20221254 Ver 1_SAW-2022-00529_Davis Cove_Prospectus_RS LLC French Broad 05 UMBI__20221101

ID#* 20221254
Select Reviewer:
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 11/03/2022
Mitigation Project Submittal - 11/1/2022
Version* 1
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?*
Type of Mitigation Project:*
Stream Wetlands Buffer Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Raymond Holz
Project Information
ID#:* 20221254
Existing ID#
Project Type: DMS • Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Davis Cove Mitigation Site
County: Madison
Document Information
O Yes O No
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:* 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigaton Bank Prospectus
File Upload: SAW-2022-00529 Davis Cove Prospectus_RS LLC
14.04MB
French Broad 05 UMBI_.pdf
Please upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name: * Raymond Holz
Signature: *

FRENCH BROAD 05 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK

PROSPECTUS

Sponsored by:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS LLC

Prepared for:
The North Carolina Inter-Agency Review Team;
for distribution and comment

Sponsored by: Prepared by:
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.

POC: Raymond Holz POC: Grant Lewis
Ph: 919-755-9490 Ph: 919-215-1693
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

September 2022

Restoration Systems, LLC
1101 Haynes St. Suite 211
Raleigh, North Carolina
Ph: [phone]
Fx: [phone]
RS French Broad 05 UMBI – Prospectus Site Visit and Response
Gentry Branch, SAW-2022-00528
Davis Cove, SAW-2022-00529
Sliding Knob, SAW-2022-00530
On July 12 and 13, 2022, site visits were conducted to review the proposed Phase 1 Bank Parcels of the Restoration
Systems French Broad 05 UMBI Draft Prospectus: Davis Cove (July 12), Gentry Branch (July 13), and Sliding Knob (July
13). Each Bank Parcel (Site\[s\]) was introduced and discussed using figures and narrative from the Draft Prospectus,
and then walked each Site to review the proposed mitighation approaches. A list of general comments for all Sites
along with Site specific comments is included below.
Attendees:
USACE – Steve Kichefski and Todd Tugwell
DWR – Erin Davis
NCWRC – Andrea Leslie and Dave McHenry
Restoration Systems – Alex Baldwin and J.D. Hamby
General Comments for all Sites:
1.Check with Landowners about adjacent future land use plans including timber management plans.
Added to 4.2 “Landowners will be consulted about adjacent future land use plans, including timber
management.”
2.Note preservation reaches are not eligible for wider buffer tool, use 2012 stream preservation guidelines
to justify appropriate mitigation ratios.
Noted
3.If additional assets and/or expanded conservation easements are to be sought include them in the final
prospectus so they can be evaluated during the public comment period.
A PJD field visit was conducted, and assets have been added to figures & documents. Easements have been
expanded and included on figures.
4.Expand buffers in preservation areas beyond minimum to at least 75-ft and capture the existing road
network and lower ratios (i.e. 8 or 9:1 for preservation) will be considered.
Buffers were expanded in preservation areas to a minimum width of 75 ft.
5.Where possible expand buffers to capture adjacent steep slopes and extend to ridge lines.
Expanded buffers have been included where feasible.
6.Buffer width does not have to be uniform but should be increased and reduce the amount of corners as
much as possible.
Understood
7.On Existing Conditions Figures include existing fence lines so the buffer being gained with the easement can
be visualized, especially for Davis Cove.
Fences will be located during detailed planning, For the final prospectus, approximate fence locations have
been depicted on figures.
8.Making crossings internal as much as possible.
Noted
1101 Haynes St., Suite 211 • Raleigh, NC 27604 • www.restorationsystems.com • Ph 919.755.9490 • Fx 919.755.9492

9.Provide additional narrative and a figure with the existing and target vegetative communities and species
being restored, use onsite preservation areas for reference community vegetation species.
Species from vegetation communities in onsite preservation areas will be used in association with Schafale
2012, during detailed restoration planning. Updated planting communities have been included in this
prospectus.

10.If species (ie witch hazel, yellow buckeye, rhododendron, etc.) from onsite reference community are not
available during initial planting, it is okay to delay planting of these species for 1-2 years in order to plant
these appropriate species.
Added to 9.2.6 “If desirable species from onsite communities are not available at the time of initial planting,
they may be planted at a later date.”

11.Invasive treatment needs to occur prior to or during construction.
Added to 9.3.1 “Invasive species will be treated before and during construction. In addition, White Pine
(Pinus strobus), rose (Rosa multiflora), and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) will be treated both mechanically
and chemically.”

12.Remove Black Walnut and White Pine trees in areas where they dominate canopy composition.
Added to 9.3.1 “Invasive species will be treated before and during construction. In addition, White Pine
(Pinus strobus), rose (Rosa multiflora), and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) will be treated both mechanically
and chemically.”

13.Be mindful of and consider planting schedule in enhancement areas where existing canopy has shade
coverage and slopes are steep.
Added to 9.2.6 “Plantings will also take into consideration the slope of the bank and existing shade coverage
from the canopy”

14.In Mitigation Plan include a summary table of existing culverts (material, dimensions, condition, proposed
change).
Understood

15.Assess streams in winter particularly in areas with heavy invasive vegetation to identify any areas where
bank stabilization is needed.
Added to 9.2.1 “Streams will be evaluated in winter for the detailed plan, in order to identify problematic
areas necessitating bank stabilization”

16.The DWR rule stating that only 25% of credits can come from preservation assets for total credits purchased
for impacts remains in place. This is calculated by credits and not linear feet of stream preservation.
Understood

Davis Cove
1.UT-1
a.Evaluate vegetation in enhancement and preservation areas with respect to invasives and black
walnut to determine if approach and ratio are appropriate.
Added “In addition, the treatment of black walnut (Juglans nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora), and white
pine (Pinus strobus) in the disturbed canopy will be conducted. Further surveys of the stream
channel, during the winter months, will be conducted to determine spot bank treatments that will
be required to justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”

2.UT-2
a.Provide additional information regarding LTM of White Pine stand outside of easement.
Land management outside of the conservation easement will be further evaluated during detailed
mitigation planning.

b.If propose to remove white pines within buffer consider additional bank work and adjust ratio.
Page 2 of 9

Added “In addition, the treatment of black walnut (Juglans nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora), and white
pine (Pinus strobus) in the disturbed canopy will be conducted. Further surveys of the stream
channel, during the winter months, will be conducted to determine spot bank treatments that will
be required to justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”

c.Further investigate stream channel in preservation reach, the channel appears to go underground
and switch sides of the valley. Also, the upper section did not have any flow.
This area was captured with GPS mapping equipment. The channel has been updated on Site
mapping.

d.Stabilize culvert outfall and replace smooth wall culvert.
Added “Further surveys of the stream channel, during the winter months, will be conducted to
determine spot bank treatments and the stabilization of culvert outfall that will be required to
justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”

3.UT-3
a.Restoration
i.Approve of the restoration approach at 1:1 ratio, in the AMP discuss measures to ensure
stream channel remains intact and does not evolve into a linear wetland.
Understood.

ii.Consider extending restoration reach upstream a little further.
The Restoration reach has been extended further upstream.

b.Enhancement II (2.5:1)
i.Consider adjusting ratio to include some structures and spot bank work.
This reach has been changed to Enhancement I to tie into the downstream Enhancement
I reach of UT-5 and Restoration reach of UT-3.

c.Enhancement II (7.5:1)
i.Extend enhancement into preservation reach to existing road crossing and justify with
black walnut and rose removal, understory planting, and spot bank work.
Enhancement II has been extended upstream and the ratio has been reduced to 5:1.

ii.When removing culvert in upper reach check upstream sediment.
Understood

iii.Cow wallow areas are a source od sediment address with buffer width.
Buffers have been expanded to address cow wallows and associated sediment discharge.

iv.Downstream section of this reach includes a high density of invasive vegetation that
require treatment.
Invasive treatments will occur throughout the reach.
4.UT-4
a.Okay to leave existing spring house structure and start stream project at base of structure.
Understood

b.Expand conservation easement upslope in a semicircle to capture more of the drainage area
around the spring house structure.
The easement has been updated to capture semicircle above spring house

5.UT-5
a.Enhancement II (2.5:1)
Page 3 of 9

i.Consider adjusting ratio to include some structures and spot bank work.
This reach has been changed to Enhancement I to reflect alterations of the perched
crossing, bank stabilization, and channel tie-in to the downstream restoration reaches.

ii.Discuss stabilizing perched culvert and what that crossing will be.
The UT-5 crossing is proposed to be bridged to allow connectivity of upstream and
downstream hydrology and wildlife passage. This reach will initiate Enhancement I work
that will elevate the channel bed to match upstream of the bridge/culvert. Added “Stream
Enhancement I is proposed at a perched crossing on UT-5 to elevate the channel to allow
wildlife passage and hydrologic connection to the upstream preservation reach. This
enhancement is intended to continue downstream and elevate the channel for
connection to the downstream restoration reach. The enhancement of this reach is
expected to entail the installation of structures for bank stabilization, grade control, and
habitat. The reach is expected to be raised to allow for connectivity to a floodplain, or at
a minimum, constructing a wider floodplain within the valley. Managed livestock water
supply features will be removed from the conservation easement.”

iii.Discuss removal of cattle water supply.
Managed livestock water supply features will be removed from the conservation
easement.

b.Enhancement II (7.5:1)
i.Appears to be opportunities for spot channel and bank work ~700-ft upstream of crossing
Added “Further surveys of the stream channel, during the winter months, will be
conducted to determine spot bank treatments and the stabilization of culvert outfall that
will be required to justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”

ii.Justify approach with regards to black walnut, buffer width, and revegetation in shaded
areas.
Added “In addition, the treatment of black walnut (Juglans nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora),
and white pine (Pinus strobus) in the disturbed canopy will be conducted.”

c.Enhancement II (10:1)
i.Existing vegetation is much better than downstream with minimal black walnut and rose.
Understood

ii.Be mindful of existing road with relation to proposed conservation easement.
Understood

6.UT-6
a.Check to see if road and stream are mapped correctly, no stream feature was observed
immediately upstream/downstream of the road crossing.
This stream was delineated as part of the PJD.

7.UT-7
a.For reach from crossing to remain to confluence with UT-3 adjust approach from preservation to
enhancement, keep preservation above road crossing to remain.
Mapping has been updated.

b.Justify enhancement by planting understory (consider rhododendron), spot bank work, remove
sediment and enhance bed material.
Added: “Understory plantings will take place where appropriate. Further surveys of the stream
channel during the winter months will be conducted to determine spot bank treatments and the
stabilization of culvert outfall that will be required to justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”
Page 4 of 9

c.Note check crenulation between UT-7 and UT-6 to see if it is a stream or wetland.
This crenulation has been added during PJD field work (UT-9).

8.UT-8
a.For lower road crossing to be decommissioned, repair section of stream that has been impacted
by road crossing and ensure that stream flows do not migrate down old roadbed.
Understood

Gentry Branch
1.Wetlands
a.Wetland rehabilitation and preservation areas UT-1 and UT-3 could all be proposed as wetland
enhancement.
Maps and credit tables have been updated accordingly.

