20201654 Ver 2_Modification Request_20220127

Staff Review
Does this application have all the attachments needed to accept it into the review process?*
Yes No
ID#* Version* 2
20201654
Is this project a public transportation project?* Yes
• No
Reviewer List: * Andrew Moore:eads\awmoore3
Select Reviewing Office: * Asheville Regional Office - [phone]
Does this project require a request for payment to be sent?*
Yes
No
How much is owed?* $240.00
$570.00

Project Submittal Form
Please note: fields marked with a red asterisk below are required. You will not be able to submit the form until all
mandatory questions are answered.
Project Type: * For the Record Only (Courtesy Copy)
New Project
Modification/New Project with Existing ID
More Information Response
Other Agency Comments
Pre -Application Submittal
Re-Issuance\Renewal Request
Stream or Buffer Appeal
Project Contact Information
Name: Jeff Golladay
Who is submitting the information?
Email Address: [e-mail]
Project Information
Existing ID #: Existing Version:
20201654 1
20170001(no dashes) 1
Project Name: Mulberry Gap Farms
Is this a public transportation project?
Yes
No
Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes No Unknown
County (ies)
Madison
Please upload all files that need to be submited.
Click the upload button or drag and drop files here to attach document
Mulberry IP Resubmittal-Full Package 01.27.22.pdf 30.14MB
Only pdf or kmz files are accepted.
Describe the attachments or
comments:
Reference is made to the Mulberry Gap Farms project in Madison County (DWR # 20201654). The NC Division
of Water Resources issued a 401 permit denial letter dated July 28, 2021. The applicant, Mulberry Farm —
Madison LLC represented by Richard Kelly, is reapplying for the 401 Individual Permit application for review of
impacts related to redevelopment activities and to update and clarify project information that has changed since
prior submittals.
Attached is the 401 Individual Permit reapplication package for the Mulberry Gap Farms project.

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

CLearWaLer
An EnviroScrence CompanyM
C1earWater Environmental Consultants, Inc.
www.cwenv.com
January 27, 2022
Ms. Sue Homewood Ms. Brandee Boggs
NCDEQ, Division of Water Resources US Army Corps of Engineers
1617 Mail Service Center Asheville Regulatory Field Office
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-2638
RE: Mulberry Gap Farm — Resubmittal
Application for Individual 401 Water Quality Certification
USACE Action ID. SAW-2020-00632
NC DWR Project No. 2020-1654
Madison County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Homewood and Ms. Boggs:
The NC Division of Water Resources (DWR) issued a permit denial letter dated July 28, 2021.
By means of this letter, the applicant, Mulberry Farm —Madison LLC represented by Richard Kelly
is reapplying for the 401 Individual Permit application for review of impacts related to
redevelopment activities and to update and clarify project information that has changed since prior
submittals.
The project site consists of +/- 450.53 acres located at 1126 Upper Thomas Branch Road,
Marshall, North Carolina. The applicant is seeking a Section 404 Individual Permit and 401
Individual Water Quality General Certification for 1,869 linear feet (0.143 acres) of impact to
streams and 0.015 acres of impacts to wetlands on Thomas Branch and unnamed tributaries to
Thomas Branch, and for 193 linear feet (0.018 acres) of impact to streams and 0.007 acres of
impacts to wetlands on Hopewell Branch. The impacts are associated with the construction of a
residential education and training center called the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment
(SOWE).
The Applicant has conducted further review of the development with its various consultants to
determine what, if any, further modifications might be undertaken to enlarge the avoidance
envelope or further minimize impacts to wetland and/or stream resources. Based on that review
and the applicants desire to be as responsive as possible to the regulatory concerns for permitting
this project, the Applicant proposes the following adjustments:
BDAs 1 and 6 have been eliminated. This reduces stream impact by 442 If (0.032 ac)
and wetland impact by 0.035 ac. BDAs 1 and 6 were proposed with buildings spanning
over the wetland complex. While the applicant believes that incorporating restoration
practices near the built environment could be an important tool for education while
simultaneously providing significant environmental benefits to the current aquatic
system, the applicant understands that these two BDA features were causes of concern
for the Corps and DWR.
145 7t' Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
828-698-9800 Tel

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 2 of 12
• Entrance road was realigned resulting in the elimination of stream impact S2 and
wetland impacts W2, W3, and W4. This reduced stream impacts by 10 If (0.001 ac) and
wetland impacts by 0.026 ac.
• Entrance road grading was also altered to eliminate wetland impact W1. This reduced
wetland impacts by 0.003 ac.
• An additional development road was added (Figure 5a) and includes a 20 If (0.001 ac)
culvert (stream impact S31). Impact S31 is proposed to access additional cabin sites.
• The discrepancy in stream impact number S1 has been corrected.
• The applicant is proposing to mitigate for impacts to streams associated with the road
crossings and BDA features. The on -site conceptual stream mitigation plan for
Hopewell Branch is discussed below. A map of the stream restoration location is
included as Attachment F.
PROJECT HISTORY
• Approved Jurisdictional determination submitted on August 21, 2020
• US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Verification issued March 4, 2021
• US Army Corps of Engineers Public Notice issued March 4, 2021
• Regulatory review comments received from US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on April
1, 2021
• Regulatory review comments received from the NC Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC)
on April 1, 2021.
• Applicant provided detailed response to FWS and WRC on July 16, 2021
• Applicant provided detailed response to the Corps on July 19, 2021
• Additional comments were received from the WRC on September 1, 2021,
• DWR issues Permit Denial July 28, 2021
• Corps provided comments on September 29, 2021
This letter provides additional information as requested and a complete set of up-to-date
attachments (Attachments A-1) and figures (Figures 1-6) is included with this submittal.
PROJECT PURPOSE
The purpose of the BDA — Wetland Complex is to provide an amenity that will be a demonstration
Stage 0 (zero) Stream Restoration. In addition, new culvert crossings are proposed to provide
road access across streams on -site. The BDA demonstration project is designed to mimic natural
processes from native beaver habitat that used to be prevalent throughout North Carolina and will
provide ecological uplift for the aquatic systems on -site. Because the stream/wetland impacts
are considered an amenity and because the Corps and DWR have raised concerns about the
location adjacent to the school, the applicant is proposing traditional compensatory stream
mitigation on Hopewell Branch that meets the Corps 2013 stream Mitigation Guidelines.
Mitigation is discussed below (Attachment F).
The development of the School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SOWE) has a dual-purpose.
The first is to develop a residential education and training center that will serve as a place where

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 3 of 12
people will be able to step out of their daily lives to establish a deeper state of peace, harmony,
and balance at a cellular level of being with themselves and the Earth. The second is to enhance
the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the proposed campus through ecological
restoration projects.
The SOWE envisions a transformation of their land from a series of degraded streams and
abandoned fields into flourishing native habitat. Ecosystem enhancements and restoration
projects support the overall mission of SOWE, which is to provide a supportive environment where
visitors can work on self-improvement based on an enlightened and harmonious relationship with
the Earth. This demonstration project on the property will provide educational opportunities and
serve as a demonstration project for BDA's in North Carolina by using this relatively new evolution
of stream restoration practices. SOWE is including solar photovoltaic, geothermal, rainwater
harvesting, and innovative stormwater management approaches to the infrastructure as
examples of sustainable and regenerative technologies.
REASONS FOR DISCHARGE
BDA installations will serve to enhance the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of surface
waters and wetlands on the proposed campus. BDAs will foster the truest to natural design
available for this project site with the highest level of ecological benefits sustained. Additional
impacts will involve two new culvert installations for stream crossings. The new stream crossings
are associated with the construction of a new road network that is necessary to access proposed
SOWE structures and cabins. Culvert removals and non -compensatory restorations and/or
enhancements are also planned both within proposed BDA inundation areas and outside of BDA
areas. Compensatory mitigation is discussed below.
RESPONSES TO AGENCY COMMENTS
The following section provides responses to comments and questions provided by NCDWR,
CORPS, and NCWRC.
NCDWR - Are BDA's appropriate here?
CORPS - provide case studies or other research regarding beaver reintroduction in the
Mountain Region and watershed size to support this restoration/ecological uplift strategy.
We interpreted this question to also mean left to their own devices, would beavers build
here. To answer that question RDE made an informed inference. RDE studied the existing
and proposed forces at play at this site.
In RDE's work to manage and restore water resources, RIDE strives to emulate and
catalyze the natural processes of self -renewing ecosystems. RDE seeks to discover,
characterize, and address the root causes of impairments. Understanding the history of
the watershed, floodplain, and region helps to characterize and quantify the past and
current movement of water, sediments, organisms, carbon, and nutrients into, within, and
out of the system. We work to describe the evolutionary trajectory of a waterway if nothing
were done, to elucidate the natural processes that would unfold over a significant
timescale. Understanding the past and current management of beavers in this community
is crucial to this approach.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 4 of 12
There is a misguided but systemic belief among landowners across the southeastern
United States that beaver activity should be harshly managed. This is usually through
extirpation. Every year, the state of North Carolina harvests over 10,000 beavers (Source:
https://www.ncwildlife.org/Learning/Species/Mammals/Beaver2#44731356-
management). This number shows the ongoing and intentional efforts by state officers
and landowners to reduce the population and habitat extents of this keystone species.
RDE has observed evidence of beaver activity along Hopewell Branch and along Lower
Thomas Branch, but these fledgling communities of beaver have not been allowed to
flourish and expand their habitat. This is not to say that all beaver management is
misguided. Instead, please note that if we let beavers work instead of continuing the
culture of extirpation, the beaver would transform our waterways across the southeast.
So, it is RDE's opinion the BDA's are appropriate at this location.
NCDWR — Why BDA's in this specific area?
RIDE evaluated "what areas are good locations for Beaver Habitat?" There are three
unavoidable and necessary conditions for beaver habitat:
• water that can be impounded,
• vegetation that can support dam construction and nutrition requirements, and
• an acceptable mix of geology and terrain.
Water and vegetation will be available. Given that the first two bullets will be available, RDE's
assessment focused on the last bullet: geology and terrain.
Productive Beaver meadows take advantage of wide valleys with mild longitudinal terrain and
fertile soils. Obviously, this setting also lends itself to agriculture and other human
development, and that is precisely what has happened here and most other places across
Madison County.
These areas of topographic relief present an opportunity. Traditional land management
emphasizes stormwater conveyance and stream manipulation and stabilization for land
productivity and flood control. The cumulative result of traditional stream management has
been to create stream corridors — which is defined as including channels and floodplains
(Harvey and Gooseff 2015) — that are relatively simple and spatially homogeneous in form
and process. As an alternative to this homogeneous conception of a stream corridor, the
metaphor of a string of beads has been invoked, referring to retention zones within a river
network that typically occur within wider, lower gradient segments of the river valley.
This "string of beads" idea is explored in greater detail within our Project Justification and
Design Narrative (Attachment A), and even more thoroughly in the literature. For example, in
this excellent paper by Wohl et. al (2017).'
Deciding where to put resources into restoring these "beads" is an ongoing topic of research.
As with other forms of restoration with large wood, guidelines have been developed for
identifying suitable beaver habitat and for emplacement of beaver dam analogs. As reviewed
in several publications (e.g., Howard and Larson 1985; Olson and Hubert 1994; Gurnell 1998;
1 https://sites.warnercnr.colostate.edu/fluvial-geomorphology/wpcontent/uploads/sites/53/2016/05/10.1007_sl0533-017-0397-7.pdf

