20171194 Ver 1_Mitigation Bank Prospectus_20180919

Action History (UTC -05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)
Submit by Anonymous User 9/19/2018 5:06:14 PM (Message Start Event)
Approve by Montalvo, Sheri A 9/21/2018 8:47:36 AM (Initial Review- Sheri Montalvo)
• The task was assigned to Montalvo, Sheri A 9/19/2018 5:06 PM

D# * 20171194
Version* 1
Select Reviewer:* Mac Haupt
Mitigation Project Submittal -9/19/2018
Type of Mitigation Project:*
fJ Stream rJ Wetlands fJ Buffer I— Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a a yes a No
New Site? *
Project Contact Information
Company/Owner: * Quible & Associates, PP
Contact Name:* Joel Lenk
Email Address:* [e-mail]
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
Project Name:* Camp Grier Mitigation Bank
Project Type:* r DMS
F Mitigation Bank
County:* McDowell
Document Information
File Upload: P15115.1 Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus
104.85M6
091918.pdf
Rease upload only one RDF of the corrplete file that needs to be submitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Joel Lenk
Signature:*

SINCE 1959

CAMP GRIER MITIGATION BANK
PROSPECTUS

CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
HUC: 03050101
MCDOWELL COUNTY
NORTH CAROLINA

Prepared For:

CAMP GRIER 501(c)(3)

Prepared By:

Quible & Associates, P.C.
Engineering * Environmental Sciences * Planning * Surveying
P.O. Drawer 870
Kitty Hawk, North Carolina 27949
[phone] FAX [phone]
Quible.com

Project Number P15115.1
September 19, 2018
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 SITE LOCATION & SUMMARY
The Camp Grier Mitigation Bank (CGMB) will be located at Camp Grier, a 620-acre youth
wilderness camp located north of the town of Old Fort in McDowell County, North Carolina.
The CGMB contains headwater streams of the upper Catawba River Basin. The project
area is contiguous to, and lies just downstream of, approximately 30,000 acres of non-
developable United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service, United
States Department of the Interior (USDI) National Park Service (Blue Ridge Parkway) and
Town of Old Fort municipal water supply land. For these reasons the potential for
ecological uplift and benefit to the Catawba River Basin/Watershed resulting from the
restoration, enhancement, and preservation of streams within the project area is greater
than mitigation projects lower in the watershed. This project offers the opportunity to
improve water quality and ecology from the top of the watershed and these factors should
be considered when evaluating the value and credit generation for this project. The project
area lies just upstream of multiple Targeted Local Watersheds (TLW) and areas with Local
Watershed Plans (LWP) identified by NC Department of Environmental Quality, Division of
Mitigation Services, Catawba River Basin. The CGMB will benefit TLWs and LWPs and
will meet mitigation needs in the Catawba Basin of North Carolina. The site entrance is at
985 Old US 70, Old Fort, North Carolina, 28762. The project area is centered
approximately at Latitude 35.64397 and -82.19258 Longitude. A site location map can be
found as an inset within Exhibit A (Camp Grier Conceptual Mitigation Plan).

The property and project area slope generally south from the southeast side of the Black
Mountain range and makes up part of the boundary between the mountain and piedmont
physiographic regions on the flank of the Blue Ridge escarpment. Streams that do not
originate within the project area flow from approximately 30,000 acres of undeveloped and
protected land to the project area. The most predominant stream in the project area is
Jarrett Creek, which flows through the property and southern portion of the project area.
Padgett Branch, its tributaries and its confluence with Jarrett creek, make up the remainder
of the project area. Jarrett creek flows to Mill Creek just south of the Camp Grier property.
Mill Creek is a major tributary, and trout fishery, of the South Fork of the Catawba River.

The Camp Grier property and project area are surrounded to the west, north, and east by
USDA, USDI, and municipal property as mentioned above. This site is bordered on its
remaining southwest, south and southeast sides by private undeveloped and residential
properties. The 14-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) for the site is 03050101010010. The
CGMB will serve the area within the eight-digit HUC: 03050101 which extends to the South
Carolina state line (Exhibit B). The project area will occupy approximately 105 acres within
the 620-acre Camp Grier property. Much of the project area has been impacted by logging
before 1960 and is currently suffering repetitive and ongoing impacts from camp activities
and camp development. Streams within the project appear to have been degraded from
their current NC DWR water quality classification by historic excavation, channelization,
filling, and stormwater, sediment, and nutrient impacts. Water quality generally decreases
as it flows from the protected properties immediately upstream, through developed areas
of the camp, that currently exhibit narrow, poorly vegetated buffers and propagate the
impacts mentioned above.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
2

The Camp’s current administration recognizes the habitat and water quality need,
educational opportunity, and benefit that a mitigation bank could bring to the camp. The
board members for the Camp Grier 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization are currently
committed to the CGMB project if the project can generate the credits necessary to ensure
the project’s viability.