2.UT-1
a.Grading depth in adjacent wetland areas during the construction of the new channel during
restoration may impact ratios due to wetland creation vs enhancement.
Understood

b.The paralleling flow path for UT-1 and 2 was considered appropriate given the topography on site
and existing conditions.
Maps and credit tables have been updated to include parallel channels.

3.UT-2
a.Would like to see spot bank work included in upper reaches, if there are continuous sections
requiring work they can be broken out into different ratios. Evaluate bank condition in winter once
invasive vegetation is gone.
Added “Further surveys of the stream channel during the winter months will be conducted to
determine spot bank treatments that will be required to justify an appropriate mitigation ratio.”

b.Remove section of restoration that creates a confluence with UT-1 and extend enhancement down
to property line, as there was concern about affecting existing hydrology to downstream
properties.
This reach has been changed to Restoration due to cross-section data indicating it is classified as
an F-type channel with a bank-height-ratio of 2.6

c.The downstream end near the property line has an active headcut that needs to be addressed with
2-3 structures. Consider this when justifying the ratio for this reach.
Cross-section data taken for this reach indicates restoration is appropriate.

d.Treat white pine saplings.
Understood

4.UT-3
a.Concern about amount of rose around pasture edges.
Treatment of these species will occur.

b.Noted channel is seep like with notable amounts of sand and silt, consider using a spring fed
reference with a wide channel that includes braids and rhododendron vegetation community.
Understood

Page 5 of 9

c.Will need to be mindful of bed material and make sure channel and flow are maintained so it does
not become a wetland due to the shallow slope.
Understood

d.Consider shallow banks designed for low discharge.
Understood

e.Flow gauge will be required as it is an intermittent stream.
A flow gauge will be installed as part of detailed mitigation planning.

5.Baker Branch
a.Where Baker Branch and UT-5 touch consider redirecting the existing Baker Branch channel
hydrology into UT-5 and proposing as enhancement, lower section of UT-5 would become the new
Baker Branch.
The map and credit tables have been updated to reflect a confluence of these two channels.

b.If approach above is used install a 100-ft plug immediately below where UT-5 and Baker Branch
touch along what is mapped as Baker Branch. Below plug smooth and grade left bank into what
will become the relict stream channel of Baker Branch to stabilize.
Added “The lower reaches of Baker Branch appear to have been manipulated such that multiple
channels braid through the valley. A component of stream enhancement includes diverting Baker
Branch into a single channel, plugging the relict, abandoned channel, capturing sediment off slopes
in the relict channel, treating invasive species, and supplemental planting in the reach.”

c.AMP would need to address potential for sediment contributions and long-term stability along
right bank of the relict Baker Branch channel.
See above.

d.Even though a low remnant rock berm remains, removing it might cause bank destabilization and
sediment inputs. Since it is stable it was deemed prudent to work around this unless sections are
found to be unstable.
Understood.

6.UT-5
a.Appears UT-5 hydrology is disconnected from historic channel at existing road crossing. At road
crossing stream begins to flow down road crossing and continues for several hundred feet before
deviating from existing road.
UT-5 will be diverted into its historic channel. Figures have been updated accordingly.

b.Need to address whether we propose to plug existing channel at road crossing and reconnect UT-
5 to historic channel or leave as is and adjust preservation ratio upward.
This area will be evaluated during detailed mitigation planning.

c.Further evaluate all existing features in this area to determine proper channel locations
determined by topography and confluences with Baker Branch.
Understood, these areas will be evaluated during detailed mitigation planning.

7.UT-4
a.Evaluate vegetation for invasives to ensure it is appropriate for preservation or justify
enhancement level work instead in downstream section.
Page 6 of 9

The reach of UT-4 along the old powerline and road have been adjusted to enhancement II on
maps and the credit table.

b.Consider approach discussed below regarding decommissioning and stabilizing old road.
Understood

8.Preservation
a.Lump upper preservation reaches into the same ratio.
Preservation has been lumped into a single ratio.

b.Some downstream preservation reaches may be proposed at different ratios.
Preservation has been lumped into a single ratio.

c.Mention the threat of logging as a justification.
Added ”Although the Site is not under direct threat, the upper reaches of Baker Branch have been
cleared and logged in the past and future timber harvesting practices could pose a threat.”

9.Existing Driveway
a.Extra consideration needs to be given to decommissioning the road including ripping, grading,
planting of herbaceous, planting of woody species, and regrading to connect with left bank of
Baker Branch.
Added “An existing driveway occurs along the lower reaches of Baker Branch. This road will be
decommissioned through work including ripping, grading, planting of herbaceous, planting of
woody species, and regrading to connect with left bank of Baker Branch.”

b.Need to ensure future access is effectively removed at entrance to ensure no trespassing occurs.
Understood

Sliding Knob
1.UT-1
a.E II (7.5:1) Planting plan needs to account for steep slopes along with black walnut and rose
treatments.
Understood

b.Prefer to remove crossing all together as any culverted crossing will be difficult to allow for aquatic
passage given the slope.
A bridged crossing has been proposed for this reach.

c.Unmapped UT along downstream left bank with perennial macroinvertebrates will be determined
by JD if proposed.
This reach (now UT-6) has been included on figures and will be verified by a PJD.

d.Road needs to be moved outside of easement to justify better ratio for enhancement.
Road will be decommissioned through the majority of its length.

e.Need additional information to justify shift in enhancement ratios.
Added “Enhancement is proposed for three different mitigation ratios. Enhancement (2.5:1) has
been proposed for reaches where both banks are characterized largely by pasture. Enhancement
(5:1) has been proposed for reaches where one side of the reach is wooded, but woods are largely
characterized by black walnut (Juglans nigra), and livestock frequently access the stream.
Enhancement (7.5:1) has been proposed where one side of the stream is wooded and livestock do
not have significant access to the reach.”
f.In agreement to keep existing rock wall at the origin of UT-1.
Understood

Page 7 of 9

2.UT-2
a.Concerned about small drainage area and potential for stream to become a seep linear wetland.
Understood

b.Give consideration for dimensions to ensure channel maintains flow throughout monitoring.
Understood

c.Expand the conservation easement in a semicircle above the stream origin.
The easement has been updated to include some area upstream of the stream origin.

d.Stream will require a flow gauge as it is intermittent.
Understood

3.UT-3
a.Unclear about the downstream and upstream channel location for restoration and whether it will
move from its current alignment.
Further topographic surveys will occur to verify locations of restoration.

b.Justify improvements to be made along the entire stream, in agreement with the uplift to be
gained in the upper reach.
Understood

c.Difficult to see what is being done to the channel given the amount of wetland seeps surrounding
the flow.
Understood – RS will ensure to provide additional detail regarding wetland seeps and their
interaction with the stream mitigation approach.

d.Consider starting stream restoration below the existing road crossing and enhancing the wetland
seep upstream of the origin.
Stream origin has been moved below the road on figures.

e.Expand the conservation easement in a semicircle above the wetland enhancement footprint.
The easement has been expanded above the wetland enhancement.

f.Potential to include an additional stream feature below the existing road and west of UT-3, will be
determined by JD if proposed.
This reach has been added (UT-7) during PJD field work and will be confirmed by the USACE.

4.UT-4
a.Stream origin may occur further upslope, will be determined by JD if proposed.
Understood

b.For the enhancement reach unsure if a single thread stream is appropriate, consider a braided
stream using live stakes (i.e. elderberry) for planting to shade out the veg in the channel.
Understood

c.For restoration reach can see how a single thread would be appropriate as it flows towards UT-5.
Understood

d.May require wetland precon gauges to ensure there is not wetland loss via a single thread stream
restoration approach.
A precon gauge will be installed in this wetland during detailed mitigation planning.
5.UT-5
a.In agreement on approach, would like to see a wider buffer to capture and stabilize the existing
road.
Page 8 of 9

Wider buffers have been added to the easement.
6.Preservation Areas
a.Will be evaluated during JD but noted this preservation component is normal given the distribution
of mitigation approaches.
Understood

RS will coordinate with Steve Kichefski for the public notice once the IRT comments are addressed and the Final
Prospectus is approved. RS will coordinate with the Corps on updates to the Draft Prospectus before the June field
meeting.
Page 9 of 9

7
-TU

³

RayHolz
From:McHenry,DavidG<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday,August05,20229:01AM
To:RayHolz;SteveKichefski
Subject:RE:\[External\]RSFrenchBroad05UMBIProspectusSiteVisits(June6th&7th)SiteVisitMinutes
ThanksforgreatnotesRay.
LookslikethefewobservationsIhadwereinheresavethenoteabouttherillontheroadoverUT7atDavisCove
site.Now,IķƚƓ͸Ʒknowifitisreallyrelevanttothebankproper(alsosincerunoffisalsocomingfrombeyondbuffer
area?),soIdidnotbotherthewholegroupwiththis.ButIthoughtitmaybeworthrementionsinceitcould
nonethelessbeaheadachelater.Maybethelandownermaynothaveissuewithturningthatwaterupthere?
Thanks
Dave
From:RayHolz<[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday,July29,20229:19AM
To:SteveKichefski<[e-mail]>
Cc:Davis,ErinB<[e-mail]>;Leslie,AndreaJ<[e-mail]>;McHenry,DavidG
<[e-mail]>;Tugwell,ToddJCIVUSARMYCESAW(US)<[e-mail]>;John
Hamby<[e-mail]>;AlexBaldwin<[e-mail]>;GrantLewisAxiom
Environmental([e-mail])<[e-mail]>;AllisonKeith
<[e-mail]>
Subject:\[External\]RSFrenchBroad05UMBIProspectusSiteVisits(June6th&7th)SiteVisitMinutes
CAUTION:Externalemail.Donotclicklinksoropenattachmentsunlessyouverify.Sendallsuspiciousemailasanattachmentto
ReportSpam.
Steve&IRTmembersΑ
Iamattachingacopyofthesitevisitminutesforyourreviewandcommentregardingw{͸ƭFrenchBroad04UMBI
(GentryBranch,DavisCove,&SlidingKnob).
Sincerely,
RaymondHolz
----- ------ ------
RaymondJ.Holz|RestorationSystems,LLC
1101HaynesSt.Suite211|Raleigh,NC27604
cell:919.604.9314|fax:[phone]
tel:[phone]|
email:[e-mail]
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