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 5 of 12
Baker and Hill 2003; Pollock et al. 2017), beaver exhibit preference for certain habitat
characteristics. Among these are:
• proximity to a water body or the ability to create a water body; for example, by
damming seeps and springs; and
• sand size or finer bed and bank sediment, as opposed to boulders or bedrock; and
• availability of preferred deciduous woody plants, including willows (Salix spp.),
aspen (Populus spp.), cottonwood (Populus spp.), birch (Betula spp.), alder (Alnus
spp.), and maple (Acer spp.).
At the future site of SoWE, there are only two areas along Hopewell Branch and Thomas
Branch that may exhibit the above characteristics and the eventual development of a stream -
wetland complex. RIDE is proposing BDAs in these areas. The Beaver Restoration
Assessment Tool (BRAT) is the most high-tech planning tool available. BRAT is intended to
help researchers, restoration practitioners, and resource managers assess the potential for
beaver as a stream conservation and restoration agent over large regions and watersheds.
This tool was not explicitly deployed in the planning for this project, but RIDE mentions it here
to say: RIDE has a highly educated idea where BDAs will work, and RIDE has tools to guide
the site selection of BDAs. References for the BRAT project is included as Attachment I.
DWR - Can BDAs (or any restoration project) be an amenity for adjacent development
The definitions of amenity and restoration are not well defined, but the project defines these
as the following:
• Amenities are desirable or useful features,
something that helps to provide comfort,
convenience, or enjoyment, usually in reference
to residential or other real estate settings.
• Restoration is assisting the recovery of
ecological integrity in a degraded system by
reestablishing hydrologic, geomorphic, and
ecological processes, and replacing lost,
damaged, or compromised biological elements.
The existing conditions at the SoWE property consists of degraded streams and abandoned
agricultural fields. Restoring these features, and indeed building around them to view the
restored habitat can be viewed as an amenity, but that does not disregard the recovery of
ecological integrity. Even if the project falls short of a regulatory mitigation definition of
mitigation, that should not discount the significant ecological uplift that is being provided above
current condition.
The School of Wholeness and Enlightenment (SoWE) envisions a transformation of their land
from a series of degraded streams and abandoned agricultural fields into flourishing native
habitat. If their motives are not "pure" it is only because they do not want to foster this naturally
beautiful aesthetic within a vacuum of wilderness without humans in it. Rather, they would put
the natural landscape and the wildlife it attracts on full display to visitors of their proposed
campus.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 6 of 12
DWR - How will maintenance conflicts be managed between the BDAs and the built
environment?
RDE has developed a detailed Operation & Maintenance Manual (Attachment B) for the
perpetual care of the stream -wetland complex. Maintenance conflicts are expected, but
this manual describes a monitoring and management regime that will empower SoWE
staff and contractors to manage these conflicts in a manner that maintains the habitat's
ecological integrity. This manual is applicable across the SOWE campus and is adaptable
over time. The prioritized goals of this manual are to:
1) support water quality improvement,
2) provide forage and shelter for wildlife, and
3) provide beautiful and inspiring scenery.
DWR - Can the same habitat goals be achieved using natural channel design principals?
River restoration efforts typically focus on the geometry of channels with the goals of
reducing and then balancing sediment loads at the reach scale, effectively attempting to
turn every reach into a sediment transfer zone. This perpetuates a single-minded
approach to management of the alluvial channel system and may partially explain why the
regeneration of high -quality habitat remains limited (Doyle & Shields 2012) and restoration
of freshwater ecosystems remains elusive (Bernhardt & Palmer 2011). The goal of this
project is to create a stream -wetland complex, a form that is naturally occurring and likely
existed here before human settlement. In contrast, a regulatory based natural channel
design approach would propose a rigid and channelized system.
However, because both the Corps and DWR have expressed concern over these habitat
goals, the applicant is providing a traditional stream mitigation plan (described below) to
account for stream impacts. The stream mitigation plan will follow the Corps of Engineers
2013 Mitigation guidelines for Stream restoration. As a result, the property will have a
demonstration regulatory influenced stream restoration project and a demonstration stage
0 restoration BDA-based system. The applicant looks forward to monitoring, evaluating,
comparing, and reporting measurable attributes of both.
Corps — On -site Alternative option 3 (amenity ponds) states that the development of such
ponds is "contrary to the mission of SOWE." However, initial project proposals included
construction of such ponds and subsequent proposals include open water areas that are
constructed under the auspices of ecological restoration.
Option 3 of the alternative analysis was presented as an option to the owner. As
previously stated, development of such ponds (e.g., traditional earthen dams) may have
negative effects on stream temperature, aquatic passage, and water quality. The pond in
on -site alternative option #3 was rejected for this reason. As was documented in a
previous submittal, only a small portion of the BDA complex will be open water, and most
of the area will consist of a vegetated wetland complex. Additionally documented in
immense detail (Attachment A — Project Justification and Narrative), is the significant
ecological benefits that can result from BDA complexes. These benefits do not occur with
a traditional dam/pond.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 7 of 12
NCWRC — Additional comments were provided by Andrea Leslie of WRC on September 1,
2021.
Please refer to Attachment H for a detailed response from RIDE to each of the comments
provided by WRC.
IMPACTS
The impacts proposed in the SOWE campus include culvert impacts associated with development
of a new road network, fill and inundation impacts associated with the installation of BDA features,
culvert removal and restoration impacts, and stream enhancement impacts. The proposed
impacts will affect Thomas Branch, unnamed tributaries to Thomas Branch, Hopewell Branch,
unnamed tributaries to Hopewell Branch, and wetlands associated with each stream. There are
approximately 2,062 linear feet (0.161 acres) of impacted stream and 0.022 aces of impacted
wetland (Figure 5b-5f). Individual impacts are as follows:
TABLE 1.0 WETLAND IMPACTS
Wetland impact
Type of
number
Type of impact
Type of wetland
Forested
jurisdiction
Area of impact
Permanent (P)
Corps (404,10) or
(acres)
Temporary (T)
DWQ (401, other)
W1 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
W2 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
W3 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
W4 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
W5 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
W6 — P
*Other
Bottomland
Yes
Corps
0.007
BDA HB4
Hardwood Forest
W7 — P
Fill
Bottomland
No
Corps
0.002
BDA T134a
Hardwood Forest
W8 — P
*Other
Bottomland
No
Corps
0.013
BDA T134A
Hardwood Forest
W9 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
*Impact quantities designated as "other" represent the maximum possible
extent of inundation from the BDA structure. Proposed typical impact
conditions will consist of a dynamic stream/wetland complex occurring on a
Total
0.022
gradient from open water to channel flow, within the area indicated. Please
refer to the Design Narrative (Attachment A) for more information about the
nature of this impact.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 8 of 12
Table 2.0 STREAM IMPACTS
Stream impact
Perennial
Average
Impact
Impact
number
Type of impact
Stream name
(PER) or
Type of
stream
length
area
Permanent (P) or
intermittent
jurisdiction
width
(linear
Temporary T
INT ?
feet
feet)(acres)
S1 —P
Culvert
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
6
41
0.004
S2 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM
PROJECT
S3 — T
Culvert Removal
UT to Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
2
74
0.003
S4 — T
Culvert Removal
UT to Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
2
27
0.001
S5 — T
Culvert Removal
UT to Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
2
29
0.001
S6 — T
Culvert Removal
UT to Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
2
118
0.005
S7 — T
Culvert Removal
UT to Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
2
20
0.001
S8 — P
Fill
Hopewell Branch
PER
Corps
3
18
0.002
BDA HB4
S9 — P
*Other
Hopewell Branch
PER
Corps
3
175
0.016
BDA HB4
S10 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM
PROJECT
S11 —P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM
PROJECT
S12 — P
Fill
BDA TB2
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
27
0.002
S13 — P
*Other
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
69
0.005
BDA TB2
S14 — P
*Other
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
90
0.006
BDA TB2
S15 — P
Fill
BDA TB3A
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
30
0.002
S16 — P
*Other
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
76
0.005
BDA TB3A
S17 — P
Fill
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
23
0.002
BDA TB3B
S18 — P
*Other
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
109
0.008
BDA TB3B
S19 — P
Fill
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
30
0.002
BDA TB4A
S20 — P
*Other
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
141
0.010
BDA TB 4A
S21 —P
*Other
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
204
0.014
BDA TB4A
S22 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM
PROJECT
S23 — P
*Other
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
96
0.007
BDA TB4B
S24 — P
Fill
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
16
0.001
BDA TB5A
S25 — P
*Other
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
74
0.005
BDA TB5A
S26 — P
Fill
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
16
0.001
BDA TB5B
S27 — P
*Other
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
59
0.004
BDA TB5B
S28 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM
PROJECT
S29 — P
IMPACT REMOVED FROM PROJECT
S30 — P
Stream
Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
5
480
0.055
Enhancement

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 9 of 12
Stream impact
number
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
Type of impact
Stream name
Perennial
(PER) or
intermittent
INT ?
Type of
jurisdiction
Average
stream
width
feet
Impact
length
(linear
feet)(acres)
Impact
area
S31 — P
Culvert
UT Thomas Branch
PER
Corps
3
20
0.001
*Impact quantities designated as "other" represent the maximum possible extent of inundation
from the BDA structure. Proposed typical impact conditions will consist of a dynamic
stream/wetland complex occurring on a gradient from open water to channel flow, within the area
Total
2,062
0.161
indicated. Please refer to the Design Narrative (Attachment A) for more information about the
nature of this impact.
STREAMBANK STABILIZATION & ENHANCEMENT
Approximately 480 If of Thomas Branch (Impact S30; See Figure 5D) below TB BDA #2 are
planned for stream enhancement. The purpose of the proposed enhancement is to provide a
floodplain bench and stable banks. This work is not being done for mitigation credit. The wetland
at the lower end of the enhancement reach just upstream of the cul-de-sac will not be impacted
by the stream enhancement project.
ROADS
Total impacts to streams and wetlands on the project associated with road access and crossings
totals 0.005 ac (61 If) and 0.000 ac of wetlands.
ON -SITE COMPENSATORY MITIGATION — HOPEWELL BRANCH
SOWE proposes to compensate for impacts in the Permitted Area through Permittee Responsible
Mitigation (PRM). PRM will occur within the project boundary. The mitigation will provide 828.5 If
of mitigation and consist of stream enhancement, stream restoration, and stream preservation
along sections of Hopewell Branch. The mitigation project will begin immediately below the BDA
(HB4) on Hopewell Branch and extend south to the property line. Results from the North Carolina
Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM) are available
in Attachment G. The mitigation will be performed in accordance with North Carolina stream
mitigation guidelines which has been promulgated by the Wilmington USACE Regulatory District.
Upon regulatory review of the on -site conceptual mitigation (Attachment F), RDE will prepare a
final mitigation plan for review and approval.
Final approval of PRM by SOWE for this project is conditioned upon the approval of this
application by USACE and other applicable permitting agencies. The required amount of
mitigation is also subject to agency approval. Wetland impacts for the entire project total 0.022
acres of impact; therefore, no wetland mitigation is proposed.
Table 3. Proposed Stream Mitigation
Stream Impact
Impact Total (LF)
NCSAM Rating
Proposed Mitigation
Basic Mitigation Requirement (LF)
Stream Impact#1
41
Medium
2:1
82
Stream Impact#2
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact #3
74
Medium*
N/A Culvert Removal
N/A
Stream Impact #4
27
Medium*
N/A Culvert Removal
N/A
Stream Impact #5
29
Medium
N/A Culvert Removal
N/A

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 10 of 12
Stream Impact #6
118
Medium
N/A Culvert Removal
N/A
Stream Impact #7
20
Medium
N/A Culvert Removal
N/A
Stream Impact#8
18
High
1:1
18
Stream Impact#9
175
High
0.5:1
87.5
Stream Impact#10
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact#11
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact#12
27
Medium
1:1
27
Stream Impact#13
69
Medium
0.5:1
34.5
Stream Impact#14
90
Medium
0.5:1
45
Stream Impact#15
30
Medium
1:1
30
Stream Impact#16
76
Medium
0.5:1
38
Stream Impact#17
23
Medium
1:1
23
Stream Impact#18
109
Medium
0.5:1
54.5
Stream Impact#19
30
Medium
1:1
30
Stream Impact#20
141
Medium*
0.5:1
70.5
Stream Impact#21
204
Medium
0.5:1
102
Stream Impact#22
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact#23
96
Medium
0.5:1
48
Stream Impact#24
16
Medium*
1:1
16
Stream Impact#25
74
Medium*
0.5:1
37
Stream Impact#26
16
Medium
1:1
16
Stream Impact #27
59
Medium
0.5:1
29.5
Stream Impact#28
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact#29
N/A
N/A
Eliminated -Redesign
N/A
Stream Impact #30
480
N/A
N/A Stream
Enhancement
N/A
Stream Impact#31
20
Medium*
2:1
40
Total Number of Stream Impacts:
25
Total Stream Impacts (LF):
2,062
Total Basic Mitigation
Requirement (LF):
828.5
NC SAM Rating
Impact Total
LF
Basic Mitigation
Requirement (LIF)
%/Total Proposed Mitigation (LF)/Total
Mitigation (LIF) by NCSAM Ratings:
High:
193
105.5
13%
Medium:
1,869
723
87%
Low:
0
0
0%
*NC SAM stream rating interpolated based on nearest assessed stream reach.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 11 of 12
STORMWATER
The overall site response regarding stormwater and drainage is to use an Integrated Water
Resources Plan for the project that integrates natural patterns of hydrology into the site master
plan. This approach will allow for a sustainable response regarding stormwater measures while
emphasizing opportunities to harvest rainwater, reduce stormwater runoff, replenish groundwater
resources, and enhance ecosystems and biodiversity. Additional measures for the reduction of
impervious surfaces are also part of this low impact development and the project will not use curb
and gutter anywhere on the project so they can treat and convey stormwater via vegetated swales
and rain gardens.
For the reception center and guest parking lot, Mercer Design Group will be submitting any
stormwater plans directly to the NC DWR Raleigh office by February 25, 2022. A copy of these
stormwater plans will also be sent directly to Ms. Chonticha McDaniel and Ms. Sue Homewood,
DWR. Stormwater treatment from this parking lot will incorporate the use of permeable pavement
and biofiltration. The current reception center and parking site plans indicate 34,248 Square Feet
(SF) of permeable paving at the parking spaces; 21,601 SF of impervious asphalt for drive aisles;
1,751 SF of permeable pavers at the reception center entry; and 2,081 SF of permeable pavers
at walkways and drive aisle transitions. The total area of paved surface at the reception center
and 100-car parking area is approximately 59,681 SF, with 38,080 SF (64%) of that total being
pervious surface.
THREATENED & ENDANGERED SPECIES
Multiple biological surveys were conducted at the proposed SOWE campus as part of the project
due diligence and include: Wildlife Biodiversity Assessment conducted by Conservation Ecology
LLC, Ecological Assessment and Botanical Inventory conducted by Mountains to Sea Ecological,
and Evaluation of Potential Summer and Winter Habitat for Gray Bat conducted by Skybax
Ecological Services. An addendum to Wildlife Biodiversity Assessment conducted by
Conservation Ecology LLC for bald eagle observation was issued to include an effects
determination of "not likely to affect" for bald eagle. These reports were provided to the Corps in
the original permit application submitted February 1, 2021, or in a response to agency comments
dated July 19, 2021. It is our opinion that the applicant has satisfactorily addressed the concerns
raised by these agencies, including Section 7 requirements.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
ClearWater consulted with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office Data Explorer
(HPOWEB 2.0). The project site is not within 2 miles of any Historic resources on the National
Register. Additionally, ClearWater sought concurrence from SHPO on March 04, 2021. In a letter
dated April 5, 2021, SHPO concluded that they are aware of no historic resources that would be
affected by the project and that they have no comments. The comments received by SHPO were
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.