Based on preliminary site investigations, the project provides the opportunity to restore
approximately 1,261 linear feet of stream and restore and create approximately 0.27 acres
of wetlands. The project will result in the implementation of a holistic stormwater
management plan, enhance approximately 9,229 linear feet of stream, and preserve
approximately 12,000 linear feet of headwater stream. Preservation of headwater streams
is proposed upstream of the restored and enhanced streams and wetlands, thus protecting
the restored and enhanced environment. In total, the project will result in more than
22,000 linear feet of stream, approximately 0.27 acres of wetlands, and about 105 acres of
stream and wetland buffer being protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement and
Mitigation Banking Instrument (MBI) designed for the project. The conservation easement
will be held by a nationally accredited, non-profit regional land trust, that serves North
Carolina’s eastern Blue Ridge Mountains and Foothills.

The Project Sponsor is Camp Grier, a 501(c)(3) organization. Jason McDougald is the
Executive Director of the Camp and the Sponsor’s liaison to the Camp Grier Board. Jason
earned Undergraduate and Master’s Degrees in Education from the University of North
Carolina at Greensboro and has over 14 years of experience in Youth and No-profit
Leadership.

The project is being planned, designed, engineered, permitted and monitored by Quible &
Associates, P.C. (Quible) a civil and environmental engineering company with offices in
Powells Point and Black Mountain, NC. Quible is an experienced envrionmental consulting
firm that was established in 1959 and that specializes in environmental assessment,
environmental permitting and environmental restoration in addition to other civil, planning,
and surveying capabilities and services. Joel Lenk, P.G. will be the Project Manager, Lead
Designer, and Permitting Specialist for the project. Joel will be the point of contact with
regulatory agencies and the Inter-agency Review Team (IRT) and will perform construction
observation and most monitoring for the project. Joel has over 14 years of experience with
recognized engineering and geological consulting firms and over 13 years of experience as
a Licensed Geologist and Water Resources Professional. During his career, Joel has
designed and permitted more that 20 individual stream restoration projects and managed
several Mitigation Bank projects, one of which has been completed and has successfully
undergone all required monitoring resulting in 100% credit release. Michael W. Strader,
Jr., P.E., Director of Engineering for Quible will be the lead engineer for the project.
Brandon K. Harris, P.E. will be the Project Engineer and Assistant Designer. Brian Rubino
is a Principal of Quible and highly experienced Environmental Scientist and Licensed
Geologist. Other Environmental Scientists and Quible staff will be utilized on the project
as needed. A general Statement of Qualifications and resumes for Quible staff listed
above are included as Exhibit C.

1.2 WATERSHED CHARACTERIZATION AND SERVICE AREA
Camp Grier lies within the headwaters of the upper Catawba River Basin (HUC:
03050101010010) and is proposed to serve the entire Catawba River Watershed (HUC:
03050101) in North Carolina, an area of 3,300 square miles that covers 11 counties. Per
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
3
information found on the NC Department of Mitigation Services (DMS) and USACE RIBITS
websites, the population in the watershed is expected to nearly double in size from 1.8
million to 2.7 million residents between the years of 2006 and 2030.

The NC Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ) 2007 Lower Catawba River Basin
Restoration Priorities and 2009 Upper Catawba River Restoration Priorities documents,
supplements to the original 2004 Catawba River Basin Watershed Restoration Plan,
highlight the 40 current TLWs within the Catawba Basin. The TLWs are selected based on
three criteria: Problems, Assets, and Opportunities. The Camp Grier Mitigation Bank
project area lies just outside a current TLW for the Upper Catawba Basin and will help
meet Upper Catawba restoration goals outlined below and in the 2009 Basin Restoration
Priorities:
• “Restoration of nutrient- and sediment-impaired waters (including tributary
streams) of the Catawba River mainstem lakes (water supply reservoirs),
including Lake James, Lake Rodhiss, Lake Hickory and Lookout Shoals
Lake.”
• “Protection of riparian buffers and aquatic habitat within the headwater
reaches of asset-rich watersheds of the upper Catawba River basin,
including the upper Linville River, North Fork Catawba River, Wilson Creek,
Mulberry Creek, Johns River and Lower Little River.”
• “Implementation of stormwater assessment and management efforts,
including stormwater BMP projects, within urban and suburban
subwatersheds in the Linville, Marion, Lenoir, Morganton, Hickory and
Taylorsville areas.”
• “Increased implementation of agricultural BMPs within heavily agricultural
sub-watersheds of TLWs, including North and South Muddy Creeks, Silver
Creek, lower Lower Creek, Lower Little River, Jumping Run Creek and Elk
Shoal Creek.”
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
4
1.3 PROJECT PURPOSE
The project will utilize the environmental stewardship goals of Camp Grier’s current
administration to create a general use mitigation bank on approximately 105 acres of the
650-acre parcel. The purpose of the project is to compensate for losses of Waters of the
State permitted by State and Federal regulatory agencies through the restoration,
enhancement, creation and preservation of more than 22,000 linear feet of stream and
approximately 0.27 acres of wetlands. The project will provide measurable water quality
benefits to Padgett Branch and its tributaries, Jarrett Creek, Mill Creek and the Upper
Catawba River by restoring impacted and unstable stream reaches and by reducing
nutrient, sediment, and bacterial impacts conveyed to project area streams by stormwater,
agriculture, and erosion taking place on the Camp Grier Property. Ongoing stormwater
impacts will be mitigated through implementation of a Stormwater Management Plan for
the entire developed area of the parcel through stormwater and livestock Stormwater
Control Measures (SCMs) that will be located outside the proposed conservation
easement for the project. In addition, establishment and enhancement of wide and
diversely vegetated, native riparian buffers, many with total widths exceeding 300 feet will
contribute to the quality of the project. Any SCMs that may be located within the
conservation easement will be designed as “zero maintenance” measures that will prevent
direct stormwater input to streams, disperse concentrated flow and promote infiltration and
discharge to streams as shallow groundwater.