Table of Contents
1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Objectives ....................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Bank Sponsor and Contact Information ...................................................................................... 2
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION ....................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument ................................................................................... 2
2.2 Credit Determination .................................................................................................................. 2
2.3 Credit Release Schedule .............................................................................................................. 3
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS ............................................................................. 3
4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 3
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs ...................................................... 3
4.2 Bank Site Selection ...................................................................................................................... 4
5 OWNERSHIP, EASEMENT HOLDER, AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT ................................................ 4
6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR ............................................................................................................. 5
7 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITES ...................................................................................................... 5
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES ...................................................................................................................... 6
9 MITIGATION PLAN ................................................................................................................................ 6
9.1 Reference Data ........................................................................................................................... 6
9.1.1 Stream Reference .......................................................................................................... 6
9.1.2 Reference Forest Ecosystem .......................................................................................... 7
9.2 Design Approach ......................................................................................................................... 7
9.2.1 Stream Restoration ........................................................................................................ 7
9.2.2 Stream Enhancement I ................................................................................................... 7
9.2.3 Stream Enhancement II .................................................................................................. 8
9.2.4 Stream Preservation ...................................................................................................... 8
9.2.5 Wetlands ........................................................................................................................ 8
9.2.6 Riparian Restoration ...................................................................................................... 8
9.3 Site Work Plans ........................................................................................................................... 9

9.3.1 Belt-width Preparation and Grading .............................................................................. 9
9.3.2 Channel Excavations .................................................................................................... 10
9.3.3 Channel Plugs ............................................................................................................... 10
9.3.4 Channel Backfilling ....................................................................................................... 10
9.3.5 Stream Crossings .......................................................................................................... 10
9.3.6 In-stream Structures .................................................................................................... 11
10 MONITORING PLAN ............................................................................................................................ 11
10.1 Stream Monitoring .................................................................................................................... 12
10.2 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................. 12
10.3 Vegetation Monitoring .............................................................................................................. 12
10.4 Visual Monitoring ...................................................................................................................... 12
11 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES ..................................................................... 13
11.1 Stream Instability ...................................................................................................................... 13
11.2 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................. 13
11.3 Invasive Species ........................................................................................................................ 13
12 HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS ...................................................................... 13
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Phase 1 – Prospectus

13 ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................... 13
13.1 Gray Bat ..................................................................................................................................... 14
13.2 Northern Long-Eared Bat .......................................................................................................... 14
13.3 Preliminary Biological Conclusions ........................................................................................... 14
14 ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT WATER RIGHTS ...................................................................................... 14
15 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 14
16 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 16
17 FIGURES .............................................................................................................................................. 17
List of Tables
Table 1: Phase 1 Site Summary ..................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions ............................................................... 1
Table 3: Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions ............................................................. 2
Table 4: Habitat Function Objectives and Proposed Actions ........................................................................ 2
Table 5: Population Growth in French Broad 05........................................................................................... 4
List of Figures
Figure 1: Site Locations Map
Figure 2: Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3: Geographic Service Area Map

Appendices
Appendix A: Gentry Branch Mitigation Site
Appendix B: Davis Cove Mitigation Site
Appendix C: Sliding Knob Mitigation Site

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Phase 1 – Prospectus

1INTRODUCTION
Restoration Systems, LLC ("Bank Sponsor") proposes to develop three-stream and riparian wetland
mitigation sites (collectively referred to as "Phase I Sites") under the to-be-developed Restoration Systems
French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank ("the Bank"). Phase I Sites include Gentry Branch, Davis
Cove, and Sliding Knob – all located in Madison County, North Carolina (Figure 1; Table 1). The proposed
umbrella structure of the Bank is designed to initially permit Phase 1 Sites while allowing for the
establishment of future mitigation bank parcels not yet identified.

Table 1: Phase 1 Site Summary
Hydro Existing Approx. Final
Site Coordinates Mitigation Type
Status*Length (LF) Length (LF)
Restoration,
Gentry Branch 35.789956, Per/Int
13,724Enhancement, 13,954
SAW-2022-00528 -82.825390 Cold Water
Preservation
Restoration,
Davis Cove 35.758804, Per/Int
Enhancement, 15,972
16,346
SAW-2022-00529 -82.878620 Cold Water
Preservation
Restoration,
Sliding Knob 35.737648, Per/Int
4,852 Enhancement, 4,866
SAW-2022-00530 -82.850275 Cold Water
Preservation
Totals 34,922 34,792
* Per = perennial; Int = intermittent
The purpose of the Bank is to provide stream and wetland mitigation credits to compensate for impacts
to Waters of the United States and/or State Waters within the service area, Hydrologic Unit 06010105
(French Broad 05, Figure 2). The proposed Bank's structure, operation, and management are detailed in
the main prospectus document. Existing conditions and proposed site work for Phase 1 Sites are described
by site in the attached appendices: Appendix A (Gentry Branch), Appendix B (Davis Cove), and Appendix
C (Sliding Knob).

1.1Project Objectives
The overall objectives of the Bank are to restore or otherwise improve the following functions: 1)
hydrological, 2) water quality, and 3) habitat. Tables 2-4 provide an overview of the Bank's Phase 1
objectives and the specific actions proposed to accomplish them.
Table 2: Hydrological Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Floodplain Connectivity Reconnect channels with historic floodplains
Floodplain Resistance Plant woody riparian buffers; increase microtopography
Stream Stability & Reconstruct stream channels, sized to convey bankfull discharges
Sediment Transport and watershed sediment supplies
Channels constructed or raised to historic floodplain elevations;
Surface and Subsurface Storage and
increased floodplain hydraulic resistance by planting woody
Retention
vegetation and increasing microtopography
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 1
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Table 3: Water Quality Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Remove Pollutant Sources Cattle exclusion
Plant woody riparian buffers; construct marsh treatment features
Upland Pollutant Filtration
intercepting overland flows
Increase floodplain connectivity, plant woody riparian buffers;
Floodplain Biogeochemical Processing
increase microtopography; construct marsh treatment areas
Thermal Regulation Plant woody riparian buffers to provide shade
Table 4: Habitat Function Objectives and Proposed Actions
Functional Improvement Objectives Proposed Actions
Construct stable channels, geomorphology designed to increase
In-channel Habitat
hydraulic and bedform habitat heterogeneity
Plant native, woody riparian buffers to provide foraging, nesting, and
Riparian Habitat and Structure
cover for terrestrial species as well as refugia for aquatic species
1.2Bank Sponsor and Contact Information
Restoration Systems, LLC
Raymond Holz
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211
Raleigh, NC 27604
[e-mail]
919.604.9314

2ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION
2.1Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
The Sponsor proposes the Bank under an umbrella mitigation banking instrument ("UMBI"). As proposed,
the UMBI would allow for multiple phases. Phase I is described in this prospectus and, if approved, will
serve as the Bank's first source of mitigation credit. The Sponsor also proposes the incorporation of
additional sites not yet identified but within the Geographic Service Area (Section 3) into the Bank,
following Interagency Review Team ("IRT") review and approval.

2.2Credit Determination
Credit for Phase I, and all additional phases, shall be based on the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
most current mitigation credit determination methodology. Presently, the USACE is utilizing CFR part 332
(Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources) along with Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (IRT 2016) to quantify mitigation project credit potential. If
other methods are released and become de facto requirements for stream mitigation projects in the
USACE, future phases will utilize these methods as appropriate.
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 2
Phase 1 – Prospectus

2.3Credit Release Schedule
Credits generated by actions described and approved in the Bank's final UMBI shall be released in
predetermined increments according to the milestones agreed to by the Sponsor and the IRT in the UMBI's
credit release schedule. The Sponsor will use the credit release schedule detailed for stream mitigation
banks in IRT (2016).

3GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS
Located within the Blue Ridge level III ecoregion and the French Broad River basin, the Bank's geographic
service area ("GSA") is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit Hydrological Unit
Code ("HUC") within which the Bank's sites are located, the French Broad 06010105 (Figure 3).

The Bank's credits are proposed to be used to offset unavoidable, permitted impacts within the Bank's
GSA. Use of the Bank's credits outside of its GSA may be permissible with approval by the USACE, which
will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

4WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS
4.1Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs
The French Broad River basin spans over 2,800 square miles and drains to the Gulf of Mexico via the
Tennessee, Ohio, and Mississippi Rivers. In North Carolina, the basin comprises three major drainage
areas: the Upper French Broad, the Pigeon River, and the Nolichucky River subbasins, and contains all or
portions of Avery, Buncombe, Haywood, Henderson, Madison, Mitchell, Transylvania, and Yancey
Counties.

The estimated population for the basin is just over 427,000, based on 2000 census data. Population
growth is highest in Buncombe and Henderson Counties, and these areas are experiencing rapid growth
while the rest of the basin is undergoing moderate growth (NCDWQ 2011). General basin-wide
recommendations to preserve water quality in these expanding areas include encouraging low-impact
development, stormwater runoff control measures, a greater emphasis on wastewater collection systems,
and agriculture BMPs. In addition, lands should be prioritized to conserve both habitat and protection of
water quality.

Phase I Sites are in the Upper French Broad subbasin, encompassing 1,658 square miles, making it the
largest of the three French Broad subbasins. In addition, this is the most populous subbasin, mainly
because the land is less sloped, and the soils are more suitable for development and agriculture. As a
result, urban development and agricultural activity are concentrated in valleys near waterways and, in
many cases, up to stream banks.

Between the 2000 and 2020 censuses, the basin's population grew considerably, with counties growing
between 10 percent (Mitchell) and 30 percent (Henderson). According to recent population estimates,
the general population growth trend will continue, which indicates Buncombe and Henderson counties
are all growing at or faster than the state's 9.48 percent (Table 5) (USCB 2021). Data suggests land
development activities will increase in frequency, as will aquatic ecosystem impacts related to such
development. Therefore, there is an immediate and prolonged need for compensatory stream mitigation
in the watershed. Of further benefit, aquatic ecosystem restoration projects can reduce nutrient loading
in sensitive downstream receiving waters.

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 3
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Table 5: Population Growth in French Broad 05
Municipality2010 Population2020 PopulationPercent Increase
Asheville 83,393 94,589 13
Hendersonville 13,137 15,137 15
Marshall* 872 777 -11
Madison County 20,764 21,193 2
Buncombe County 238,318 269,452 13
Henderson County 106,740 116,281 9
*Town of Marshall experienced a population decline over the 10-year period.
4.2Bank Site Selection
Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1, the French Broad 05 was targeted as a watershed in need
of stream and riparian wetland mitigation. The Sponsor and its consultant, Axiom Environmental, Inc.
(Axiom), searched for sites possessing stream and riparian wetland restoration and enhancement
opportunities. Identified sites were prioritized based on geomorphic condition and land use, and the
necessary landowners were contacted to gauge their interest in participating in a mitigation project. Sites
with willing landowners were then pursued further. As real estate in the area is generally well subdivided,
many of the identified opportunities are not currently feasible because such sites require the cooperation
of several landowners to achieve sufficient ecological and economic scale. Therefore, the selection of the
Phase I properties was based on a combination of geomorphic conditions, land use, and the willingness
of landowners to participate. Landowners will be consulted about adjacent future land use plans, including
timber management.

5OWNERSHIP, EASEMENT HOLDER, AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT
The Phase I properties are currently owned by the following people or organizations:

Gentry Branch (PIN 8754843880) – Nancy Baker, Ted Baker, Jr. and Melba Baker, and Kenneth
Baker and Lucille Baker
Davis Cove (PIN 8766-44-1702) – Veda Davis
Sliding Knob (PIN 8754843880) – Patsy Buckner

Hereafter, these owners will collectively be referred to as "the Landowners."