SAW-2020-00632; DWR No. 2020-1654
January 27, 2022
Page 12 of 12
Should you have any questions regarding the attached resubmittal please do not hesitate to
contact me at 828-698-9800.
Respectfully,
Jeff Golladay
Project Biologist
cc: Andrew Moore, NCDWR
Figures 1-6
Attachments A-1
R. Clement Riddle, P.W.S.
Senior Scientist

List of Figures
Figure 1 — Site Vicinity Map
Figure 2 — USGS Topography Map
Figure 3 —Aerial Imagery Map
Figure 4 — USDA Soils Map
Figure 5A — Aquatic Resources Impacts: Site Overview
Figure 5B-5F — Aquatic Resources Impacts: Plans and Details
Figure 6 — FEMA Floodplain Map
List of Attachments
Attachment A — Project Justification and Design Narrative
Attachment B — Operation and Maintenance Manual for Beaver Dam Analog
Stream — Wetland Complexes
Attachment C
— BDA Planting Plan
Attachment D
— Riparian Buffer Plan
Attachment E
— Culvert Installation Details
Attachment F
— Hopewell Branch — On -site Conceptual Mitigation
Attachment G
— North Carolina Stream and Wetland Assessment Methods Data Sheets
Attachment H
— RDE Response to NCWRC Comments
Attachment I —
Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT) References

Mulberry Gap Farms (+/- 450 AC)
"i
Project Boundary I
213
Y
f
4�
m
Q
J
4�1�1
9
r
f
Z
Legend
i Project Boundary
Drawn by: BWY 1.27.2022; CEC Project# 1025
Madison County,
North Carolina
[LearWaLer
An EnviroSdance Companyo
Ea, _ Marshall
S �s
r
Q-
213'
L nfiq"v
9�
h
N
2
f,
0 0.5 1 2
Miles
Site Vicinity
Figure 1
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792

Mulberry Gap Farms (+/- 450 AC)
Legend
�— — Project Boundaryd y Tur '~
�p +1 ewe]( Gap
f
Project Boundary
a � � Q7 �, -tea �`., •U�� V�� ,� ?� `;'
'i' a Gap .�
V.
b .]ti.r 1 g • + rr
• �'•- ,�a �� - I — � � l,J is
Op
17-
l
A _ r f.
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
Drawn by: BWY 1.27.2022; CEC Project# 1025
CLearWarer USGS Topographic Map
Madison County, AnEnviro5crenceCompanyl Marshall Quad
North Carolina 145 7 hAvenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 2

Mulberry Gap Farms (+/- 450 AC)
VUF
Legend
�— — Project Boundary
Project Boundary
ir -----
i .
j
L-
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Drawn by: BWY 1.27.2022; CEC Project# 1025
Madison Count CLearWaker Aerial Map
Y, AnEnviro5cianceCompany 3 NC OneMap (2018)
North Carolina 145 7thAvenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 3

Mulberry Gap Farms (+/- 450 AC)
Legend
QProject Boundary
Soil
BnD; BnE; BnF - Chestnut Complex
- CtC2 - Clifton Clay Loam
j - EVD2; EvE2; EvF2; EWD; EwE - Evard-Cowee Complex
JbD; JbE - Junaluska-Brasstown Complex
MWD; MwE - Mars Hill -Walnut Complex
NtD - Junaluska-Brasstown Complex
SoE; SyE; SzF - Sylco-Soco Complex
TaC; TaD; TkD - Tate Loam
- TSD; TsE - Toecane-Tusquitee Complex
WaE2 - Walnut-Oteen-Mars Hill Complex
% ..
a=
t �..
r�
-----------
BnE BnF
TsE
TsE BnD BnE
Project Boundary
BnE 4
BT
EvE2 EwD j
r vD2 EwD TsD
I
4C2 TkD
�fa BnF
� I
BnE I
D '
I EvD2 MwD MwV
EvF2 EvD2 EvE2 EwE WaE2
SzF j
EvF2
MwD I
BnF TaD
dfaP EwE %
�bE MwE
EvEri .
TaD EvD2 MwE'/
BnF —
EvE2 EvD2
\ EvD2 i
�. BnF
I
— I
.. EvE2
BnF
�._ N
a
0 500 1,000 2,000
Feet
Drawn by: BWY 1.27.2022; CEC Project# 1025
Madison Count CLearWaker USDA Soils Map
Y, AnEnviro5cianceCompany 3 NRCS Web Soil Survey
North Carolina 145 7thAvenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792 Figure 4

\o
\�: :222
2\7 LLJ �:5 \ �� : -
~\\ Lu IL \\\ / /\ �} \\\}
LL
LL LLJ
7 I SR § T z
•� u u 6 ) 4
a> W- G/\jam/
\ �0 zo�LU -J< §6'
O �� u §\/j9t a§
LL
�C4 LLJv w §q
uo R.. oa�o}z ws
\—
I ,[§/ o§b2JIbn-IJBS�§�§§& !QL ��a.a a��E \T§Iw,2�e§��a. o o 7u,
;§§§§�;A« au��Ia#.
Lu z k
LO ' -
':10
-
/ < \ §)
� /, \ . .}
aS§}\—§)
)\w§Lu§
/q-->oZ
>o•
(�§o§o
§w88IV)D
0 V,D�
§§«
«LL|
/ww
; Z —W—W
)a\gym
:gym
\ \ \§<a
.ZZ
0 §�o
> ->
2bz[
\z[
0000
°Ln§
w
§$v)§
�w]
-j§
w
w�
-Cmm
f
Vu
Vu
§boo
o
E
§ §
,
46
6. M
!..
H
!)|
!!
§!
)!■
|!!
,,|\|
{§
\
\
\
\ (
/�

sEss �N'IleusaeW �m �� m`
luauaualU611u3 pue ssaualoUM to IooUoS eUl _= a
m s qe ® of uolleaolsaa uaalsAsoo3 080 v
ds� o G
vs�a �oW dug Aaaaglnn 5 sw Asa -EL
E4a�m o&� 8a Cl)
\
3a
� m'o
^
� J \
a
� a�� o0000 o e
-
g6Caleeeeee44
3
n\
z�a'000000 -
/ m f
�'a88888888Q
m�a
w$
LLg 6$R$amem$
a
g

sEss �N'lleusaeW �m o ��
pH � luauaualU611u3 pue SSaualoUM to IooUoS eUl � _= a - m N
m e e® of uolleaolsaa WGJSASoo3
ds� oI LP
m F
eHm �oW dug AaaaqlnW o0 8a �6
� \ N
s dti � i
U)
Al
m3
e w
n m
�� �wgooSoo88 e
a�
� a �¢w7:88Ne^e$o �\
���w� QONoaeNdd
a
(p
m o......
� � I
amam¢m
�-
I ,'

sEss �N'lleuseW �m _ o 2E a
pH luauaualU611u3 pue ssaualoUM to IooUoS eUl _= a - .0 co
m e e® of uolleaolsaa uaalsAsoo3
esea� C GW
aim dug Aaaaglnn o 8a

sEss �N'IleUseW �" 2E
pH � lugwualU611u3 pue ssaualoUM to IooUoS aUl � • •�.o Cl)�
e��s Xe® oluolleaolsaauaalsAsoo3 �e� m J Mw0
Mai CGW = m gw 6N 6 E o t.J
a m dug Aaaaglnn R.-HUM8a
2 aim mg•s
o KBcw ¢�,•
o
a F�o�=�•x�£sao l
V 312Z Hifl;!g;l�
�&��'��g•A g�Bo�m•rc �s sg,�E �'
n 9j,"EM
,
�w
X
z
z
U
;y
z
CO
d
gg
O C;O`�%
0 \
Joa
0
[0
o o 0
0
\\
o
z€
9
A
CO
„ z
®<.•<
o ®R
HU
U
<€
CO
M
U
���ivi¢w
w�wz
wo�a
wow
�
wog�ww
R¢%ff
wQw2
oww
Off
44
Oco
0
�
z
a
W
U
03

sEss �N'lleuseW �m o 2E
pH � lugwualU611u3 pue ssaualoUM to IooUoS eUl Cl)N
e ® of uolleaolsaa uaalsAsoo3 e m J 0
w0
GW _ LU t.J
a m dug Aaaaglnn o 8a
H �
H S _
q A
s � &
m �
-EHmg3�m�&
U
wg��o�vem�s
xps«�m3
CO
gssg
J
U
�
w
H
\ m
o
Q
F
3
m
=
Z o
w
®I
z
y
z �
_
x
�
CO
W
J YOo
CO
3w�
w
�u W
W J
/ m _

Mulberry Gap Farms (+/- 450 AC)
Legend
Project Boundary
Flood Hazard Zones
Zone Type
1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Regulatory Floodway
Special Floodway
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard
02%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Future Conditions 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Area with Reduced Risk Due to Levee
Area with Risk Due to Levee
by: BWY 1.27.2022; CEC Project# 1025
Madison County,
North Carolina
Project Boundary
r
EEL ffi�-
CLearWaker
An EnviroSciance Company
145 7th Avenue West, Suite B
Hendersonville, NC 28792
i
inialNOW
Flood Hazad
0 0.25 0.5 1
Miles
FEMA Floodplain Map
FIRM Panel 3700879800J
Effective 6/2/2009
Figure 6

Attachment A
Project Justification and Schematic Design Narrative
Robinson Design Engineers (RDE)

Project Justification
& Design Narrative For
Proposed Beaver Dam Analogs
Prepared for
The School of Wholeness -�
& Enlightenment
Madison County, NC'�
July 9, 2021 '•'"` :'`
RObinson
Design
Engineers
I .. .:� . r ',
c'+.
�'' �
�' tit _�'•� �' c .
�

