channel width. Vanes are typically located just downstream of the
point where the stream flow intercepts the bank at acute angles. Log vanes will be placed
throughout the Logan Creek project.

Class 1. Sinuous, Premodified he = critical bank height
h<he
= direction of bank or
h bed movement
Class II. Channelized Class 111. Degradation Class IV. Degradation and Widening
h<he h <he h>he
I loc)d I)1ai r) terrace
h h h
1
j
slumped material
Class V. Aggradation and Widening Class VI. Oussi Equilibrium
h>he h <he
terrace terrace
1 h f bank
h f bankfull
sh.mped ---- - - - - - --
material
aggraded material aggraded material
Class I Class 111
Fr., MI. Class IV
precursor top bank Class V
nickpoint f8Cf.,.. - Class VI
Source: Simon. 1989
`L secondary
nickpoint
oversteepened reach a%radation zone aggraded material
Source: Simon, 1989; LS Army Corps of Engineers, 1990.
Fig. 7.14 - (tunnel evolution model..
In Stream Corridur ResWration: Principles, Processes, and Practices, 10/99,
Irimgency Strom Remrstion Working GroW (FISRWGXI S Federal agencies of the US}
Figure 1
Simon Channel Evolution Model
Logan Cree< Restoration Plan
•

1000
Q
d
a
U 100
W
N
X
w
Y
C
m
10
y - 22.77x" '
W0.88 -
NC Rural Mountain Regional Curve
•
ogan Creek Points.
10 100 1000
Drainage Area (Sq. mi)
Figure 2 A plot of bankfull indicators at Logan Creek relative to the North Carolina Mountain
Regional Curve.

Drainage Area (Sq Mi
Q
cfs
Gage #
Descri bon
2.6
264
LOGAN CK 2 -YR USGS
REGRESSION EQUATION
2.6
160
-
LOGAN CK DESIGN Q
6.5
356
Reference Reach
Upper Mitchell River Headwaters
7.18
253.7
3214253830
Norwood Creek near Troutman. NC
9.6
507.2
02121180
North Pott's Creek near Linwood NC
15.5
655.3
02101800
Tick Creek near Mt Vernon Sprigs,
NC
31.8
1041
02144000
Long Creek Gage near Bessemer
City
42.8
2236
02114450
Little Yadkin River at Dalton. NC
Table 4. Bankfull geometric data, and its source, plotted on the mini -curve below.
10000
1000
J!
100
O
10
Mini -Curve NC Mtn -Pied Regional Data
1 10 100
Drainage Area (sq mi)
Figure 3. Mini -Curve Data from Mountain and Piedmont Streams with Logan Creek
Data Included
•

Part 5.
Table 1
Design Parameters and Proposed Geomomhic Characteristics
Min I Max
1. Stream Type
E4
2. Drainage Area — square miles
2.67
3. Bankfull Width Wbkf —feet
25

Table 2
Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Stream Restoration and Enhancement Areas- Zone 1 ( >15' from top of bank)
Persimmon
Diospyros virginiana
Tulip Poplar
Liriodendron tulipifera
Green ash
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Black walnut
Juglans nigra
Sycamore
Platanus occidentalis
Willow Oak
Quercus phellos
Swamp chestnut oak
Quercus michauxii
Black um
N ssa salvatica
Alternate Species
River Birch
Betula nigra
Sugarberry
Celtis laevigata
Redbud
Cercis canadensis
Flowering dogwood
Cornus florida
Southern red oak
Quercus rubra
Red Maple
Acer rubrum
Witch Hazel
Hamamalis vir iniana
Alternate - leaved Dogwood
Cornus alterni olia
Stream Restoration Buffer - Zone 2 ( <15' from top of bank)
Redbud
Cercis canadensis
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Flowering dogwood
Cornus Florida
Tag alder
Alnus serrulata
Paw paw
Asimina triloba
Silky willow
Salix sericea
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Arrow -wood viburnum
Viburnum dentatum
Alternate Species
Ninebark
Physocarpus opulifolia
Black haw viburnum
Viburnum prunifolium
Canada Hemlock
Tsuga canadensis
White Pine
Pinus strobus
White Oak
Quercus alba
Pignut Hickory
Carya glabra
Cherry Birch
Betula lenta
Black Cherry
Prunus serotina
Shrubs
Possomhaw
Viburnum cassinoides
Black Huckleberry
Gaylussacia baccata
Mountain Holly
Ilex Montana
Buffalo Nut
Pyrularia pubera
Rosebay Rhododendron
Rhododendron maximum
Mountain Laurel
Kalmia latifolia
Dog Hobble
Leucothoe fontanesiana
Swamp Azalea
Rhododendron viscosum

Table 2 continued
Pro osed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Smooth Azalea
Rhododendron arborescens
Yellow Root
Xanthorhyza simplicissima
Cinnamon Clethra
Clethra acumunata
Mountain Hydrangea
Hydrangea arborescens
Southern Bush Honeysuckle
Diervilla sessilifolia
Hardhack
Spirea tomentosa
Streambanks (Live Stakes)
Silky dogwood
Cornus amomum
Silky willow
Salix sericea
Elderberry
Sambucus canadensis
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.
Table 3
Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Common Name
Scientific Name
Percent of
Mixture
Bull Rush
Scirpus cyperinus
5%
Redtop
Agrostis alba
15%
Fox Sedge
Carex vulpinoidea
10%
Virginia Wild Rye
Elymus virginicus
20%
Soft Rush
Juncus efsus
5%
Deer Tongue
Panicum clandestinum
10%
Smartweed
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
5%
Beggers Ticks
Bidens frondosa
5%
Lance leafed
Coreo sis
Coreopsis lancolata
15%
Partridge Pea
Cassia fasciculata
5%
Wingstem
Verbesina alternifolia
5%
Note: Species selection may change due to availability at the time of planting.

Page Intentionally Left Blank
0

APPENDIX D
LOGAN CREEK STREAM RESTORATION PROJECT PLAN SHEETS
(Plan Sheets are enclosed with this document)