The Sponsor and the Landowners have executed separate Agreements for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easements covering approximately 167 acres along Gentry Branch, 44.3 acres along Davis
Cove, and 9.9 acres along Sliding Knob. Following USACE approval of the UMBI and the Phase I Site
Mitigation Plans, the Sponsor will exercise its rights provided under the above-referenced agreements.

All sites governed by the Bank will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement approved by
the USACE. At a minimum, conservation easements will be written to prohibit incompatible uses that
might jeopardize the objectives of the Bank. As Grantee of the conservation easement, the Sponsor will
first acquire the easement and then assign it to a qualified easement holder to be held in perpetuity.
Potential easement holders include but are not limited to the North Carolina Wildlife Habitat Foundation,
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 4
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Broad Water Innovations, or the North Carolina State Property Office. The Sponsor will provide the
Easement Holder with a financial sum in an amount agreeable to both parties.
Easements will be stewarded in general accordance with the guidelines published by the National Land
Trust Alliance. Specific responsibilities include:
Conservation easement compliance – annual inspection of a site
Site visit coordination with the landowner when possible
Annual compliance reports are sent to the landowner when possible
Violations and potential violations are addressed following protocols outlined in the conservation
easement.

The Sponsor will be responsible for site management actions during the operational period. Following a
site closeout, the Long-Term Manager would assume long-term management obligations. Site design and
construction will ensure sites are self-sustaining. As a result, long-term management activities will be
limited to routine boundary inspections and, when necessary, marking easement boundaries to provide
clear identification of conservation areas. The Long-Term Manager and Easement Holder will likely be the
same entity. The Sponsor will provide the easement holder with a financial sum in an amount agreeable
to both parties.

6QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR
Restoration Systems (RS) is an environmental restoration, mitigation banking, and full-delivery mitigation
firm founded in 1998. The firm was formed to improve the quality of environmental restoration and
mitigation by locating and acquiring the best available sites, planning restoration using proven science,
and constructing sites with the most qualified contractors. RS staff has been involved in environmental
mitigation and mitigation banking since 1992, and their Project Managers have more than 80 years of
experience in resource evaluation, environmental restoration, and mitigation implementation.

Corporate experience with the principals began with the completion of North Carolina's first full-delivery
mitigation project in 1997, the Barra Farms Mitigation Bank (623-acres), and in 2001 with the Bear Creek—
Mill Branch Mitigation Bank (450-acres) and Sleepy Creek Mitigation Site (550-acres). To date, RS has
permitted 81 compensatory mitigation sites in North Carolina, including 55 for the State's In-Lue-Fee
program, the Division of Mitigation Services, and nine stream and wetland compensatory mitigation banks
under the 2008 Federal Compensatory Mitigation Rule. These projects total over 470,000 l.ft. of streams
and 740 acres of wetlands, and 2,700 acres of eased property.

7ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITES
Primary considerations for selecting the Phase I Sites included the potential for protection/improvement
of water quality within a region of North Carolina under development and livestock/agricultural pressure.
More specifically, considerations included desired aquatic resource functions, hydrologic conditions, soil
characteristics, aquatic habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, compatibility with adjacent land uses,
reasonably foreseeable effects the mitigation projects will have on ecologically important aquatic and
terrestrial resources, and potential development trends and land-use changes.

Restoration, enhancement, and preservation work proposed at Phase 1 Sites (Appendix A, B, & C) will
reduce existing nutrient and sediment loads to downstream waters. In addition, restoration work will
improve in-channel aquatic and riparian habitats.

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 5
Phase 1 – Prospectus

8FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
For each site, the Sponsor will provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT and sufficient
to ensure completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work
that may be required according to the final UMBI and site-specific Mitigation Plan.

Before the first Phase 1 credit release, as well as all additional sites permitted under the proposed UMBI,
the Sponsor shall furnish a financial assurance instrument covering all reasonably anticipated costs
relating to construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance, and any remedial measures associated with
each bank parcel. This instrument shall consist of either a Performance Bond underwritten by a surety
company licensed to do business in North Carolina with a Best's current rating of not less than "A-, "or a
casualty insurance policy in an appropriate form to be approved by the USACE in compliance with current
USACE policy and guidance documents. The total value of such a bond or policy will be based on
reasonably expected costs associated with approved Mitigation Plans, plus a reasonable contingency,
which collectively shall be sufficient to ensure the project will be successfully completed in accordance
with applicable performance standards.

If performance bonds are utilized, the initial performance bond shall be replaced following completion of
construction and USACE approval of the as-built report. The Sponsor shall then furnish a replacement
monitoring bond to be valued based on reasonably anticipated costs associated with project monitoring
and maintenance. Once all performance standards have been met, the Sponsor may withdraw monies
from or otherwise terminate the financial assurance instrument described in this paragraph.

9MITIGATION PLAN
The primary goals of the Phase I mitigation plan include: 1) reducing and/or eliminating non-point source
pollution associated with heavy livestock and agricultural activities; 2) improving water quality functions
by restoring native, woody riparian vegetation adjacent to Phase I channels; 3) improving floodplain
function by increasing hydraulic resistance to floodwaters; 4) improving aquatic habitat through channel
stabilization and increased habitat heterogeneity; and 5) improving near-channel habitat for terrestrial
species and refugia for aquatic species through the restoration of native, woody riparian vegetation.

Site-specific information for Phase 1 Sites is provided in Appendix A (Gentry Branch), Appendix B (Davis
Cove), and Appendix C (Sliding Knob). Common mitigation plan data, methodologies, monitoring
protocols, cultural resources, and endangered/protected species are detailed in Sections 9-13.

9.1Reference Data
9.1.1Stream Reference
At this time, site-specific reference streams have not been identified. However, relatively undisturbed
sections of streams in the proposed preservation reaches of Phase 1 Sites have been identified. Data
collected at reference sites included cross-sectional data, benthic macroinvertebrate collections, and
hardwood forest composition, was utilized to approximate mitigation potential of Phase 1 Sites. These
reference reaches have been compared to regional curves for the Mountains of North Carolina (Harman
et al 2001), allowing for a comparison of existing, disturbed conditions to relatively undisturbed reference
conditions at the proposed Phase 1 Sites.

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 6
Phase 1 – Prospectus

9.1.2Reference Forest Ecosystem
According to Mitigation Site Classification ("MiST") guidelines (USEPA 1990), Reference Forest Ecosystems
("RFEs") must be established for restoration sites. RFEs are forested areas used to model restoration
efforts in relation to soils, hydrology, and vegetation. RFEs should be ecologically stable climax
communities and should represent believed historical conditions of the restoration site. Data describing
plant community composition and structure are collected at the RFEs and subsequently applied as
reference data for the design of each Phase 1 Site.

Reference vegetation communities for Phase 1 Sites have not been identified. A site-specific reference
forest will be located during detailed mitigation plan development, with tree and shrub species identified.
In addition, other relevant species descriptions for Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) and
Montane Oak-Hickory Forest (Acidic Subtype) (Schafale 2012) will be used to develop a final RFE. Species
that may occur in these vegetative communities are listed in Table 6.

Table 6: Reference Forest Ecosystem Species
Montane Alluvial Forest, Small River SubtypeMontane Oak-Hickory Forest, Acidic Subtype
(Floodplains and Riparian Forest) (Upland Side Slopes)
Canopy Species Understory Species Canopy Species Understory Species
Pinus strobusCornus florida Carya tomentosaAcer rubrum
Quercus alba Carpinus carolinianaCarya glabra Oxydendrum arboreum
Platanus occidentalisHalesia tetrapteraLiriodendron tulipifera Nyssa sylvatica
Betula nigraRhododendron maximum Acer rubrum Amelanchier arborea
Acer rubrum Nyssa sylvatica Quercus coccinea Sassafras albidum
Quercus rubra Oxydendrum arboreum Quercus alba Cornus florida
Prunus serotina Quercus montana
Liriodendron tulipifera Quercus rubra
Tsuga canadensis
9.2Design Approach
9.2.1Stream Restoration
Stream restoration is designed to restore stable, meandering streams that approximate hydrodynamics,
stream geometry, and local microtopography relative to reference and on-site conditions. Streams will be
evaluated in winter for the detailed plan, in order to identify problematic areas necessitating bank
stabilization. Restoration of Phase 1 Sites will be mainly Priority I (with the exceptions of Priority 2 at tie-
in locations) restoration throughout. Within Priority I restoration areas, bankfull elevations will be raised
to meet the adjacent valley floodplain elevation. Stream Restoration is expected to entail 1) channel
excavation, 2) channel stabilization, 3) channel diversion, and 4) channel backfill, further detailed in
Section 9.3 – Site Work Plans.

In portions of Phase I Sites, the use of restoration may not be necessary to improve a system's ecological
function. In such cases, enhancement activities will be implemented. For the purposes of the UMBI,
Stream Enhancement I and Stream Enhancement II are defined per USACE (2016).

9.2.2Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement I is expected to include cessation of agricultural activities (including row crop
production, hay production, and/or livestock grazing), removal of invasive species, raising the channel bed
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 7
Phase 1 – Prospectus

elevation to reconnect bankfull stream flows to the abandoned floodplain, and planting with native,
woody species. Stream Enhancement I will generally entail the alteration of stream channel dimension
and profile as the channel is lifted to the historic floodplain elevation. These measures are expected to
facilitate stream dynamics associated with a natural, relatively undisturbed stream in the mountain region
of North Carolina.

9.2.3Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II is expected to include the cessation of agricultural activities (including row crop
production, hay production, and/or livestock grazing), removal of invasive species, and supplemental
planting with native, woody tree species. Stream enhancement II will extend a minimum distance of 30-
feet from the top of stream banks. These measures are expected to facilitate stream recovery and prevent
further degradation of the streams.

9.2.4Stream Preservation
Based on the mitigation rule (33 CFR Section 332.3 - General compensatory mitigation requirements),
preservation may be used to provide compensatory mitigation if the following criteria are met.

The resources to be preserved provide important physical, chemical, or biological functions for
the watershed.
o The Site is situated in trout waters. Once the project is complete, upstream preservation
will serve as possible habitat for fish species.
The resources to be preserved contribute significantly to the ecological sustainability of the
watershed.
o The streams comprise part of the headwater system which drains into the French Broad
River
Preservation is determined by the district engineer to be appropriate and practicable.
o Discussions with the IRT members indicate that preservation is appropriate. Wider
buffers, roadway improvements, and erosion control measures warrant a preservation
status.
The resources are under threat of destruction or adverse modifications.
o Although the site is not under direct threat, reaches have been cleared and logged in the
past and future timber harvesting practices could pose a threat to the upper stream
reaches.
The preserved resources will be permanently protected through an appropriate legal instrument.
o A conservation easement will be implemented as required under the banking process.