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

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

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

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

f:
r
10 H C�-
ACCELERATED EROSION
Moderate sheet erosion
Severe sheet erosion
Moderate gully erosion
Severe gully erosion
Moderate sheet and gully erosion
Gully
Fig. 1: The map above has been adapted from the Soil Survey of Madison County by
Goldston et al. (1942a) to highlight the project area (roughly circled) and includes the part
of the legend referring to accelerated erosion.
The soil scientists who mapped Madison County in the early 1940's have this to say about
the conditions of mountain streams in the region:
"As a whole, Madison County is rough and rugged, as most of the mountain slopes are
very steep — in some places precipitous. The streams have played a major part in making
the relief what it is today. In places they have cut valleys several hundred feet deep, and
in some places these valleys, or gorges, are flanked by precipitous walls. [... ] Streams
have dissected these low, steep hills so badly that comparatively little level land remains.
[... ] Slopes to streams are steep, and only in very few places does any bottom land occur
at the foot of these slopes or along the streams. [... ] The streams have thoroughly
dissected the Blue Ridge Plateau. They have cut very narrow V-shaped valleys and
gorges and have created an extremely rugged land form. Drainage is good to excessive.
The streams are swift and transport large quantities of material." (Goldston et al. 1942b,
pg. 3 - 4)
The legacy effects of land use are still in evidence on the property today. Where native
hydrophilic vegetation is able to reach deep to the water table lowered to meet the base
level of incised streams, roots dangle from cut banks and will soon crumble and fall into
the flow, if they haven't already (Fig. 2A). Such slumped material, jagged gravel pieces,
and steep banks are all too familiar to us. Gullies are on nearly every site we visit. Some

portions of the streams look little better than excavated roadside ditches. The lawn is kept
closely clipped on either side, and the presence of grass is in and of itself an indication the
stream is currently unable to support obligate wetland plants (Fig. 213).
Fig. 2: These photos depict streams visited in August of 2020 on the project site. The
photo on the left (A) shows Hopewell Branch and demonstrates how incision triggers
Riparian Hydrologic Drought. The photo on the right (B) shows Thomas Branch hardly
able to sustain basef low.
Shifting Baselines Syndrome (SBS) is a term that describes a phenomenon concerning
regulatory standards of ecosystem management. Stemming from fisheries science, where
regulations such as catch limits are established with a recent past condition set as the
standard for return to a state of equilibrium, misremembered prior conditions often result in
successive lowering of expectations through `generational amnesia' over human lifetimes,
as the impairments of one generation are adopted as baselines of the next (Campbell et
al., 2009; Papworth et al. 2008). Generational amnesia seems an apt diagnosis regarding
society's expectations of stream form and function in the southeast, as the Carolinas
establish Reference Hydraulic Geometry Curves, or design stream dimensions based on
regression curve analysis of `reference condition' channel form. This method of
comparative analysis, while useful for understanding trends between a watershed's
drainage area and response variables of channel slope, width, depth, etc., could dictate
prescriptive stream form measurements that do not take into account the highly variable
landscape context of mountain streams and the omnipresent, underlying co -morbidities
impairing them, not to mention the wide error bands recognizing variation along the fitted
regression equation.
How would it look and feel to restore and conserve these relatively flat alluvial systems?
Historical evidence and recent scholarship strongly suggest that this hydrologic landscape
should be a sluggish, productive backwater marsh, created by a pleasingly -messy series
of small and frequent beaver dams. Here, in this mountainous Madison County context,
that would mean willow, birch, and other native riparian trees would ring upstream areas
of the marsh; dead and down trees would stand a slant in its chesty backwater, providing
perches and nesting cavities for birds and bats. If you plodded into the ponded water your
step fall would sink into silt and leaves. The sweet smell of decomposing organic material
would waft through the air. Heterotroph invertebrates of this system, so-called "shredders",

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

Sandalone Creek
Upper Black Creek
Lower Black Creek
TN
V
100 m
E
seeks first and foremost to develop a flourishing natural environment, and then to
thoughtfully tie in the human infrastructure.
The form of a stream is an expression of the history of the surrounding landscape (both
natural and anthropogenic) and regional climatic variables, which influence the mass
balance of water, sediment, and organic material transferred from the contributing
drainage area into valley bottoms, shaping waterways (Knighton 1984; Julien & Raslan
1998; Brooks et al. 2012; Kasprak et al. 2016; Leopold et al. 2020; Wohl 2020). Few of
these factors remain static, and fluctuations in water, sediment, and wood affect stream
form both along a spatial and temporal continuum.
Montgomery and Buffington (1997) note that unlike low -gradient stream networks, high-
energy mountain drainage basins are prone to external forcing by constraints such as
confinement within a narrow valley, shallow bedrock outcroppings, natural woody debris
pileups, and the influence of anchoring riparian vegetation, all of which force morphologies
that would otherwise, in an analogous unobstructed flow pattern, take on the morphology
of a higher energy system. Studies conducted in the Pacific Northwest demonstrate that
log jams and woody debris pileups have the capacity to create aggradational deposits
over streams that would otherwise flow across exposed bedrock and that the systematic
removal of these naturally -accumulating obstructions have reduced backwater sloughs,
side channels, and meandering headwater tributaries to a more simplistic single -threaded
planform (Montgomery et al. 1996; Sedell & Froggat 1985, see Fig. 3). Wohl (2013)
suggests that research conducted in the Pacific Northwest offers insight into the role
beaver once played in shaping North American rivers, as most thorough fluvial
geomorphic investigations have occurred in streams that suffered deforestation, beaver
extirpation, and obstruction removal long before the scientists arrived to study them with
contemporary quantification methods.
♦ EHarrishurg
� M
pl
' � a
J� rg
d
I r
d
C ` Q
e r
1
�r
F
4 McKan zle River
F
V' 1B54 1910 1946 1967
Fig. 3: On the left, a diagram from Montgomery et al. (1996) depicts stores of sediment (grey hatching) raising stream beds
behind natural debris jams (marked as an X). On the right, Sedell & Froggatt (1984) depict the loss of planform heterogeneity
to the Willamette River in Oregon over time.

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

m
streams — the Stream Evolution Model (SEM). Another important difference in Cluer &
Thorne's (2014) expansion on Schumm's concept is that they have redrawn the
progression of stages into a cyclical, not linear progression, where Stages 0 — 4 can
become stuck in a feedback loop not unlike a "short-circuit," where downcutting and
widening can be triggered over and over again (see Fig. 4).
s]ac E o
ANSlwrewy M,a[eme..N
wA[ w.Amane
STAGES STAGEI
ANI{OIIgN+t= fl.Wpur SI.rEI. TFr.Y
Gan..NnY
FF VV^
Y
STAGE] � STAGEI
L.[ 17 Aeur. ` ! EI.E.YaLen
tt R
Nahawl..E � wwmeng •
YDominanl
►.o[e.f � 1
p� STAGE ]a
STAGE • STAGE 4
Qua. Equil�n..A.. D.E.ad Ce a wiJn.x.E
STAGES r S
'm om An,"Miy and wW "
Fig. 4: Cluer & Thorne's (2014) Stream Evolution Model (SEM) adapts the Channel
Evolution Model (Schumm 1977) to include a precursor stage (Stage 0) to better
represent predisturbance conditions, two successor stages to cover late -stage evolution,
and a cyclical rather than linear progression. Dashed arrows indicate `short-circuits' in the
normal progression, indicating for example that a Stage 0 stream can evolve to Stage 1
and recover to Stage 0, a Stage 4-3-4 shortcircuit, which occurs when multiple head cuts
migrate through a reach and which may be particularly destructive. Arrows outside the
circle represent `dead end' stages, constructed and maintained (2) and arrested (3s)
where an erosion -resistant layer in the local lithology stabilizes incised channel banks.
The Stream Evolution Model & Limitations of Natural Channel Design
The channels in most alluvial reaches are restored from Stage 3 to Stage 6 forms in the
Stream Evolution Model (SEM, see Fig. 4). These relatively low value forms are then
preserved through contrived stabilization measures. In a recent webinar, Colin Thorne
suggested that another `arrested' stage could be included as an offshoot to Stage 6
(Quasi -equilibrium) where restoration activities halt lateral activity at Stage 7 through
biotechnical revetments of beds and banks, just as with Stage 3a (Thorne 2020). The only
way out of this short-circuit cycle of degradational process, according Cluer & Thorne
(2014), is through the eventual longitudinal gradient stabilization of sufficient degradation
and widening at Stage 5 for the stream to recover a terraced floodplain of alluvial
deposition inset in the large, degraded former channel boundaries. This hypothesis is

12
supported by the literature on stream competence, as for example, Montgomery &
Buffington (1997) point to the availability and limitations of sediment supply as a driving
factor in the form a stream takes. Even though using soft engineering and natural
materials such as biotechnical revetments and large wood have become common,
stabilization impedes the fluvial processes that could drive continued evolution to the
substantially more resilient and ecologically valuable Stages 7 and 8.
STAGE G
IwlerntWnE IErE a�P M y,Mln
loft
7n
73t
AmAwh b�
STRpEE
Ma,tenwwq � STAG 1
SO'D
(1)
Qu�nhhaW
- R�[aidw�I Pxrww
- G�.h,� YN �niplw Srhvn
Swacm
YE►DE} O H2OaJc, � STAG! l
L•tM�AtlM ' OKIaY,lhw
OMIdW ty ll"^� � _
14hv1
O pyda�, STAGE 4-1 •
� � STwL tN3�
EYwtlE/ O 4ata STAGE 4 ,holy GKy
Fig. 5: Cluer & Thorne (2014) offer in this diagram a demonstration of associated physical
characteristics and ecosystem benefits associated with each Stage of stream evolution
(shown in Fig. 4). The relative size of the circles represent the ordinal points achieved at
each stage relative to the maximum achievable points, where a high rank represents
`abundant and fully functional' and a low rank signifies `absent or dysfunctional'. This
conceptual framework of ecosystem benefits and physical attributes demonstrates that a
return to pristinity at Stage 0 is impossible; that to freeze forms at Stage 2 or Stage 6 (the
target of most Natural Channel Design methods) misses enhancing benefits; and that late
adaptations to Stage 8 offer the closest possible return to pre -settlement conditions and
the highest level of habitat enhancement represented by Stage 0.
Cluer & Thorne (2014) diagram conceptual benefits of stream processes throughout the
evolutionary trajectory of dominant process (see Fig. 5). Whereas Rosgen's `natural
channel design' methodology seeks to freeze streams into a rigid Stage 6 form of `Quasi
Equilibrium,' we have the capacity to usher surface waters towards a Stage 8
Anastomosing' stream form with higher benefits to habitat and ecosystem attributes,
according to Cluer & Thorne's (2014) analysis of stream form and function.
The channels on SoWE property are at stages 2 and 3 as described by the SEM diagram
(Figure 4). As the SoWE campus is built and the watershed continues to develop, these
channels will experience the predictable progression to stage 3a (arrested degradation) or
a stage 3-4-3 short circuit of degradation and widening. Degraded channels like these are

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23
These micro -topographic features can be seen on the grading plans and the Predicted
Depth Maps (see appendix). The complicated relationship between seepage,
evapotranspiration, and the potential inundation extent is difficult to predict, but the
vegetation plan will feature plants with population dynamics having the capacity to adapt
to these future water level conditions.
We have prepared depth maps that predict and define the areas upstream of each BDA
feature into their respective depth zones. These zones were developed using the range of
probable conditions, from flooded conditions to drought conditions. A flooded condition
was defined as V above weir crest elevation and drought was defined as 2' below weir
crest elevation. These zones are defined here:
■ Deep pool zone: sustained deep pools (3' or greater). This zone represents areas that
retain 3' depths during drought conditions. 3' was chosen for this delimiter because
this is the minimum depth for beaver shelter and this will stifle growth of emergent
wetland plants keeping vigorous vegetation growth along the fringe areas.
■ Deep Marsh / Submergent Zone: typically inundated (2' - 6). Submerged plants are
expected here.
■ Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone: frequently inundated (0' - 2'). This zone would not
be inundated during drought conditions, but would be inundated to some level
depending on other environmental conditions. The upper bound of this zone is
defined by the crest elevation of the floodplain BDA. Emergent plants will be
appropriate, but this zone is the hardest to predict.
■ Lower Riparian Zone: infrequently inundated. This zone would be inundated only
when the water level goes above the weir/floodplain BDA, which would happen
infrequently. This zone will have shallow groundwater and contain very moist soils.
■ Upper Riparian / Upland Zone: not typically inundated. This zone will also have
shallow groundwater, but is not expected to be inundated.
The BDA features and our predicted depth maps will be initially planted based on these
expected conditions, but ultimately, these features are meant to change and to adjust
based on their temporally varied inputs of water, sediment, and wood.
4.3.2 TB4
All the BDA features will be constructed within the existing channel-floodplain topography,
with some excavation in opportune areas for habitat diversity (described above in the
beaver pool design section). It is likely that all the pools will have seasonal and storm -
related fluctuations in pool elevation. We know that the pool elevations won't stabilize any
higher than the in -channel BDA crest elevation, but we cannot predict exactly how low the
pool elevation will be when it reaches equilibrium. This uncertainty is because of the
complicated dynamics between inflows (rainfall and groundwater) and outflows (seepage
and evapotranspiration). We cannot predict what the equilibrium pool elevation will be at a
particular BDA, although we know reducing the outflow parameters will have an increasing
effect on pool elevation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