The project will eliminate or drastically reduce future impacts resulting from camp related
activities and create, improve and extend habitat from protected land upstream,
surrounding properties and unimpacted areas of Camp Grier. The CGMB project will
reduce temperature, sediment, biological and nutrient inputs within the project area and
improve water quality and ecology on-site and downstream through the implementation of
an approved Mitigation Plan.

1.4 FUTURE SITE DEVELOPMENT
The Camp Grier property has suffered land and water quality impacts associated first with
historic logging in the 1950’s and subsequently by agriculture, aquaculture, and lake
building circa 1960-1970. More recently, increased camp development, related
recreational activities and sediment and temperature inputs from gravel and soil roads and
trails are contributing most heavily to water quality impacts at the site. Roads and trails
currently provide the conduit for sediment, nutrient, and biological water quality impacts.

The demonstrable threat of future camp development is evident as new camp leadership
has been successful in acquiring additional funding, developing new camp programs, and
soliciting additional camp users to the property. New and expanding camp activities
include a growing equestrian program, additional hiking and mountain biking trails and
additional lake infrastructure and activities. Construction of more roads, trails and
additional horse and livestock pasture are currently taking place. Additionally, traditional
mowing and vegetation management techniques used within riparian areas are
contributing to nutrient, pollutant, sediment, and temperature impacts to Jarrett Creek and
Padgett Branch within the project area and downstream. Without the establishment of the
CGMB and its associated covenants and easement that will permanently protect streams,
wetlands, and riparian buffers, water quality will continue to decline. Additionally, future
camp administrations may not have the foresight or interest to consider and pursue the
mitigation banking and conservation options. Finally, if the camp were to become non-
viable, as it nearly did several years ago, the owners of the property will consider the sale
and development of the property to fund church and mission related efforts.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
5

As planned, the CGMB will restore, enhance and preserve streams and wetlands and their
riparian buffers within the 105-acres most heavily impacted by historic logging, lake
creation, and past, present, and future camp related activities. Establishment of the CGMB
will help ensure that the property continues to operate only as a wilderness camp with a
new water and land quality educational component and awareness. The project will
discourage higher density forms of development and reduce and eliminate impacts from
future development if it does occur. Camp activities currently responsible for water quality
impacts will also be reduced/eliminated and managed with a greater awareness. New
activities will be forced to be located outside conserved riparian buffers established as part
of CGMB. Access to areas within the CGMB will be restricted by signage and exclusionary
fencing.

2.0 BASELINE CONDITIONS

2.1 COMMUNITY TYPES
The CGMB lies in the “Blue Ridge Level III Ecoregion” of the US and the “Eastern Blue
Ridge Foothills Level IV Ecoregion” according to the Ecoregions Map of North Carolina
(Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R.,
and MacPherson, T.F., 2002, Ecoregions of North Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Corvallis, OR, (map scale 1:1,500,000)). Natural Communities within the project
area included altered Rich Cove and Acidic Cove Forest (Schafale, M.P. and A.S.
Weakley. 1990. CLASSIFICATION OF THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF NORTH
CAROLINA THIRD APPROXIMATION. NC Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.)