9.2.5Wetlands
Areas of jurisdictional wetlands were delineated at each of the Phase 1 Sites. Wetland enhancement and
preservation will generate riparian wetland credit at agreed ratios.

Enhancement of existing wetlands will improve their physical, chemical, and/or biological characteristics
and result in a gain of wetland function but not in wetland acres. Wetland preservation will permanently
protect high-functioning jurisdictional wetlands.

9.2.6Riparian Restoration
Restoration of floodplain forest and streamside habitat allows for the development and expansion of
characteristic species across the landscape. Ecotonal changes between community types contribute to
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 8
Phase 1 – Prospectus

diversity and provide secondary benefits, such as enhanced feeding and nesting opportunities for
mammals, birds, amphibians, and other wildlife.

Planted streamside trees and shrubs will include species with high value for sediment stabilization, rapid
growth rates, and the ability to withstand hydraulic forces associated with bankfull and overbank flow
events. Streamside trees and shrubs will be planted within 15-feet of the channel throughout the meander
beltwidth. Shrub elements will be planted along reconstructed stream banks, concentrated along outer
bends. Plantings will also take into consideration the slope of the bank and existing shade coverage from
the canopy.

Deeply rooted riparian vegetation will be restored as needed at all Phase I and future sites. Planting
vegetation on cleared stream banks is proposed to reestablish native/historic community patterns within
the stream corridor as well as associated side slopes and transition areas. Revegetating floodplains and
stream banks will provide overall system stability, shade, and wildlife habitat. In addition, viable riparian
communities will improve system biogeochemical function by filtering pollutants from overland and
shallow subsurface flows and providing organic materials to adjacent stream channels.

Variations in vegetative planting will occur based on the topography and hydraulic condition of soils.
Vegetative species composition will be based on RFEs, site-specific features, and community descriptions
from the Guide To The Natural Communities Of North Carolina Fourth Approximation (Schafale 2012).
Communities will be verified through on-site evaluations; however, we expect community associations to
include 1) Montane Alluvial Forest (Small River Subtype) and 2) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest (Acidic
Subtype). Species from vegetation communities in onsite preservation areas will be used as RFEs for each
site. A list of species organized by Schafale (2012) communities is presented below. This list is for planning
purposes only. Final planting may include some or all of the species below. In addition, other species may
be added if appropriate and available. If desirable species from onsite communities are not available at
the time of initial planting, they may be planted at a later date.

Montane Alluvial Forest(Small River Subtype) Montane Oak-Hickory Forest(Acidic Subtype)
1.Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) 1.White oak (Quercus alba)
2.Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis) 2.Red oak (Quercus rubra)
3.Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) 3.Chestnut oak (Quercus montana)
4.River birch (Betula nigra) 4.Mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa)
5.Hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana) 5.Pignut hickory (Carya glabra)
6.Smooth alder (Alnus serrulata) 6.Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera)
7.Sweet birch (Betula lenta) 7.Flowering dogwood (Cornus florida)
8.White Oak (Quercus alba) 8.Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
9.Black Gum (Nyssa sylvatica) 9.Sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum)

9.3Site Work Plans
9.3.1Belt-width Preparation and Grading
Invasive species will be treated before and during construction. In addition, White Pine (Pinus strobus),
rose (Rosa multiflora), and Black Walnut (Juglans nigra) will be treated both mechanically and chemically.
Care will be taken to avoid the removal of existing, deeply rooted vegetation within the belt-width
corridor, which often provides channel stability. Material excavated during grading will be stockpiled
immediately adjacent to abandoned channel segments and ultimately used as backfill for abandoned
segments following stream restoration.
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 9
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Spoil material may be placed to stabilize temporary access roads, minimizing the underlying floodplain's
compaction. However, all spoil will be removed from floodplain surfaces upon completion of construction
activities.

After the preparation of the corridor, the design channels and updated profile surveys will be developed,
and the locations of each meander wavelength will be plotted and staked along the profile. Pool locations
and other channel features may be modified in the field based on local variations in the floodplain profile.

9.3.2Channel Excavations
Channels will be constructed within the range of values developed during detailed planning. Regional
curves and/or reference stream reaches will be used to develop various stream geometry attributes.

Stream banks and local belt-width areas of constructed channels will be immediately planted with shrub
and herbaceous vegetation to initiate stability, preventing unintended erosion. Deposition of shrub and
woody debris into and/or overhanging the constructed channels will be used to further increase each
channel's resistance to shear stress. Particular attention will be directed toward providing vegetative
cover and root growth along the outer bends of each stream meander. Live willow stakes will be
purchased and/or collected on-site and inserted through the root/erosion mat into underlying soils.

9.3.3Channel Plugs
Impermeable plugs will be installed within abandoned channel segments. Plugs will consist of low-
permeability materials or hardened structures designed to be of sufficient strength to withstand the
erosive energy of surface flow events. Dense clays, imported from off-site if necessary, will be compacted
within each channel for plug construction. Each plug will be a sufficient width and depth to form an
embedded overlap in the existing banks and bed.

9.3.4Channel Backfilling
After impermeable plugs have been installed, abandoned channels will be backfilled. Stockpiled materials
will be pushed into abandoned channels. Suitable material used for backfilling may be derived from on-
site or off-site sources. Topsoil and vegetation debris (e.g., root mats, shrubs, woody debris, etc.) will be
redistributed across the backfill area upon completion.

9.3.5Stream Crossings
Landowner use will necessitate the installation of pipe, bridge, or ford crossings to allow access to portions
of property otherwise isolated by mitigation activities. Specific crossing types have not been determined
for Phase 1 Sites. A general approach for each type is detailed below.

Pipe Crossing
Pipe crossings would be constructed with a suitably sized baseflow pipe to allow for stormwater flows.
Smaller floodplain pipes would be installed to enable overflow discharge from the upstream floodplain to
pass freely to the downstream floodplain. Materials will include hydraulically stable rip-rap or suitable
rock. The crossing would be large enough to handle anticipated vehicular traffic. Approach grades to a
piped crossing would be at an approximate 10:1 slope and constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed
rock or other permeable material, free of fines. If necessary, fencing would be installed on the roadbed to
restrict livestock access to the site.

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 10
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Bridge Crossing
Bridge crossings would span beyond the proposed bankfull width and at a height to allow for stormwater
flows. If appropriate, adjacent floodplain pipes would be installed to enable overflow discharge from the
upstream floodplain to pass freely to the downstream floodplain. Hydraulically stable rip-rap or suitable
rock would be placed along the stream banks under the bridge to prevent scour and erosion. The crossing
would be large enough to handle anticipated farm and livestock use. If necessary, fencing would be
installed on the roadbed to restrict livestock access to the site.

Ford Crossings
On very low-volume roads and trails, fordcrossings can bemore appropriate thanpipeand bridge
crossings. D-The roadbed of a ford
crossing can be armored to prevent erosion from vehicular use and significant storm events. Appropriately
sized rocks (boulders) are firmly placed on the downstream side of the crossing to reduce scour and
dissipate energy. Approach grades to a ford crossing would be at an approximate 10:1 slope and
constructed of hard, scour-resistant crushed rock or other permeable material, free of fines.

9.3.6In-stream Structures
In-stream structures for grade control and habitat are essential for successful stream restoration. In-
stream structures may be placed in the channel to elevate local water surface profiles, potentially
flattening the water-energy slope or gradient. The structures will likely consist of log/rock cross-vanes or
log/rock j-hook vanes designed primarily to direct stream energy into the center of the channel and away
from banks. In addition, structures will be placed in relatively straight reaches to provide secondary
(perpendicular) flow cells during bankfull events.

Log vanes may also be used to direct high-velocity flows during bankfull events toward the center of
constructed channels. Log vanes will be constructed utilizing large tree trunks harvested on-site or
imported from off-site as necessary. Tree stems harvested for a log cross-vane arm must be long enough
to be embedded into the stream channel and extend several feet into the floodplain. Logs will create an
arm that slopes from the center of the channel upward to each stream bank at an angle of 20 to 30-
degrees. A trench will be dug into the stream channel that is deep enough for the head of the log to be at
or below the channel invert. The trench is then extended into the floodplain, and the log is set into the
trench such that the log arm is below the floodplain elevation. If the log is not of sufficient size to
completely block streamflow (gaps occur between the log and channel bed), a footer log will be installed
beneath the header log. Support pilings will then be situated at the base of the log and at the head of the
log to hold the log in place. Once these vanes are in place, filter fabric is toed into a trench on the upstream
side of the vane and draped over the structure to force water over the vane. The upstream side of the
structure is then backfilled with suitable material.

Drop structures will be necessary at the outfalls of some constructed channels to match preconstruction
elevations. Drop structures will be constructed out of suitable natural materials, depending upon
anticipated scour from the restored stream channels. The structures will be constructed to resist erosive
forces associated with hydraulic drops.

10MONITORING PLAN
The Bank's performance standards and monitoring plan will be based on the IRT (2016) guidance
document titled Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. Monitoring
will occur over seven years, as outlined in Table 7. Additional monitoring, aside from site-specific
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 11
Phase 1 – Prospectus

performance standards, will occur to identify areas under an IRT-approved Adaptive Management or
Remedial Action Plan (Section 11).
Table 7. Monitoring Schedule
Resource Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4Year 5 Year 6 Year 7
Streams x xx x x
Wetlandsx xx x xx x
Vegetation x x x x x
Visual Assessment x x x x x x x
Report Submittalx x x x x x x
10.1Stream Monitoring
Stream monitoring protocols will be developed for all reaches involving Stream Restoration and
Enhancement I with in-channel work. Protocols will include a collection of the following: longitudinal
profile (collected as part of a sites' as-built surveys), permanent channel cross-sections, and crest gauges
to monitor frequency and magnitude of bankfull events. Visual assessments will be conducted by walking
the length of each channel. Preconstruction and post-construction photographs will be compiled.

10.2Wetland Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take daily measurements after hydrological
modifications are performed. Sampling will continue throughout the entire year. In addition, an on-site
rain gauge will document rainfall data for comparison of groundwater conditions with extended drought
conditions.

10.3Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration monitoring procedures for vegetation are designed in accordance with CVS-EEP Protocol for
Recording Vegetation Level 1-2 Plot Sampling Only (Version 4.2) (Lee et al. 2008), or the latest NC Division
of Mitigation Services data entry tool. Permanent and random vegetation plots, measuring 100 meters
square) would be established to sample two percent of a site's planted area. In each sample plot,
vegetation parameters to be monitored and reported include species, count, height, date of planting, and
grid location of each planted stem. Volunteer species encountered during monitoring will be counted,
identified to species level, measured, and recorded.

After planting has been completed in winter or early spring, an initial evaluation will be performed to
verify planting methods and determine initial species composition and density. If necessary, supplemental
planting and additional site modification would be implemented. Baseline vegetation data would be
reported in a Baseline Monitoring / As-built Report.