34
Snodgrass, J. W. (1997). Temporal and spatial dynamics of beaver -created patches as
influenced by management practices in a south-eastern North American landscape.
Journal of Applied Ecology, 1043-1056.
Sporcic, M. A., & Skidmore, E. L. (2011). 75 Years of Wind Erosion Control: The History of
Wind Erosion Prediction. In International Symposium on Erosion and Landscape Evolution
(ISELE), 18-21 September 2011, Anchorage, Alaska (p. 31). American Society of
Agricultural and Biological Engineers.
Thorne, C. (2020, Aug. 11). "Missing Reference Condition: Stage 0" [Webinar
Presentation]. In: Module 1: Introduction to Low -Tech Process -Based Restoration.
Available at:
https:Hlowtechpbr.restoration.usu.edu/workshops/2020/SG I/Modules/module1.html
Trimble, S. W. (1975). A VOLUMETRIC ESTIMATE OF MAN -INDUCED SOIL EROSION
ON THE SOUTHERN. In Present and Prospective Technology for Predicting Sediment
Yield and Sources: Proceedings of the Sediment -Yield Workshop, USDA Sedimentation
Laboratory, Oxford, Miss., Nov. 28-30, 1972 (Vol. 40, p. 142). Agricultural Research
Service, US Department of Agriculture.
Walter, R. C., & Merritts, D. J. (2008). Natural streams and the legacy of water -powered
mills. Science, 319(5861), 299-304.
Ward, J. V. (1989). The four-dimensional nature of lotic ecosystems. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society, 8(1), 2-8.
Ward, J.V., Tockner, K., Uehlinger, U., and Malard, F. (2001). Understanding natural
patterns and processes in river corridors as the basis for effective river restoration.
Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 17: 311-323.
Weber, N., Bouwes, N., Pollock, M.M., Wheaton, J.M., Wathen, G., Wirtz, J., & Jordan,
C.E. (2017) Alteration of stream temperature by natural and artificial beaver dams. PLoS
ONE, 12(5).
Wegener, P., Covino, T., and Wohl, E. (2017). Beaver -mediated lateral hydrologic
connectivity, fluvial carbon and nutrient flux, and aquatic ecosystem metabolism. Water
Resources Research, 53: 4606-4623.
Wohl, E. E. (2004). Disconnected rivers: linking rivers to landscapes. Yale University
Press.
Wohl, E. (2013) Floodplains and wood. Earth -Science Reviews, 123: 194-212.
Wohl, E. (2019). Forgotten legacies: understanding and mitigating historical human
alterations of river corridors. Water Resources Research, 55(7), 5181-5201.

35
Wohl, E. (2020). Rivers in the Landscape. John Wiley & Sons.
Wohl, E., Angermeier, P.L., Bledsoe, B., Kondolf, G.M., MacDonnell, L., Merritt, D.M.,
Palmer, M.A., Poff, N.L., & Tarboton, D. (2005). River Restoration. Water Resources
Research, 41: W 10301.
Wohl, E., & Beckman, N. D. (2014). Leaky rivers: implications of the loss of longitudinal
fluvial disconnectivity in headwater streams. Geomorphology, 205: 27-35.
Wohl, E., & Cadol, D. (2011). Neighborhood matters: patterns and controls on wood
distribution in old -growth forest streams of the Colorado Front Range, USA.
Geomorphology, 125(1), 132-146.
Venarsky, M. P., Walters, D. M., Hall, R. O., Livers, B., & Wohl, E. (2018). Shifting stream
planform state decreases stream productivity yet increases riparian animal production.
Oecologia, 187(1), 167-180.

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

Potential Outcomes after BDA Construction
Existing Condition
b 0
I lL� r
4� Riparian
S ~ vegetation
A
Potential Outcome 2
Robinson
N Design
N Engineers
Potential Outcome 1
r Wetland
• �' Meadow
A J
Potential Outcome 3
,\
BDA

0
0
Q �
Q 4—.i
C: I
0 � � 0
0 0 c
� 0
aD
C C J N
4-J
cn E4-1
4-1 C QO
Q 41 w � N
C: i L C
N O 4-1 L �
i - i i O
0 +J
O +J ro _
d o O " O " O
0- QO :3 a)-0N O_
DM
a)0 N Q 17 � C Q'Q
N Q OH wii �.� �H
w ❑J
w
LLL 3 o a
i
,4V(
�Z6-
+
dH
I
£66 L 3=1=1
m �j

I IMI
11
W
N
N
C
�^
N
E
O p
1
-0
� �
4
4 coN
L. m f
cn�
E
a
o-
��
ama
a) O
O
L
N
3
—
Cc:a
O m M
0 0
Q
O
H
Q
a)O
G
Q -
0-(
.
o�
s
��
�0
LLOa
a� a)
a) Q
a a)
3:
Q
o
z
a) a)
-0-c
a)
LL
o
LL
❑
W
J

0
O
Q
�
c
c
O
c
O
cn
c
�
aD
O
C
C
)
N
(�
E�
Q 4-1
w
N
0
L
O N
cn C
+J
J
N O
N •Q
� �
� C
Q'Q
N
�
Q
w
w
J
Q 0
dH
m
to
m
t
r®

0
0
Q
Q
(,
O
O
C
N
�
N
O
C
C
)
N
4-)
Q 4-1
w
N
C: i
L
C
O (D
C
cn C
_
4-J
+-J
O
p
O >•
)
C
+O-)
ry >•
Q
N O
Q O
N 'Q
N
a)-0N
2�
O
Q'Q
0 DM
OH
ALL
i
�H
w
❑
w
J
000e
E
O C %
0 • (^n1
W W
!'
4-0
Co
C: j
.0 /
m �
/
N
°ac0
j
c me
i°ow
RT

1
0
O
Q
Q
:-
+-
(D
C:
aD
I
O
O
c
N
(D
C
N
2)
2)-
(�
E-0
O -�-j
O N
+1
cn C
_
},
O
0
a w
O
0
O
Q
0-2
N-a
N O
W
d
W
on
Id
J
k� MH
� �
� �
,L
m i'
�5•Eq vcl �.
d9, do
5 05
,5•05 , � � � ,g
/♦
LIN1
I
I
i I /
+.ZL AA
I
1
/ uO-i7 aj
-- —
�C", 9 9
Woo
/� ��

40-%
LL
`0
(4
0
10
N
C�
LO
`O
J
Fn
>
10
Ol
O
CJ
a)
N
N
O
(
H
i V
a =
CJ
O
O
co
O
L)
c
�LL/�
d! N
p ...
r,
�r
r"
c�
00
oo
O>
LS
O
C`
O
7r
(o
16
.,
aW
s�
N
H 0
LPL
)
a)
N
00a
CO
r'?
N
��
CO
f as N
�r
O
r
00
N
0
co
C�
.
N
p
O LL
a.N..
a)
U
co
L
10
N
�
a as
d! C
c�
N
\O
L6
,
.c)
�-LO
o0
a
Q N
co co co co co
H
o � o
w
00
M
m

a
J
N
�
_
�
N
�\
10
�O
Q
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
N
H
0
i V
=
a
pO
�
cl,
co
d! a
O
O
O
N
O
c?
O
N
O
O
C)
CO
O
W
p �...
aW
s�
N
�
Hco
O
r7
N
CO
O
cl,
O
CV
O
E v
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
p N
O v
C)
O
O
CO
'
O
N
d!
d! C
C)
O
O
O
O
O
0 N
co co co co co
H
o � o
5
.0
.O •£"i 0
Ifl

0
Z
J
0 U
Z =
n F
W
Z (n
¢ ic w
w U
U n
= a E U
E W m F
w w 'o Q F
a
C C U N N
Y ¢ o w
t W
O� Z
0 F II 2 J II
O R w W p m O LL Lu
N N (O F Q N N f� p J Q
O
U O O O J (n N N Q w Cn
N r
U UO
R >.� O W
N J
.N
m U U U Z
O
ZO
8 � ii Z
�0co
E o co
LL 5 - Z
ip
o
W E= 2
N
W o s o�
LL co co
� s 2
s w w
Z Z
Z Z
Q Q
,z
O w �- N w
(V 111 N II w
L N
J
LU
Q
O
2
w
W
U
U
X_
0
Z
W
Q

a� ON `IIeySJew g
luGwua146IIu3 pue SSGUGIOgM 10 IOOgOS a41
Q JOl uolleJOlSad WGISASO03 e a -
pm=m 13D N
deaaaq�nW U
� �(
€8a �v 8fr

`IleysJew
a�
ON
g
-
e
luGwuGlgbllu3 pue ssaualo4M to IooyoS eq j
Jo; uolleJolsad WGISASO03
s w�
\
�
o
a
N
U
de� �(aaaqlnW
�v
8a
8a

`IleysJew
a�
ON
g
®8
Illlll���VV\�
luGwual46llu3 pue ssaualO4M 10 loogos a41
JOl uolleJOlsad WGISASO03
/Q/y/'��
tO
�(
deaaaq�nW
o00
°w
U
€8a
�
�v
8fr

ROCK COFFERDAM
TOP OF BANK
0
0
LINER
COFFERDAM CROSS-SECTION
COFFERDAM PROFILE
NOTES
1. THE LINER SHALL BE PLACED ON
BOTTOM OF WATERWAY W/EXCESS LINER
EXTENDING OUT OF THE COFFERED AREA.
ONCE STONE IS PLACED, LINER WILL BE
PULLED OVER ROCK AND EXTEND BEYOND
THE PILE ON THE DOWNSTREAM SIDE.
SANDBAGS WILL SECURE THE EXCESS
LINER AS SHOWN. REFER TO THE
STANDARD FOR LINER SPECIFICATIONS.
3
PLAN VIEW
T
�P
FILTRATION
AREA
REFERENCE STANDARD DWG, NO,
Project IUM-503RF
Designed Date
Checked Date SHEET s OF 7
Approved Date DATE 7-09-2012

Attachment B
Operation and Maintenance Manual for Beaver Dam Analog
Stream — Wetland Complexes

Operation & Maintenance Manual
For Beaver Dam Analog Stream -
Wetland Complex
Prepared for
The School of Wholeness
& Enlightenment
Madison County, NC
July 8, 2021
Robinson
Design
/�/ Engineers

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

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 3
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: Monitoring Maps
APPENDIX B: Target Invasive Species

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 4
1. INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Mulberry Farm Madison LLC represented b� erRichard
a Section, 04 Individual Permit and 401 Individual Water Quality tification
Kelly, is seeking
2,062 0.161
GeFto fineatien AQA for 416 linear feet (0.0807 acres) of impact to
0.022
streams and 8.044 acres of impacts to wetlands, and Natie^wide
on Thomas Branch and Hopewell Branch and
unnamed tributaries. The impacts are associated with the
construction of a residential education and training center called
the School for Wholeness and Enlightenment (SOWS). The project
site consists of +/- 448 acres located at 1126 Upper Thomas Branch
Road, Marshall, North Carolina. The applicant is submitting this O&M
plan to satisfy the monitoring plan requirement feF,--ra m as a
proposed permit condition.
This document describes a monitoring and management regime
that will require dedicated professionals to implement, but is
applicable across the SOWS campus and is adaptable over time.
This document replaces the previous monitoring plan submittal.
The BDA stream -wetland complex systems will be monitored and
evaluated based on the following quantifiable elements:
- Rainfall accumulation
- Surface water levels
- Ground water levels
- Water temperature and other physiochemical components
- Dynamic fluvial traits
- Vegetation species and density
These elements will be evaluated, over time, to understand the
trajectory of the system and adaptive management strategies will
be implemented on a case -by -case basis depending on the
system's trajectory.
The ecological functioning of the stream -wetland complex and
associated vegetation will make the SOWE campus beautiful and
inspiring.

BDm wo ri riuia ii acIIVVI vi VVIIVIWIIWaa u11u o1u1yi1LWL
2. OBJECTIVES
This manual offers practical guidance on the monitoring,
maintenance, and adaptive management operations of the BDAs
and associated wetland complex and vegetation at SOWS. These
guidelines should serve SOWE staff in their efforts to maintain the
health, function, and appearance of these areas. The design of
these features has been carefully considered to augment
ecosystem services that improve water quality, restore habitat,
and enhance the visitor experience at SOWE. The key components
contributing to these improvements are the BDA structures and the
vegetation. As such, the purpose of this manual is to outline key
considerations for maintaining the function and integrity of the
BDAs and these important plant communities which will, in turn,
support the health of the stream -wetland complex on the SOWE
campus.
The Monitoring and Management Objectives are listed below.
• Support water quality improvement.
• Provide forage and shelter for pollinators, aquatic
invertebrates, and birds.
• Provide beautiful and inspiring scenery (this objective will not
compromise the preceding objectives)
2.1 Support Water Quality Improvement
The American Beaver ( Castor canadensis) were once common in
stream systems across the United States and played an important
ecological role. Beaver dams impound stream and river systems,
creating wetlands that raise the ground water table and allow the
adjacent wetlands to act as a sponge - absorbing flood waters
and slowly releasing ground water - creating a more resilient
system. This project uses beaver dam analogues (BDAs), which are
structures designed to create similar hydrologic impacts as natural
beaver dams.
The existing streams proposed for restoration utilizing BDA features
are poor quality ecosystems, with degraded channel and riparian
functions. This manifests as homogenous stream bed structures,
poorly established or absent woody plant buffer, and underutilized
capacity for floodwater retention and attenuation. We expect the
introduction of these BDA features to reduce slope gradient
thereby reducing sediment transport capacity, diversifying bed
sediments, and increasing ground water recharge. Enhanced flood
storage capacity will be achieved by creating a highly accessible

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 6
and topographically diverse floodplain, resulting in flattening and
elongation of storm hydrographs. Through these fluvial processes,
BDA features will create a heterogenous stream -wetland complex.
Fluctuating surface water and groundwater levels within the
wetland complex will promote nutrient transformation and
assimilation, consequently improving freshwater habitat conditions
in the project area.
The native trees, shrubs, grasses, and herbaceous perennials
planted around this wetland complex also contribute to water
quality improvement in several ways. vegetation decreases erosion
by adding "roughness" that slows water velocity, and holding soil in
place with deep, networked root systems. Additionally, many types
of pollutants are taken up and absorbed by plants, reducing their
occurrence in waterways.
2.2 Provide forage and shelter for wildlife
Beaver dam -formed wetlands provide habitat for many species of
birds, mammals, amphibians, and insects. Microtopography around
the BDA structures will support a range of emergent species in
shallow water areas and riparian species along the banks and on
small hummocks that are crucial for bird nesting. The assemblage of
plants selected for the BDA wetland complex provide an array of
forage, blooming at different times of the year and serving
different life stages of pollinator insect species. The shelter that
these plants will offer comes in the form of hollow stemmed
grasses perfect for encasing larval pollinators and dense
undergrowth offering protection for ground nesting birds. In an
experiment observing ecological productivity of agricultural
hedgerows in the Mid -Atlantic region of the United States,
researchers found that hedgerows consisting of non-native plants
had 90% fewer caterpillars than their ecologically productive native
plant counterparts (Richard et al. 2018). Given that most bird
species are insectivorous at birth, one can imagine how the
presence or absence of flourishing invertebrate communities
impacts the availability of suitable nursery environments for avian
life.

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 7
Lawn habitat —1—
Meadow habitat
k.R
r F f
1
Figure 1. The diagram above demonstrates the comparative
ecological productivity (as measured by species interactions) of
diverse native landscapes as compared to monocultures of close -
cropped grasses. (Image: Sturm & Frischie (2020))
2.3 Provide beautiful and inspiring scenery
We have evolved to appreciate the gestalt presented by a well -
functioning ecosystem.
gestalt.- an organized whole that is perceived as more than the
sum of its parts.
On the whole, it is the ecological functioning of the stream -wetland
complex and associated vegetation that will make these stream -
wetland complex systems beautiful and inspiring. However, some
aesthetic components of the site maintenance will neither diminish
nor enhance the ecological functions discussed above. For example,
pruning trees for pedestrian safety and appearance in addition to
health, choosing plants that have more charismatic flowers even if
the pollinator benefits are the same, and planting in legible species
clusters so that the eye can register patterns even though
pollinators show no preference. Maintenance for aesthetic design
will never take priority over ecological function, but it will enhance
the visitor experience at SOWE. Joan Nassauer's essay, Messy
Ecosystems, Orderly Frames offers some strategies that can be
employed at SOWE to show what she terms "cues to care" in the
landscape. Two example cues to care that could help people
appreciate landscape at SOWS are:
• Maintaining neat edges by mowing a narrow strip between
the edge of the riparian vegetation zones and pedestrian
paths.

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 8
Incorporating suitable native plants with large, showy flowers
or foliage instead of using only plants with clusters of small
flowers. Plants with diminutive flows are often perceived as
weedy, and it is often easy to find showier native plants that
fill the same ecological niche.
3. MONITORING
It will be essential to monitor this novel ecosystem before
establishment and through development for management and
maintenance decisions. While regulatory requirements for BDA style
restoration are not currently codified, we are proposing a rigorous
monitoring regime to ensure onsite and downstream water quality
protections. This monitoring is recommended to document the
ongoing success of this milestone ecological restoration project
and to ensure that the project is meeting intended goals.
3.1 BDA Weir Inspections
If a beaver colony existed at this site, the BDA features would be in
a constant state of structural maintenance. Beavers would be
stacking stones, pressing mud, and weaving branches to ensure
that the pools sustained depths sufficient for refuge. However,
beavers are not expected to inhabit these features in the near
future. Therefore:
The pools and the entire linear length of the BDA weir will be visually
inspected after every storm event which exceeds 1.5 inches in 24
hours. Overflow areas along the BDA weir will be noted and
inspected for erosion after the water level drops.
Reporting for these efforts will include field reports and
photographs.
3.2 Hydrologic Monitoring
Hydrologic monitoring will include continuous monitoring of rainfall,
barometric pressure, and air temperature. Hydrologic monitoring will
be evaluated to inform the SOWE's decisions for adapting the
riparian, wetland, and open water areas towards the design goals.

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 9
3.3 Hydraulic Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring wells and surface water monitoring gages
will be recorded continuously. These will be installed to evaluate
fluctuations and direction of flow between the BDA pools and the
adjacent uplands. Groundwater levels will be evaluated to inform
SOWE's decisions for adapting the riparian areas.
Reporting for these gages will be a sub -hour time series that show
relative elevations and accurately depict storm event hydrographs.
3.4 Alignment and Texture Mapping
Annual aerial photographs will document the fluctuation in water
flow paths through repeated inundation and drying cycles. The use
of a drone aircraft will assist in documenting the aerial view of the
site under varying hydrologic conditions. Alternatively, publicly
available aerial imagery can be utilized to document changes over
time.
Reporting for these efforts will be annual maps that show changes
in the channel alignment and clearly depict areas with an
anabranched pattern.
Annual texture mapping will be conducted to quantify roughness
characteristics in the channel and floodplain. Texture Mapping that
incorporates and quantifies all roughness features (e.g. vegetation,
bedforms, grain roughness, etc.) will be accomplished discretizing
areas by type and then quantifying the roughness of each feature.
For example, gravel bars will be measured using the Wolman Pebble
Count, and bedforms such as sand dunes will be measured directly.
Reporting for these efforts will be annual polygon -based GIS maps
that show changes in surface texture.
3.5 Sediment Mapping
Annual longitudinal profile surveys will be performed across each in -
channel BDA to evaluate scour, deposition, and crest elevations.
Annual cross section surveys will be performed along select pools,
upstream of BDA structures. The cross -sections will be
monumented with permanent capped rebar pins on each bank to
serve as a spatially referenced control. The cross-section surveys
will be repeated annually using a laser -level, reel tape, and stadia

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 10
rod. Photographs of each cross section facing upstream and
downstream will be taken on the day of monitoring. The location of
these control pins will be recorded with a sub -meter accuracy
Global Positioning System (GPS) device. Stream surveys will follow
the methodology contained in the USDA forest service manual
"Stream Channel Reference Sites" (Harrelson, et al 1994).
Reporting for these efforts will be to quantify sediment
accumulation / erosion and observe long-term trends in aggradation
or degradation of the system.
3.6 Wood Monitoring
Annual mapping of large woody debris, snags, and rack -lines will be
performed. Appropriate methods for these efforts include
WOODDAM and LWDI.
Reporting for these efforts will include an annual GIS map showing
large debris and snags, along with the reports from the selected
wood quantification method.
3.7 Physiochemical Monitoring
Water temperature will be collected continuously and evaluated
twice per year. Temperature measurements can be recorded
continuously using HOBO "Pendant" MX Water Temperature Data
Loggers.
Other physicochemical samples will be collected annually. This
monitoring will consist of turbidity, conductivity, pH, dissolved
oxygen, and dissolved nutrients. Physicochemical monitoring
stations will be established at the outlet of each BDA complex.
Samples will be sent to PACE Analytical Laboratory for analysis.
Baseline samples will be collected before creation of the BDA
features. This information, along with state standards, will be used
to evaluate the physiochemical affects that the BDA stream -
wetland complex imposes on the receiving waters.
Reporting for these efforts will be an annual report that quantifies
temperature and other physiochemical affects to downstream
waterways.
3.8 vegetation Monitoring

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 11
Vegetation monitoring will consist of plots along transects spanning
from the deep pool to the upper edge of the upper riparian zone.
The vegetation plots will utilize methods established by the Carolina
Vegetation Survey-EEP Level 3 Protocol (Lee et al., 2008). Level 3
plots document the overall abundance and of leaf area cover of the
more common species in a plot. Cover is estimated for all plant
species exceeding a specified lower level (typically 5% cover);
species present but with cover lower than the cut-off may be
ignored. In these plots, natural and planted woody stems are
recorded by size class and vigor. These plots allow an accurate and
rapid assessment of the overall trajectory of woody -plant
restoration and regeneration on a site. The information collected
meets the Ecological Society of America (ESA) guidelines and
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) standards for plots
used to classify vegetation to an association within the U.S.
National Vegetation Classification (NVC). Plots shall be established
as shown in the appendix. Assessments will begin being conducted
after construction.
3.9 Invasive Species Monitoring
Seven invasive species have been identified for monitoring and
targeted control, and the appendix of this manual helps with
identification of these species. Care should be taken to note the
presence of these species in the vegetation plots and calculate the
percent invasive cover for each plot. This list is not exhaustive, but
it should serve as a small, targeted list highlighting the most
immediate threats of colonization by exotic invasives while the
focal plant species populations establish. The seven target invasive
species (described further in the appendix) include:
• Royal paulownia (Pau/ownia tomentosa)
• Asian bittersweet (Celastrus orbiculata)
• Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense)
• M u I t i f I o r a rose (Rosa multiflora)
• ,Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii)
• Autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellata)
• Goat willow (Salix caprea)
In addition to the above, these species are a serious problem in the
North Carolina mountains region and should be monitored:
• Tree of Heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
• ,Japanese Meadowsweet (Spiraea japonica)
• ,Japanese Knotweed (Polygonum cuspidatum)
• Chinese Yam (Dioscorea polystachya)

• Chinese Silvergrass (Miscanthus sinensis)
• Coltsfoot (Tussilago farafara)
• Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum)
• Garlic Mustard (Aillaria petiolatq)
• Mimosa (Albizia julibrissin)
4. ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT
In general, this management regime has the goal of maintaining or
improving post -construction site conditions over baseline
conditions, thereby restoring or enhancing the ecosystem. The
following sections outline adaptive strategies that aim to maintain
or enhance the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of
surface waters, both on -site and off -site (downstream).
4.1 BDA Weirs
Erosion and degradation of the BDA weirs is expected. If the in -
channel portions of the BDA are found to be eroded, or
"shortened," they will be refreshed by hand in accordance with
engineering plans using similar materials (e.g. stone grain size) to
rebuild the feature. No large equipment (e.g. track hoes or mini
excavators) shall be used below the ordinary high water mark.
If the in-floodplain portions of the BDA weir are found to be eroded
or degraded, they can be rebuilt in accordance with the engineering
plans using similar materials. Live stakes or other hardy vegetation
will aid in "roughening" and "reinforcing" areas that tend to
degrade. No large equipment (e.g. track hoes or mini excavators)
shall be used below the ordinary high water mark.
4.2 Vegetation Performance
Groundwater and surface water will be evaluated alongside
performance of vegetation. SOWE will assess the need to adjust the
planting plan and propagate species upslope or downslope based
on the data.
4.3 Temperature Performance
Temperature impacts are not expected to create any deleterious
effects downstream. However, if temperature spikes are observed,
shade -provisioning vegetation can be installed in areas that are
accepting solar radiation.