During the first year, vegetation will receive visual observation periodically to ascertain the degree of
overtopping of planted stems by nuisance species. Year 1 quantitative sampling will occur at a minimum
of six months after the initial planting. During monitoring years 2-7, quantitative vegetation sampling
would be performed between July 1 and leaf drop.

10.4Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring of general site conditions that may or may not be part of stream and vegetation
monitoring protocols will be conducted at least twice during each monitoring year. One visual inspection
can be completed during the stream and/or vegetation monitoring. The other inspection will occur
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 12
Phase 1 – Prospectus

independently and must be separated by at least 5 months. Monitoring will be conducted by traversing
the entire site to identify and document areas of low stem density, poor plant vigor, prolonged inundation,
native and exotic invasive species, beaver activity, excessive herbivory, easement encroachment,
indicators of livestock access, and other areas of concern.

11ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
If monitoring results indicate a site will not meet one or more of its performance standards, an adaptive
management plan will be developed and remedial actions implemented following notification and
approval by the Bank's USACE project manager. Adaptive management and remedial measures are
discussed in general below and will be developed further in each Bank Parcel's Mitigation Plan.

11.1Stream Instability
If stream monitoring and/or visual monitoring identify stream stability or sedimentation problems that
worsen or otherwise threaten other portions of a mitigation site, repairs will be made as necessary.
Persistent problems will be evaluated to determine if design or construction are contributing factors.
Should such systemic problems be identified and reasonably determined to be unfixable, the IRT may
decide to adjust a site's mitigation credit potential.

11.2Vegetation
Vegetation remedial action may include replanting and, if needed, corrective measures based on a
determination of potential reasons for mortality (e.g., portions of a site are too wet for planted species).
Low vegetation vigor remedial action may include but is not limited to deep ripping, replanting (same or
similar species), mowing, herbicide application, fertilization, and replanting with other species possessing
condition-specific tolerance.

11.3Invasive Species
If invasive or otherwise undesirable species—as defined in an appendix to the NC SAM Users Manual (NC
SFAT 2014)—reasonable efforts will be made to eradicate or otherwise control the growth and
distribution of the species across the mitigation site. Such actions may involve herbicide applications,
mechanical and/or hand removal, or prescribed burns.

12HISTORICAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
An in-person and digital review of Phase I Sites was conducted during the summer and fall of 2021 to
ascertain the presence of structures or other features that may be eligible for inclusion on the National
Register of Historic Places. No structures were identified within proposed easement boundaries; however,
coordination with State Historic Preservation Office will occur during the Mitigation Plan development to
determine if any significant cultural resources are present. This review would include coordination with
any American Indian groups through the USACE project manager

13ENDANGERED AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Two federally protected species are listed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service – Information for Planning
and Consultation (IPaC) website "as occurring in the vicinity" of the project sites in Madison County (IPaC
2022) (Table 8). If present, these species are likely to benefit from the restoration efforts.

Table 8: Federal Species of Concern, Madison County, NC
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 13
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Common Name Scientific Name Potential Habitat Present
Gray bat Myotis grisescens No
Northern Long-Eared Bat Myotis septentrionalis Yes
13.1Gray Bat
Gray bats roost in large limestone caves year-round but migrate from summer maternity colonies and
bachelor roosts in late summer to caves used for hibernation. Maternity roosts are typically located in
caves with large flowing streams (Handley 1991). Roosts are located near large permanent water bodies,
such as rivers and reservoirs, over which gray bats forage. North Carolina is on the periphery of the range
for gray bat, and, in North Carolina, this species is known from a single individual which had been tagged
in Tennessee and probably represents a vagrant (Webster et al. 1985).

13.2Northern Long-Eared Bat
A review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) web page
(https://www.fws.gov/species/northern-long-eared-bat-myotis-septentrionalis) on July 27, 2022
indicates northern long eared bats utilize forested areas for foraging and bark, cavities, and crevices as
roosting habitat during the spring, summer, and fall. Further coordination with the USFWS will occur
throughout the project in support of this species; however, at this time no additional surveys are expected
for the Northern Long Eared Bat.

13.3Preliminary Biological Conclusions
Only one species has habitat within or adjacent to the proposed Bank Site boundaries: northern long-
eared bat. Coordination with USFWS, but no further surveys for Northern long-eared bat, are expected to
take place.

14ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT WATER RIGHTS
In the State of North Carolina, water rights are owned by the State (General Statute 142-211 (NC GS §
143-211(a)). Developed using the "riparian rights" doctrine, water law in North Carolina entitles a riparian
landowner to the natural flow of a stream running through or along their land. The landowner has the
right to make "reasonable use" of the watercourse, meaning the landowner may use the water as long as
their use does not interfere with the reasonable use of another downstream riparian landowner.

Native waters supplied through rain events, surface runoff, overbank flooding events, and groundwater
will sustain the Site's hydrology. Restoration of the Site will not result in the impoundment of streams.
Native waters will be allowed to flow downstream for use by other riparian landowners. Upstream land
use is almost entirely agricultural. There is no concern of upstream land activities having an adverse effect
on the Site's hydrology.

15CONCLUSIONS
Restoration Systems, LLC is pleased to offer the French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank ("the Bank").
The proposed umbrella structure of the Bank is designed to initially permit the establishment of two
stream mitigation sites, comprising Phase I, while enabling the establishment of future mitigation sites
not yet identified. Phase I consists of the following sites in Madison County, North Carolina: 1) Gentry
Branch, 2) Davis Cove, and 3) Sliding Knob (Figure 1; Table 8).
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 14
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Table 8: Mitigation Bank Site Summary
Existing Approx. Final
Stream Site Hydro Status*
Mitigation Type
Length (LF) Length (LF)
Restoration, Enhancement II,
Gentry Branch Per/Int 13,724 13,954
Preservation
Restoration, Enhancement II,
Davis Cove Per/Int 16,346 15,972
Preservation
Restoration, Enhancement,
Sliding Knob Per/Int 4,852 4,866
Preservation
Totals 34,922 34,792
* Per = perennial; Int = intermittent
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 15
Phase 1 – Prospectus

16REFERENCES

Handley, C.O., Jr. 1991. Mammals. Pp. 539-616 in: K. Terwilliger (ed.), Virginia's Endangered Species:
Proceedings of a Symposium. The McDonald and Woodward Publishing Company, Blacksburg, Virginia.
672 pp.

Harman, W.A., GD Wise, D.E., Walker, R.M, Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton, D.,
and Patterson, J. 2001. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). 2022. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (online).
Available: https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/ (July 1, 2022).

Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, SD. Roberts, and T.R. Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation.
Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Ecosystem
Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.

North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. French Broad River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan.(online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/French_Broad/French%20Broad%20Pl
ans/2011%20Plan/French%20Broad%202010%20Plan.pdf
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team (NC SFAT). 2014. NC. Stream Assessment Method
(NC SAM) User Manual (Version 2). 178 pp.

Schafale, M.P. 2012. GUIDE TO THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA FOURTH
APPROXIMATION. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.

United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS), and North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2016. Wilmington District
Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update.

United States Census Bureau (USCB). 2021. Population estimates V.2021.
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/buncombecountynorthcarolina

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1990. Mitigation Site Type Classification
(MiST). EPA Workshop, September 13-15, 1989. EPA Region IV and Hardwood Research Cooperative,
NCSU, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 16
Phase 1 – Prospectus

17FIGURES

Figure 1: Site Locations Map
Figure 2: Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3: Geographic Service Area Map

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 17
Phase 1 – Prospectus

³

³

Appendix A

Gentry Branch Mitigation Site
SAW-2022-00528

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Appendix A – Gentry Branch Mitigation Site
Phase 1 – Prospectus

Appendix B

Davis Cove Mitigation Site
SAW-2022-00529

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Appendix B – Davis Cove Mitigation Site
Phase 1 – Prospectus

RESTORATION SYSTEMS FRENCH BROAD 05 UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
PROSPECTUS – DAVIS COVE MITIGATION SITE
SAW-2022-00529
Sponsored by:
RESTORATION SYSTEMS LLC
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Inter-Agency Review Team
for distribution and comment
Sponsored by: Prepared by:
Restoration Systems, LLC Axiom Environmental, Inc.

POC: Raymond Holz POC: Grant Lewis
Ph: 919-755-9490 Ph: 919-215-1693
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 211 218 Snow Avenue
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604 Raleigh, North Carolina 27603

September 2022

Table of Contents
1 EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Physiography, Topography, and Land Use ............................................................................. 2
1.2 Water Quality ......................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Vegetation .............................................................................................................................. 2
1.4 Soils ........................................................................................................................................ 3
1.5 Hydrology ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.6 Fluvial Geomorphology .......................................................................................................... 6
1.7 FEMA ...................................................................................................................................... 6
2 SITE WORK PLAN & PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT ........................................................................... 6
2.1 Stream Preservation ............................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Stream Enhancement II .......................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Stream Enhancement I ........................................................................................................... 7
2.4 Stream Restoration ................................................................................................................ 8
3 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 8

List of Tables
Table 1: Davis Cove Site Soils ........................................................................................................................ 3
Table 2: Davis Cove Existing Stream Flow Regime ........................................................................................ 4
Table 3: Davis Cove NC SAM Summary ......................................................................................................... 5
Table 4: Davis Cove Work Plan & Mitigation Credit Summary ..................................................................... 6

Attachments

A: Figures, Photos, & Landowner Authorization Form
Figure 4A: Davis Cove Site – Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4B: Davis Cove Site – Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 4B-I: Davis Cove Site – Inset Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 4C: Davis Cove Site – LiDAR
Figure 4D: Davis Cove Site – Proposed Conditions
Figure 4D-I: Davis Cove Site – Inset Proposed Conditions

Existing Conditions Photos

Landowner Authorization Form

B: Baseline Assessment Forms
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Table of Contents
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

DAVIS COVE MITIGATION SITE
The Davis Cove Mitigation Site (“Site”)is characterized by disturbed forest and agricultural land used for
livestock grazing and hay production. The main hydrological features include twelve unnamed tributaries
(UTs) to Spring Creek. Reaches near the Site’s outfall have been heavily modified for livestock and
agricultural production; UT-3 has been diverted to allow cattle access, and UT-4 has been piped
underground for hay production. The proposed conservation easement area contains approximately 44.3-
acres (Figure 4A).

1EXISTING CONDITIONS

1.1Physiography, Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Southern Crystalline Ridges and Mountains ecoregion. Regional physiography is
defined by rough, dissected ridges and mountains with high-relief slopes and well-drained, acidic, loamy
soils occurring primarily on Precambrian igneous and metamorphic rocks (Griffith et al. 2002). On-site
elevations range from a high of 3,200-feet NGVD at the upper reach of UT1 to a low of approximately
2,360-feet NGVD at the site outfall (Figure 4A).

The Site drains an approximately 0.42-square mile watershed at the outfall with smaller drainage areas
ranging from 0.03 to 0.29-square miles (Figure 4A). The watershed is forestland in the upper headwaters
with pasture and hayfields in the lower valleys. Impervious surfaces account for less than five percent of
the upstream land surface.