BDA O&M Plan // School of Wholeness and Enlightenment // Page 13
5. REPORT PREPARATION AND SUBMITTAL
The applicant will prepare three (3) annual monitoring reports
beginning post construction (anticipated in 2022) and spanning
through 2025. The annual monitoring summary will indicate any
project components that may require repair or maintenance. The
reports will be submitted by December 31 of each year to USACE
and DWR.
REFERENCES
Davis, J.C., G.W. Minshall, C.T. Robinson, and P. Landres, 2001. Large Woody Debris. In Monitoring
Wilderness Stream Ecosystems. General Technical Report RMRS-
GTR-70, pp. 73-77. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, Colorado.
Harman, W.A., T.B. Barrett, C.J. Jones, A. James, and H.M. Peel. 2017. Application of the Large
Woody Debris Index: A Field User Manual Version 1. Stream Mechanics
and Ecosystem Planning & Restoration, Raleigh, N.C.
Harrelson, C.C., Rawlins, C.L., and Potyondy, 1994. Stream Channel Reference Sites: an
illustrated guide to field technique. Rep. RM-245. Fort Collins, CO:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain
Forest and Range Experiment Station. 61 p.
Lee, M. T., Peet, R. K., Roberts, S. D., and Wentworth, T. R. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation: All Levels of Plot Sampling, Version 4.2.
Nassauer, J. 1995. Messy Ecosystems, Orderly Frames. Landscape dournal14 (2): 161-170.
Richard, M., Tallamy, D.W. & Mitchell, A.B. 2018. Introduced plants reduce species
interactions. Biollnvasions 21: 983-992.
Sturm, A. and Frischie, S. Mid -Atlantic Native Meadows: Guidelines for Planning, Preparation,
Design, Installation, and Maintenance. Mahan Rykiel Associates and
Xerces Society.

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Temperature Measurement Locations
LEGEND
TBSA ExLsnNc wETaNas
TBSB �, E%LSnNGBTFEAMCENTElUNE
/ E%LSnNG CONTOUF
'— PPOPOBEDCONTOUF
PRO POSEDBDA
Nwx POTENTIAL
INUNDATION EXTENTS
PROPOSED
e e 1 ....... IMPERMEABLE MATERIAL
PROPOSED WALKING PATH
IK
�s I
f
T
Na
m
\ B1

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Plots
TB 1 eliminated from
f- the Project Design

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Transects
TB5 Plots
—�::LJ
`'
- -+ TB 6 eliminated from
' the Project Design

Appendix A: Monitoring Maps
Vegetation Monitoring Transects
HB4 Plots E)

Appendix B: Target Invasive Species
Japanese barberry (Berberis thunbergii) Asian bittersweet (Ceiastrus orbicuiata)
Creamy white
flowers appear in
Spring. Spines are
present along the
stem.
'..
. .
A�
r 1
The bright red
C. orbculata in flower
berries of B.
- After flowering,
thunbergii persist
orange -yellow
through winter.
capsules appear.
Autumn olive (Eiaeagnus umbeiiata)
White to pale yellow,
fragrant flowers
form in early summer.
Leaves are alternate.
E. umbellata fruits
are brown to red
with brown to silvery
specks.
Royal paulownia (Pau/ownia tomentosa)
P. tomentosa
flowering structure
J
P. tomentosa leaves
grow in an opposite
leaf arrangement in
sets of two.
a A XkzQrIkW f�l�
C. orbculata's red
berries appear in late
fall to winter.
Chinese Privet (Ligustrum sinense)
L. sinense has
white flowers and
an opposite leaf
arrangement.
Berries of L. sinense
are green in summer
and turn dark blue by
late fall.
Multiflora rose (Rosa muitifiora)
R. multiflora has
white flowers. The
leaves are alternate
compound, and
leaflets are arranged
opposite one
another.
Red fruits form at
the end of summer.

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

Attachment C
Beaver Dam Analog Planting Plan

d
�o 0
4
>
�w
00 1
Z Z
a�oo
0
0 op
l0'1-101213d3213NI1HOIVW
Z;O L-16i'2IIJI2l INI1HOIVW

o
Lu
Z-21
-
CLLJ
w w d F: mom r °
g a n W
Opp �QQ s ZO w V3
0 o a it U m
X.b 0
i10' 1-101213d3213NIlHO1VW
l0'1-101213d3213NIlHO1VW O
i U
o
oa o o z
o boo o
wZ
v qp
wQ
°v d
b
Z4
°o°gvo _
/ O
T
0
1 N
'W
°°y v
°vP °
E
4
av^
----_4°°
-------------
----
zm -------------
m
°
°
vv
°
vv
v
°
vvv a
°av vE,
-
vv
--_ _ -----
z�
------------
-------
------------
-------------
-- LU
LL
o0000000 v vo _
W e>`
co
� a rn
LL
a
--- - , - ----- --_�-
=-_
_ -- 711
_-: -

o
wa
o m
IZ�Zw-21
-
H/
H mLu
o C9
Q
_ I
i _
---- ------ --- ",__ -- — ,
_------
_________
Ln--------
-- -----------------
-------------
�ry
---------------
_______--
-------------
---------
,
—�
� ;' I; ,
---------------------------------------_--
��
—
N�
----------- --------------------
----�
>
<<a<aa<a<aaaaaaa>a<<aa<aaaaa<aaaa<
a�
-------------
_
„--
a�aa —
sa as a <
--
--
--- -----
do
a4o- a:aao- aaaaaaa
C: o
� L
i a°a°ao o
------------------- ----- - --
-
-------- =
----
-- - --- -
- --- -
-- _' __' '
-- -_
-------
----
-------- —
.,:�.. o 0

o
pg W �e o -
wo
a wa= �QQ
0 o a afd
--- _ _ _ ,,, -------2020'-----
, ----- _ ---- �'i r ' ��------- e-----
i�, 1 ���� I' I m-
- ------ 5
-- — -- -
=--- zo
----------0 a
_ Z
/ --------------- VJ Q
i
1 _ ___---- ----- _
----_-
- -
> _ _
_ ___
_
" -- ------------------
--- "� - -' _-- -- -"— _----- ---- -- O — -
- - -'9 -" ,066 C---- ----------- — - - O O O , o o " -
90 - _
;__— _-_-----____ -- _ -----
-------------------
__
_
---
fn
�o�o ogvo ao� °
g°
o as
m
o� �o
AAA000
`
i

o
�_�
Po
z
z
=
O
�`
o-
ZJ
z
� a
�ww
LLI
m
N
a
o
o
n Q=H�
Duo-
_j
�QQ
IIJs
_ w-
Q
>LL>
doo
ooa§go
0C,
w =
-
w o00 O
o
Wo®Ooo a0o®
U
U
Z
_
Q
00
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
N O
O - w
O
O - w
�tOo®
O
S t -
Q
Q Um
S Q
U � D
OU
O�
dQ
S-
QUQ�US U
�D�jOd�o=Q
Q URoUO�OOQ
Q QQ,<=o 0
�UUd-w0'z
O
�0
Q �

Attachment D
Riparian Buffer Plan

bo
\ -
�� ., \\�: :
o\\\ \ /
\� \\\\ D\< \
z > > : }} z t ()(((- {
� 2� z� �
o ww » »
§z �/ /ezz
o L ALL LL
LLI z! zLLU
E COD��
F z] ;cow/�§
z )§§03§z/3
(�§k§LLJIL D
LLIwzwuw:R
« ?^ \ \
} �
~�:
I
_ | §
} i
2 cc[ \ - ( :
) _ - i § - )� _
LU
| :
: <

Attachment E
Culvert installation details
Mercer Design Group (MDG)

SlIV130 IU3mno M33UO
Ann
7(D
0!W-MNQ
Mg 'g M
19
I H. 0
�
1111 Ilk H
111 '! I
W, p? 1441
Haloyl gee 11
IM Nil 11,1111H
Ell H ft a6n "'M
z 0
00
en < w
LU
Lw ei u
'0 w e!
a. Z
zN
oz
MI Id HIM, IN I z _7z A Et -Z'
M 0 �
w 0
z
0
z 0
n 0 19 0
0 zo�a
LU
—� --t, — I I kift�LNU
t t
z
ui
0
121 all.
U)
o
-------- ----
4/6
a > Mg
MR
2
P �o
08
zg
10
L I

Attachment F
Hopewell Branch — On -site Conceptual Mitigation Plan

ON 'AIm0o9pA
%
§A■ « -
sw m:� ma
:*1snb _ aiVG
;ideouoo
_ : as;
idg� 00 ABdd okBBgmnA
$I / _
OIC03
m : /

Attachment G
North Carolina Stream and Wetland Assessment Methods
Data Sheets

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.860324-1-82.726869
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S1 Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
® ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ®Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
®E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
®A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ❑A ®A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ®C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
❑C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Ma3 Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.861160-1-82.726314
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S1 Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
® ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
® ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
® ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
® ❑Tipulid larvae
® ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
®D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Ma3 Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.861437-1-82.726039
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
®A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ®B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ❑Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ®Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ®Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ® Sal amanders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
®B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ®D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Mal Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.861457-1-82.726317
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S7 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ®Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ®B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
®A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y U)C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ®Yes ❑No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
® ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
❑ ®Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ®B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
❑Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ON ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
®C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ®D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: ❑
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Mal Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
MEDIUM
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
LOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
ClearWater Environmental
Assessor name/organization: Consultants
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.8626128°N; 82.7316342°W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S8 Reach 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
® ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
® ❑Other fish
® ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
® ❑Snails
® ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
® ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ®Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ❑N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ®A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ®B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
®A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Mal Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
ClearWater Environmental
Assessor name/organization: Consultants
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Thomas Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.8638802°N 82.7305856°W
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S8 Reach 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 0.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
❑A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
®B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
®A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
®J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ❑Yes ®No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) M ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o 2 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y r ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ❑Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑ ®Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
❑ ®Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
❑ ®Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ®Other fish
❑ ® Sal amanders/tadpoles
❑ ❑Snails
❑ ®Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
®A ®A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ❑C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ON
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
®E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
❑D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
OF None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
®B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
❑C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
®A ®A ®A
®A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
❑B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ❑C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
®B ®B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
❑C ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
®C ®C ®C ®C ®C ®C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
®B ®B Low stem density
❑C ❑C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
®B ®B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft INC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Ma2 Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(4) Channel Stability
HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
HIGH
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
HIGH
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
HIGH
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Stream -side Habitat
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle,
and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property, identify and
number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for detailed descriptions
and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE 2. Date of evaluation: June 22, 2020
3. Applicant/owner name
5. County:
7. River basin:
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Madison
French Broad 06010105
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Branch
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): S18 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 100
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ® Mountains (M) ❑ Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ®A\ J ❑B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
❑A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
®B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
®B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area, leaky
or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ®C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision, disruption
of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples: impoundments, intensive
mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a man-made feature on an
interstream divide
Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
❑A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
❑B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes/Sketch"
section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
®I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses F, W ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) 2 E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y U)C ❑I Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E Little or no habitat
***************************** 'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
®A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
®B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
❑C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ® ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
® ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. ❑Yes ®No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)

12. Aquatic Life — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ®Yes ❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ❑No Water ❑Other:
12b. ®Yes ❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑ ❑Adult frogs
❑ ❑Aquatic reptiles
❑ ❑Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
❑ ®Beetles
❑ ®Caddisfly larvae (T)
❑ ❑Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑ ❑Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
® ❑Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑ ❑Dipterans
® ❑Mayfly larvae (E)
❑ ❑Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑ ®Midges/mosquito larvae
® ❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑ ❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑ ❑Other fish
❑ ❑ Sal amanders/tadpoles
® ❑Snails
❑ ❑Stonefly larvae (P)
❑ ❑Tipulid larvae
❑ ®Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
®B ❑B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
❑C ®C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®C ®C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
®Y ❑Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
❑N ®N
16. Baseflow Contributors — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
®A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction passing flow during low -flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom -release dam, weir)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
❑F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
❑A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
❑B Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
®D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
❑E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
❑F None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
®C Stream shading is gone or largely absent