Land use at the Site is characterized by forest, hayfields, and livestock pasture. Riparian zones in lower
portions of the Site are primarily composed of herbaceous vegetation that is sparse and disturbed due to
livestock grazing, bush hogging, and regular land-management activities. A road network extends through
the upper reaches of the Site to allow access to the property by the landowner, firefighters, or other
emergency personnel. Roads are stable and constructed of earthen materials and have multiple culverted
crossings.

1.2Water Quality
The Site is within the French Broad River Basin in USGS 14-digit HUC 06010105120010 (Figure 2) and
NCDWR Subbasin number 04-03-04. Site streams drain to Spring Creek, which has been assigned Stream
Index Number 6-118-(1) and a Best Usage Classification of C, Tr. Streams with a C designation are
protected for uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body
contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The supplemental classification TR is intended to
protect freshwaters with conditions that can sustain and allow for trout propagation and survival of
stocked trout on a year-round basis.

Site streams are not included on the 2020 Final 303(d) lists of impaired waterbodies (NCDEQ 2020).

1.3Vegetation
The Site is characterized primarily by open pastureland utilized for cattle production surrounded by
mature forested mountain slopes. Pastureland is maintained for livestock grazing and hay production and
is dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.) and clover (Trifolium spp.). Other opportunistic herbaceous species
such as ragweed (Ambrosia spp.), wild geranium (Geranium maculatum), horsenettle (Solanum
carolinense), aster (Symphyotrichum spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), hog peanut (Amphicarpaea
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 2
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

bracteata), and crown beard (Verbesina sp.), occur the along streamside areas and woodland edges of the
pasture. The forested portion of the Site is largely composed of hickory (Carya spp.), black walnut (Juglans
nigra), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple (Acer rubrum), red
oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Q. alba), Eastern hemlock (Tsuga canadensis), sourwood (Oxydendron
arboreum), and white ash (Fraxinus americana) in the canopy. Subcanopy and shrub species include
striped maple (Acer pensylvanicum), basswood (Tilia americana), Sassafras (Sassafras albidum), yellow
buckeye (Aesculus flava), mountain maple (Acer spicatum), mapleleaf viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium),
doghobble (Leucothoe fontanesiana), and rhododendron (Rhododendron maximum). Herbs and vines
include Christmas fern (Polystichium acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron),
bloodroot (Sanguinaria canadensis), pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata), Dutchmans’s pipe (Aristolochia
macrophylla), greenbriar (Smilax spp.), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Forested portions of the
Site where cattle congregate have little to no shrubs or herbs. These areas include scattered Christmas
ferns, false stinging nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), and Japanese stilt-grass (Microstegium vimineum).

1.4Soils
Based on Web Soil Survey mapping (USDA 2021), proposed conservation easement areas associated with
the Davis Cove site contain six soil series (Figure 4B and Table 1): Ashe-Cleveland-Rock outcrop complex
(Typic Dystrudepts), Buladean-Chestnut complex (Typic Dystrudepts), Evard-Cowee complex (Typic
Hapludults), Statler loam (Humic Hapludults), and Toecane-Tusquitee complex (Humic Hapludults),
Tusquitee-Whiteside complex (Humic Dystrudepts).

Table 1: Davis Cove Site Soils
Map Unit
Map Unit Name Hydric Status Description
Symbol
The Ashe-Cleveland complex consists of
moderately deep, somewhat excessively drained,
Ashe-Cleveland -Rock
ArE and ArF Non-hydric moderately rapid permeable soils on long and
outcrop complex
narrow summits and irregular side slopes. Depth
to seasonal high water is greater than 6 feet.
The Buladean-Chestnut complex consists of
moderately deep, well drained, moderately rapid
BnD, BnE, and Buladean-Chestnut
Non-hydric permeable soils on long and narrow summits and
BnF complex
irregular side slopes. Depth to seasonal high water
is greater than 6 feet.
The Evard-Cowee complex consists of moderately
deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on
EvF2 Evard-Cowee complex Non-hydric
long and narrow summits and side slopes. Depth
to seasonal high water is greater than 6 feet.
The Statler soil series consists of very deep, well
drained, moderately permeable soils on concave
StB Statler loam Non-hydric to planar toe slopes along low stream terraces.
Depth to seasonal high water is 4 to 6 feet from
January through December.
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 3
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

Table 1: Davis Cove Site Soils (continued)
Map Unit
Map Unit Name Hydric Status Description
Symbol
The Tate soil series consists of very deep, well
drained, moderately rapid permeable soils on
TaB, TaC, and
Tate loam Non-hydric footslopes and toeslopes along coves, colluvial
TaD
fans, and benches. Depth to seasonal high water is
greater than 6 feet.
The Tusquitee-Toecane complex consists of very
deep, well drained, moderately permeable soils on
TsD, TsE, and Tusquitee-Toecane
Non-hydric head slopes, footslopes, and toeslopes along
TuD complex
colluvial fans, drainageways, and benches. Depth
to seasonal high water is greater than 6 feet.
A North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist conducted investigations of the Site on September 3, 2022, for
hydric soil and/or wetland pockets that would be suitable for mitigation. Based on soils mapping data,
approximately 0.1 acres of hydric soils occur within the Site boundaries. Confirmation of the delineation
by representatives from the USACE has not occurred at this time.

1.5Hydrology
Davis Cove streams are depicted on USGS mapping as perennial (Figure 4A). However, on-site
investigations using NCDWQ stream forms (Table 2) have identified additional intermittent streams.
Seven unnamed tributaries have been classified as intermittent: UT 1A, UT 4, UT 5A, UT 5B, UT 6, UT 7,
and UT 9. NC SAM on-site determinations have concluded that the stream functional characteristics range
from low ratings in the disturbed areas to high ratings in the forested areas (Table 3).

Table 2: Davis Cove Existing Stream Flow Regime
USGS Stream In-field Stream
StreamStream Length Stream Order
Classification Classification
st
UT-1 3,098 1 Perennial Perennial
st
UT-1A 71 1 Not mapped Intermittent
st
UT-2 1,815 1 Perennial Perennial
rd
UT-3 3,833 3 Perennial Perennial
st
UT-4 1,047 1 Not mapped Intermittent
nd
UT-5 3,706 2Perennial Perennial
st
UT-5A 89 1 Not mapped Intermittent
st
UT-5B 282 1 Not mapped Intermittent
st
UT-6 393 1 Not mapped Intermittent
st
UT-7 901 1 Not mapped Intermittent
st
UT-8 921 1 Perennial Perennial
st
UT-9 187 1 Not mapped Intermittent
Total 16,346
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 4
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

Table 3: Davis Cove NC SAM Summary
NC SAM Function Class Rating UT 3UT 3
UT 1 UT 4 UT 5
SummaryLowerPreservation
(1) HYDROLOGY HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(2) BaseflowHIGHMEDIUMHIGHMEDIUMHIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH MEDIUMHIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography NANA NA NA NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(4) Channel Stability HIGH MEDIUMHIGHHIGH HIGH
(4) Sediment Transport HIGH LOW HIGH LOWLOW
(4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(1) WATER QUALITY HIGH LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(2) BaseflowHIGH MEDIUMHIGHMEDIUMHIGH
(2) Stream-side Area Vegetation HIGH LOW HIGH LOWLOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH LOW HIGH LOWLOW
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of StressorsNO YES NOYES NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM MEDIUM HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(1) HABITAT HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) BaseflowHIGH MEDIUMHIGHMEDIUMHIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) Stream StabilityHIGH MEDIUMHIGHMEDIUMHIGH
(3) In-Stream Habitat HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH LOW HIGH LOW MEDIUM
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
OVERALL HIGH LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
The Site’s main tributaries are depicted as perennial on the USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. No
streams were mapped as intermittent, however, UT 1A, UT 4, UT 5A, UT 5B, UT 6, and UT 7 exhibit field
characteristics of intermittent streams based on benthic macroinvertebrate samples, NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form \[v4.11\] scores, and evidence of stream flow during field visits.

This hydro-physiographic region is characterized by moderate rainfall with precipitation averaging 51.1-
inches per year (based on data provided by NOAA 2020). Site discharge is dominated by a combination of
upstream basin catchment, groundwater flow, and precipitation. Based on regional curves (Harman et al.
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 5
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

2001), the bankfull discharge for a 0.42-square mile watershed is expected to average 17.0-CFS. Based on
empirical evidence a bankfull discharge of 17.0-CFS is expected to occur approximately every 1.3 to 1.5
years (Rosgen 1996, Leopold 1994).

1.6Fluvial Geomorphology
Currently, channels targeted for restoration have been severely impacted by livestock trampling with
sinuosity affected by bank erosion and hoof shear. UT 3 has been rerouted for agricultural purposes, and
a large section of UT 4 has been piped underground to create a pasture for hay production. In general,
underground piping, sediment and nutrient inputs, channel incision and straightening, removal of cobble
substrate, aggradation of silt and sand, and removal of woody vegetation have impacted lower Davis Cove
streams.

1.7FEMA
Inspection of the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3700874500J, Panel 8745, effective June 2, 2009,
indicates that Spring Creek, the receiving stream for Site drainage is mapped as a Zone AE flood area.
Work conducted at the Site is unlikely to affect flood zones in Spring Creek; however, coordination with
FEMA will occur throughout the design process. At this time, a CLOMR is not expected.

2SITE WORK PLAN & PROPOSED MITIGATION CREDIT
A summary of the actions proposed at Davis Cove is provided in Table 4 and in Figures 4D and 4D-I. In
general, proposed activities involve Stream Restoration, Stream Enhancement I and II, and Stream
Preservation. Stream and wetlandpreservation has been limited to the upper reaches of stream confined
by steep valleys. Stream and wetland enhancement occur in lower reaches of streams that have been
impacted by straightening, piping, diversion, clearing of vegetation, livestock grazing, and other historic
land uses. Where possible, roads will be decommissioned and crossings will be converted to fords and
stabilized.

Table 4: Davis Cove Work Plan & Mitigation Credit Summary
Stream Approx. Final
Mitigation Activity
Reach Length (LF)
UT-1 3,098 Stream Enhancement II, Preservation
UT-1A 71 Stream Preservation
UT-2 1,815 Stream Enhancement II, Preservation
Stream Restoration, Enhancement I and II,
UT-3 3,971
Preservation
UT-4 543 Stream Restoration, Enhancement II
UT-5 3,706 Stream Enhancement I and II, Preservation
UT-5A 90 Stream Preservation
UT-5B 282 Stream Preservation
UT-6 386 Stream Preservation
UT-7 902 Stream Enhancement II, Preservation
UT-8 921 Stream Enhancement II, Preservation
UT-9 187 Stream Preservation
Total 15,972
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 6
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

2.1Stream Preservation
Stream preservation is proposed for the upper reach of tributaries that are relatively undisturbed and
drain through mature hardwood forest. Easement widths are a minimum of 75 ft in preservation reaches.
A significant feature of stream preservation entails decommissioning roads (UT-5A, UT-5, UT-8, UT-3, and
UT-7). These roads will be blocked and planted with stabilizing vegetation. Roads that are required to
remain in place will have crossings upgraded to bridges or stable fords that will allow for wildlife passage
and hydrologic connectivity.

Based on the mitigation rule (33 CFR Section 332.3 – General compensatory mitigation requirements),
preservation may be used to provide compensatory mitigation if the following criteria are met.

The resources to be preserved provide important physical, chemical, or biological functions for
the watershed.
p The Site is situated in trout waters. Once the project is complete, upstream preservation
will serve as possible habitat for fish species.
The resources to be preserved contribute significantly to the ecological sustainability of the
watershed.
p The streams comprise part of the headwater system which drains into the French Broad
River
Preservation is determined by the district engineer to be appropriate and practicable.
p Discussions with the IRT members indicate that preservation is appropriate. Wider
buffers, roadway improvements, and erosion control measures warrant a preservation
status.
The resources are under threat of destruction or adverse modifications.
p Although the site is not under direct threat, reaches have been cleared and logged in the
past and future timber harvesting practices could pose a threat to the upper stream
reaches.
The preserved resources will be permanently protected through an appropriate legal instrument.
p A conservation easement will be implemented as required under the banking process.

2.2Stream Enhancement II
Stream Enhancement II will entail widening existing vegetative buffers that have pasture adjacent to the
stream. In addition, the treatment of black walnut (Juglans nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora), and white pine
(Pinus strobus) in the disturbed canopy will be conducted. Understory plantings will take place where
appropriate. Further surveys of the stream channel during the winter months will be conducted to
determine spot bank treatments and the stabilization of culvert outfall that will be required to justify an
appropriate mitigation ratio. Managed livestock water supply features will be removed from the
conservation easement.

2.3Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement I is proposed at a perched crossing on UT-5 to elevate the channel to allow wildlife
passage and hydrologic connection to the upstream preservation reach. This enhancement is intended to
continue downstream and elevate the channel for connection to the downstream restoration reach. The
enhancement of this reach is expected to entail the installation of structures for bank stabilization, grade
control, and habitat. The reach is expected to be raised to allow for connectivity to a floodplain, or at a
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 7
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

minimum, constructing a wider floodplain within the valley. Managed livestock water supply features will
be removed from the conservation easement.

2.4Stream Restoration
Stream Restoration, as depicted on Figure 4D and 4D-I, will include daylighting a piped stream and
rerouting a manipulated channel back to its historic location. Care will be taken to ensure maintenance of
the channel so it doesn’t agrade and evolve into a linear wetland.

3REFERENCES

Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F. MacPherson, J.B.
Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. U.S. Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Harman, W.A., G.D. Wise, D.E., Walker, R.M, Cantrell, M.A., Clemmons, M., Jennings, G.D., Clinton, D.,
and Patterson, J. 2001. Bankfull Regional Curves for North Carolina Mountain Streams. North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina.

Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA. 298 pp.

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2020. National Climate Data Center’s (NCDC)
Climate Data Online (CDO). http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology (Publisher). Pagosa Springs, Colorado
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2021. Web Soil Survey (online). Available:
http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx \[September 2021\].
Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Page 8
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

ATTACHMENT A – FIGURES, PHOTOS, & LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
Figure 4A: Davis Cove Site – Topography and Drainage Area
Figure 4B: Davis Cove Site – Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 4B-I: Davis Cove Site – Inset Existing Conditions and Soils
Figure 4C: Davis Cove Site – LiDAR
Figure 4D: Davis Cove Site – Proposed Conditions
Figure 4D-I: Davis Cove Site – Inset Proposed Conditions

Existing Conditions Photos

Landowner Authorization Form

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Attachment A
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

:.UV
8.UV

:.UV
8.UV

:.UV
8.
UV

:.UV
8.UV

:.UV
8.UV

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –Looking West Up Valley, UT-4 (Piped Section) & UT-3
03/22/20212 –Looking West Up Valley, UT-3 and UT-1/UT-2 Confluence
Page 1

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –Looking West Up Valley, UT-4 (Piped Section)
03/22/20212 –Looking West Up Valley, UT-4 (Forested Section)
Page 2

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-3 and UT-5 Confluence
03/22/20212 –UT-5 Existing (and Future) Crossing, Above UT-3 Confluence
Page 3

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-5
03/22/20212 –UT-5 Near SAM Form 5
Page 4

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-5 Existing (and Future) Crossing, Above UT-3 Confluence
03/22/20212 –DWR From 1, UT-4, Origin (Spring Box)
Page 5

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –DWR From 2, UT-5
03/22/20212 –DWR From 2, UT-5
Page 6

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –SAM From 1, UT-1
03/22/20212 –SAM From 1, UT-1
Page 7

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –SAM From 2, UT-3
03/22/20212 –SAM From 1, UT-1
Page 8

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –SAM From 3, UT-3
03/22/20212 –SAM From 3, UT-3
Page 9

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –SAM From 4, UT-4
03/22/20212 –SAM From 4, UT-4
Page 10

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –SAM From 5, UT-5
03/22/20212 –SAM From 5, UT-5
Page 11

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-5 Perched Culvert at Existing (and Proposed) Crossing
03/22/20212 –Upstream of UT-5 Perched Culvert at Existing (and Proposed) Crossing
Page 12

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-6 Trail Crossing
03/22/20212 –UT-6 Trail Crossing
Page 13

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-7 Trail Crossing
03/22/20212 –UT-7 Trail Crossing, Directly Down Stream
Page 14

Davis Cove SAW-2022-00529: RS LLC French Broad 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Existing Conditions Photos
03/22/20212 –UT-7 Trail Crossing
03/22/20212 –UT-7 Trail Crossing, Directly Down Stream
Page 15

ATTACHMENT B – BASELINE ASSESSMENT FORMS

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Attachment B
Phase 1 – Prospectus, Davis Cove Mitigation Site

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name
Davis CoveDate of Evaluation211008
Stream CategoryMb2Assessor Name/OrganizationLewis/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)Perennial
USACE/NCDWR
Function Class Rating SummaryAll StreamsIntermittent
(1)HydrologyHIGH
(2)BaseflowHIGH
(2)Flood FlowHIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4)Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer
NA
(4)Microtopography
HIGH
(3)Stream Stability
HIGH
(4)Channel Stability
HIGH
(4)Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology
NA
(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
HIGH
(1)Water Quality
HIGH
(2)Baseflow
HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation
NO
(2)Indicators of Stressors
MEDIUM
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
(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
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3)Flow Restriction
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat
HIGH
Overall

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site NameDavis CoveDate of Evaluation211008
Stream CategoryMb1Assessor Name/OrganizationLewis/Axiom
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 SummaryAll StreamsIntermittent
(1)HydrologyLOW
(2)BaseflowMEDIUM
(2)Flood FlowLOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
MEDIUM
(4)Floodplain Access
LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer
NA
Microtopography
(4)
LOW
(3)Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4)Channel Stability
LOW
(4)Sediment Transport
LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology
NA
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(1)Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2)Baseflow
LOW
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3)Thermoregulation
YES
(2)Indicators of Stressors
MEDIUM
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
(1)Habitat
LOW
(2)In-stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow
LOW
(3)Substrate
MEDIUM
(3)Stream Stability
LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat
LOW
(2)Stream-side Habitat
LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat
LOW
(3)Thermoregulation
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3)Flow Restriction
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
Overall

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site NameDavis CoveDate of Evaluation211008
Stream CategoryMb2Assessor Name/OrganizationLewis/Axiom
YES
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)Intermittent
USACE/NCDWR
Intermittent
Function Class Rating SummaryAll Streams
(1)HydrologyHIGHHIGH
(2)BaseflowHIGH
HIGH
(2)Flood FlowHIGHHIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGHHIGH
HIGHHIGH
(4)Floodplain Access
HIGHHIGH
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer
NA
NA
(4)Microtopography
HIGH
HIGH
(3)Stream Stability
HIGHHIGH
(4)Channel Stability
HIGHHIGH
(4)Sediment Transport
HIGHHIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology
NANA
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NANA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NANA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
HIGHHIGH
(1)Water Quality
HIGHHIGH
(2)Baseflow
HIGHHIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
HIGH
HIGH
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
HIGHHIGH
(3)Thermoregulation
NONO
(2)Indicators of Stressors
HIGHNA
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
NANA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGHHIGH
(1)Habitat
HIGHHIGH
(2)In-stream Habitat
HIGHHIGH
(3)Baseflow
HIGHHIGH
(3)Substrate
HIGHHIGH
(3)Stream Stability
HIGH
HIGH
(3)In-stream Habitat
HIGHHIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat
HIGHHIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat
HIGHHIGH
(3)Thermoregulation
NANA
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NANA
(3)Flow Restriction
NANA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNANA
NANA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NANA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NANA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat
HIGHHIGH
Overall

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name
Davis CoveDate of Evaluation211008
Stream CategoryMb2Assessor Name/OrganizationLewis/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)Perennial
USACE/NCDWR
Function Class Rating SummaryAll StreamsIntermittent
(1)HydrologyLOW
(2)BaseflowMEDIUM
(2)Flood FlowLOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
LOW
(4)Floodplain Access
LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer
NA
(4)Microtopography
LOW
(3)Stream Stability
HIGH
(4)Channel Stability
LOW
(4)Sediment Transport
LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology
NA
(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
LOW
(1)Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2)Baseflow
LOW
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3)Thermoregulation
YES
(2)Indicators of Stressors
LOW
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
(1)Habitat
LOW
(2)In-stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow
LOW
(3)Substrate
MEDIUM
(3)Stream Stability
LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat
LOW
(2)Stream-side Habitat
LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat
LOW
(3)Thermoregulation
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3)Flow Restriction
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
Overall

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site NameDavis CoveDate of Evaluation211008
Stream CategoryMb2Assessor Name/OrganizationLewis/Axiom
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
YES
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)Perennial
USACE/NCDWR
Function Class Rating SummaryAll StreamsIntermittent
(1)HydrologyHIGH
(2)BaseflowHIGH
(2)Flood FlowHIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation
HIGH
HIGH
(4)Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer
NA
(4)Microtopography
HIGH
(3)Stream Stability
HIGH
(4)Channel Stability
LOW
(4)Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology
NA
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2)Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
MEDIUM
(1)Water Quality
HIGH
(2)Baseflow
LOW
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3)Thermoregulation
NO
(2)Indicators of Stressors
MEDIUM
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Filtration
HIGH
(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
MEDIUM
(3)Stream-side Habitat
HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation
NA
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(3)Flow Restriction
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel StabilityNA
NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
NA
(2)Intertidal Zone Habitat
HIGH
Overall

Appendix C

Sliding Knob Site
SAW-2022-00530

Restoration Systems French Broad 06010105 Umbrella Mitigation Bank Appendix C – Sliding Knob Mitigation Site
Phase 1 – Prospectus