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB
RB
❑A ❑A ❑A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
®B ❑B ❑B
❑B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C ®C ❑C
❑C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
❑D ❑D ❑D
❑D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E ❑E ®E
®E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A
Mature forest
❑B ❑B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
®C ®C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Medium to high stem density
❑B ❑B Low stem density
®C ®C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
®A ®A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B ❑B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C ❑C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B ❑B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
®C ®C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity —assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes ®No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. ❑No Water ®Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Mulberry Gap Farm / SoWE Date of Assessment
June 22, 2020
Stream Category Ma3 Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
LOW
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
MEDIUM
(4) Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user ivianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mulberry Gap Farm /SoWE
Date of Evaluation
6/22/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Wetland Site Name
W6
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Level III Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Nearest Named Water Body
Thomas Branch
River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
06010105
County
Madison
NCDWR Region
Asheville
F— Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.8612871 °N 82.7255610°W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ®A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
®B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
®A
®A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
®A 0
❑B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
®C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
®B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
CU ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
1E ❑B
❑B
shrub
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbankflow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W6
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Date of Assessment 6/22/2020
ClearWater
Assessor Name/Organization Environmental
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function Sub -function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
LOW
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Vegetation Composition
Condition
LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies user ivianuai version om
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Mulberry Gap Farm /SoWE
Date of Evaluation
6/22/2020
Applicant/Owner Name
Mulberry Farm - Madison LLC
Wetland Site Name
W47
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
ClearWater Environmental
Consultants
Level III Ecoregion
Blue Ridge Mountains
Nearest Named Water Body
Hopewell Branch
River Basin
French Broad
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
06010105
County
Madison
NCDWR Region
Asheville
F-1 Yes N No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
35.8629489°N 82.7314669°W
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
® Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ®A Sandy soil
❑B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ❑A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
®B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
Discharge into Wetland — opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub -surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples
of sub -surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank (UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
Land Use — opportunity metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10% impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_ 20% coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F ❑F >_ 20% coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer —assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
®C From 15 to < 30 feet
❑D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
®F ®F From 15 to < 30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F ❑F From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
®A
®A
>_ 500 acres
❑B
❑B
From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C
❑C
From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D
❑D
From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E
❑E
< 10 acres
❑F
❑F
Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
®A 0
❑B 1 to 4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes ❑No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non -marsh wetlands.
®A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
o ❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ®B ®B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B
❑B
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C
®C
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
❑A
❑A
Dense shrub layer
Moderate density layer
1E ❑B
❑B
shrub
U) ®C
®C
Shrub layer sparse or absent
-0 ®A
®A
Dense herb layer
_ ❑B
❑B
Moderate density herb layer
❑C
❑C
Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B Not
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbankflow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W47 Date of Assessment
6/22/2020
ClearWater
Environmental
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization
Consultants
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N)
NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N)
YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N)
NO
Sub -function Rating Summary
Function Sub -function Metrics
Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition
MEDIUM
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention Condition
HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure
Condition
MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure
Condition
HIGH
Veqetation Composition
Condition
MEDIUM
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

Attachment H
RDE Response to NCWRC Comments

Robinson
Design
Engineers
November 3, 2021
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
645 Fish Hatchery Rd., Building B
Marion, NC 28752
[e-mail]
CC: Kevin Davis (Lehrer Cumming)
Joel Osgood (OLA)
Clement Riddle (Clearwater)
Subject: Mulberry Gap Farms - response to NCWRC comments
Andrea,
On September 1st you emailed Clement Riddle with NCWRC's comments and
recommendations regarding the proposed BDA-induced stream -wetland complex. I have
listed these comments here and responded to each.
1 - There is not a clear difference between pool habitat and deep marsh, as
described. Pool habitat would be >=3 ft in depth and deep marsh would be 2-5 ft in
depth. These definitions overlap.
The difference between Deep Pool and Deep Marsh/Submergent Zone is that under
expected typical conditions, the Deep Pool Zone will be 5-7' deep while the Deep
Marsh/Submergent Zone will be 2-5' deep. The description of the Deep Pool as >= 3' deep
means that we expect the depth to be as low as 3' in depth during drought conditions.
For the Deep Pool/ Submergent Zone, the drought condition would be 0' in depth.
Drought condition was defined as 2' below typical level.
2 - What is the maximum depth of the deep pool zone?
The maximum depth during expected typical conditions would be 7'. However, during
storm conditions, which we defined as 1' above typical water level, the depth could be as
much as 8'. There are only very small areas that would actually be this deep. Typical
depths in the Deep Pool Zone for TB2 and TB3a&b are designed to be only 5-6' (as
opposed to 5-7' for TB4a&b), and TBSa&b do not have a Deep Pool Zone.
3 - The plant list needs to be Modified:
3a - Deep Marsh is also defined as supporting submergent plants. Given the range
of depths for this zone, we are wondering what native plants would thrive here. The
129 31d Avenue West, Hendersonville, NC 28792 11 robinsondesignengineers.com

Dist provided on plan sheet L-2.00 for that zone is a list of species that would survive
in standing water for a long period but in inches, not feet of water.
We have changed the planting lists (see C805 in engineering plans) so that we will no
longer be planting in the Deep Marsh/ Submergent Zone because we had the same
concern when reviewing our plans. Some aquatic plants such as Nympheo odorotowould
thrive in this zone, but on the advice of our peer reviewer Kevin Caldwell, we decided
against including these. Kevin reasoned that these might take over the area and
deplete oxygen levels, and that they will likely be brought in by waterfowl over time
anyway.
The newly created Zone D (BDA Zone) on Sheet C805 is not to be confused with the old
Zone D (Deep Marsh/submergent Zone). This zone is specific to the BDA structure.
3b - Shallow marsh is defined as 0-2 ft in depth and supporting submergent plants.
Again there are problems with the plant list provided on L-2.00. These plants cannot
survive if inundated for more than several days. It's a nice list, but it would do best
on the fringes of the area that would see inundation.
We have adapted the list of plants that would be in the Shallow Marsh / Emergent Zone
(see Sheet C805). The plant lists now includes more plants that can tolerate growing in
shallow water, and that fit into the plant communities that reviewer Kevin Caldwell
advised. We understand that the ability of these plants to grow in the deeper areas of
this zone is questionable. For this reason, we will do a phased planting for this zone
(Zone C - Shallow Marsh/Emergent Zone). The upper bound of the zone will be planted
along with the other zones, but the lower bound will be planted at a later date only if the
water levels are lower than expected.
3c - There are no aquatic plants included (although Nymphea odorata is included as
an alternate on L-2.00). Given the depths expected, this suite of plants should be
included in the planting list.
Aquatic plants such as Nympheo odoratowould thrive in one of two zones, but on the
advice of our peer reviewer Kevin Caldwell, we decided against including these. Kevin
reasoned that aquatic plants might take over the area and deplete oxygen levels, and
that they will likely be brought in by waterfowl over time anyway.
3d - L-2.00 has a note that "alternative and similar native plant species" may be
used. We recommend that this plant list be hammered out with review by agencies.
If substitutions are needed after the fact, they should be vetted with agencies.
Our updated plant lists will not include this note allowing unchecked substitutions.
Necessary substitutions will be properly vetted and they will abide by the plant list of
appropriate species by plant community provided by Kevin Caldwell.
4 - Given the depths of water that are proposed, we are concerned about the risk of
invasion of non-native invasive plants and animals in the BDA impoundments. These
may come in with nursery stock (which is common when planting aquatic plants
sourced from nurseries that have issues with non-native invasives, such as exotic
snails, mosquito fish, etc.) or in other ways. The maintenance/monitoring plan should
include surveys for and removal of non -natives.
20310.Memo.211103.docx 2 of 3

Now that we have largely excluded aquatic plants from the planting list, we expect this
to be less of an issue. However, the Operations and Maintenance will be updated to
include surveys for and removal of non-native aquatic animals in addition to the
attention to non-native plants.
4 - We recommend including some sort of time -frame for the vegetation monitoring.
We are changing the vegetation monitoring section of the Operations and Maintenance
Manual to reflect Kevin Caldwell's comments. Rather than CVS plots as a basis for
monitoring, we will be using line-transect sampling. The timeframe for vegetation
monitoring will be specified as 7 years.
5 - It is clear that there will be extensive grading done for TB4A. Can you describe
the extent of grading to be done for other BDA features?
The grading plan has been updated to remove TB1 and TBb from the plans, reducing the
overall impact of grading. All other areas will be fine graded according to the Predicted
Depth Maps. Grading activities will not encroach into the channel bottoms. Instead, the
banks are being graded to allow for wider floodplains.
Please feel free to reach out to me with additional questions or concerns.
Sincerely,
Philip Ellis, MS, PE
Robinson Design Engineers
20310.Memo.211103.docx 3 of 3

Attachment I
Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool (BRAT)
References

BRAT References
Macfarlane, W., Meier, M., Hafen, C., Albonico, M., Hallerud, M., & Wheaton, J. (2019). John Day Basin
Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: Building Realistic Expectations for Partnering with
Beaver in Restoration & Conservation (p. 85). Logan, Utah: Utah State University
Ecogeomorphology & Topographic Analysis Lab, Prepared for North Fork John Day
Watershed Council. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.29252.27520
Macfarlane, W. W., Hallerud, M., Hafen, C., Albonico, M., & Wheaton, J. M. (2019). Panther Creek Beaver
Restoration Assessment Tool Building Realistic Expectations for Partnering with Beaver in
Restoration & Conservation. DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.28413.41445
Macfarlane, W. W., Meier, M., Hafen, C., Albonico, M., & Wheaton, J. M. (2019). North Fork Brunt River BRAT
Final Report (p. 80). Logan, Utah: Utah State University Ecogeomorphology & Topographic
Analysis Lab, Prepared for: Powder Basin Watershed Council. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.25057.97128
Macfarlane, W. W., Wheaton, J. M., & Jensen, Martha L. (2014). The Utah Beaver Restoration Assessment
Tool: A Decision Support & Planning Tool (p. 142). Logan, Utah: Utah State University
Ecogeomorphology & Topographic Analysis Lab, Prepared for Utah Division of Wildlife
Resources. Retrieved from
https://www. researchgate. net/publication/267096045_The_ Utah_ Beaver_Restoration_Asses
sment_Tool_A_Decision_Support_Planning -Tool
Macfarlane, W. W., & Wheaton, J. M. (2013). Modeling the Capacity of Riverscapes to Support Dam -
Building Beaver -Case Study: Escalante River Watershed (p. 31). Logan, UT:
Ecogeomorphology and Topographic Analysis Lab, Utah State University, Prepared for
Walton Family Foundation.
Macfarlane, William W., Gilbert, J. T., Meier, Mathew, Hafen, Chalese, Shahverdian, Scott M., Albonico, M.,
& Wheaton, J. M. (2018). Yakama Nation Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool:
Building Realistic Expectations for Partnering with Beaver in Restoration and Conservation
(p. 68). Logan, UT: Utah State University Ecogeomorphology & Topographic Analysis Lab,
Prepared for Yakama Nations. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25896.83203
Wally Macfarlane, Maggie H. (2019). Idaho Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: Building Realistic
Expectations for Partnering with Beaver in Conservation and Restoration (p. 55). Logan,
Utah: Utah State University Ecogeomorphology & Topographic Analysis Lab.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.12641.25447
Wheaton, J., & Macfarlane, W. (2014). The Utah Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: A Decision Support
and Planning Tool - Manager Brief (p. 16). Logan, Utah: Ecogeomorphology and Topographic
Analysis Lab, Utah State University, Prepared for Utah Division of Wildlife Resources.
BRAT - Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool." ResearchGate,
https://www. researchgate. net/project/BRAT-Beaver-Restoration-Assessment-Tool.
Accessed 22 Feb. 2020.
Macfarlane W.W., Wheaton J.M., and Jensen, M.L. 2014. The Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: A
Decision Support and Planning Tool for Utah. Ecogeomorphology and Topographic Analysis
Lab, Utah State University, Prepared for Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Logan, Utah, 135
pp•
Wheaton JM and Macfarlane WW. 2014. The Utah Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: A Decision
Support & Planning Tool - Manager Brief, Ecogeomorphology and Topographic Analysis Lab,
Utah State University, Prepared for Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Logan, UT, 16 pp.
Macfarlane WW and Wheaton JM. 2013. Modeling the Capacity of Riverscapes to Support Dam -Building
Beaver - Case Study: Escalante River Watershed, Final Report Prepared for Grand Canyon
Trust and the Walton Family Foundation, Logan, UT, 78 pp.
Wheaton JM. 2013. Scoping Study and Recommendations for an Adaptive Beaver Management Plan.
Prepared for Park City Municipal Corporation. Logan, Utah, 30 pp.
DOI:10.6084/m9.figshare.903648.
Macfarlane W.W., Wheaton J.M., and Jensen, M.L. 2014. The Beaver Restoration Assessment Tool: A
Decision Support & Planning Tool for Utah. Ecogeomorphology and Topographic Analysis Lab,
Utah State University, Prepared for Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, Logan, Utah, 72 pp.
Macfarlane WW and Wheaton J.M. 2013. Modeling the Capacity of Riverscapes to Support Dam -Building
Beaver - Case Study: Escalante River Watershed, Final Report Prepared for Grand Canyon
Trust and the Walton Family Foundation, Logan, UT, 78 pp.
Stoll N-L. 2019. Beaver Dam Capacity in the Canadian Boreal Plains Ecozone: An Analysis of Riding
Mountain National Park, PhD Thesis, University of Saskatchewan.
Suplick S. 2019. Beaver (Castor Canadensis) of the Salinas River: A Human Dimensions -Inclusive Overview
for Assessing Landscape -Scale Beaver -Assisted Restoration Opportunities, B.S. Thesis,
California Polytechnic State University: San Louis Obispo, California.
20310.Memo-NCDEQ.211105.docx 6 of 6