2.2 VEGETATION
Dominant vegetation within the riparian corridor includes, tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), black locust (Robinia pseudoacacia), various oak (Quercus var.), red maple
(Acer rubrum), shellbark hickory (Carya laciniosa), rhododendron (Rhododendron var.),
mountain alder (Alnus viridis), box elder (Acer negundo), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides) , New York fern (Thelypteris noveboracensis), jewel weed
(Impatiens capensis), poison ivy (Toxidendron radicans) and stinging nettle (Urtica
dioica). Significantly large portions of the project area, where riparian buffers are to be
restored and enhanced, are currently vegetated with maintained turf grasses. Some
riparian areas, due to current vegetation management, are mostly bare soil. Exotic
invasive plant species observed within the project area include but may not be limited to
Japanese knot weed (Polygonum cuspidatum), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),
Chinese grass (Boehmeria nivea) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).

2.3 SOIL CHARACTERIZATION
The CGMB project area consists of slopes that range from nearly flat to steep,
approximately 3% to nearly 100% slope. The project area is predominantly comprised of
Chestnut-Ashe complex and Dillard loam soils. Chestnut-Ashe soils are classified as
having slopes ranging from 50 to 95 percent, are well drained with a high runoff class, and
a depth to restrictive feature greater than 80 inches. Dillard loam soils are classified as
having slopes ranging from 1 to 5 percent, are moderately well drained, with a low runoff
class, and a depth to restrictive feature greater than 80 inches. A USDA soil map for
McDowell County and project area is included as Exhibit D.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
6
2.4 HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS
The sub-basins and contributing watersheds for both Jarrett Creek and Padgett Branch
extend beyond the CGMB project boundary and Camp Grier property boundary. Jarrett
Creek, upstream of the project area to the historic Town of Old Fort water supply intake
(adjacent to the Camp Grier property boundary), is classified by NC DEQ as “C:HQW”.
Jarrett Creek originates approximately 4.5 miles upstream of Camp Grier within USDA and
USDI land at an elevation of approximately 4,000 feet on the southeast slope of Glass
Rock Knob. Interestingly, Jarrett Creek within the Camp Grier property extending
downstream to its confluence with Mill Creek has a water quality classification by NC DEQ
of “C”. Mill Creek, downstream of Jarrett Creek, is classified as “C:Tr”. Jarrett Creek is a
third order stream as it flows through Camp Grier Property and the project area.

Padgett Branch above Camp Grier Lake is classified as a “B;Tr” while Padgett Branch
below Camp Grier Lake is classified as “C:Tr” water. About half of the unnamed tributaries
to Padgett Brach originate on Camp Grier property within the project area. Padgett Branch
is a second order stream. Goals of the CGMB project include:

1. Returning the water quality in Jarrett Creek within the Camp Grier property and
project boundary to a condition representative of NC DWR Water Quality
Classification of C:Tr or higher;
2. Restoring Padgett Branch and its tributaries to a condition representative of its B:Tr
classification standard or higher.

The contributing watershed for Jarrett Creek is entirely undeveloped except for soil roads
and water supply infrastructure (inline impoundment related to the historic Town of Old Fort
Water Supply), until the stream reaches the confluence of Padgett Branch and Camp Grier
Road (located within 50 feet of one another). At this point warm, sediment laden stream
water and stormwater enter Jarrett Creek causing visible impairment and apparently
measurable water quality impacts. Downstream of the Padgett Branch/Jarrett Creek
confluence, the riparian buffer for Jarrett Creek narrows significantly and additional runoff
from Camp Grier Road is further reducing water quality in Jarrett Creek before it leaves the
property and enters Mill Creek. As part of the CGMB project and together with the Fonta
Flora State Trail project, Camp Grier has purchased an approximately 100-feet wide, 4-
acre strip of land adjacent to the river-right side of Jarrett Creek that will permanently
protect a minimum 30-feet wide stream buffer along Jarret Creek within the CGMB project
area. The acquired strip of property will allow relocation of Camp Grier Road sufficient to
provide the 30+ feet buffer along Jarret Creek, installation of SCMs, and a corridor for the
Fonta Flora Trail outside the buffer. The average stream slope of Jarrett Creek was
measured using existing topographic data to be approximately 9% and its contributing
watershed above the project area is approximately 2,780 acres.

The lower reach of Padgett Branch from its confluence with Jarrett Creek upstream to the
Camp Grier Lake Dam has been impacted historically by the building of Camp Grier Road
and filling of the stream channel and its floodplain with blasted rock debris. Large volumes
of sediment are entering Lower Padgett Branch through unmitigated stormwater flowing
from Camp Grier Road. Sediment entry points were observed and noted at multiple
distinct locations along the road/streambank. Unnatural upland sediment deposits are
visible throughout pools and low energy areas of Lower Padgett Branch and Jarret Creek.
Photos of unnatural sediment deposits as well as other portions of the project area are
included as Exhibit E.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
7
The culvert that conveys Lower Padgett Branch beneath Camp Grier Road (approximately
100 feet below Camp Grier Lake Dam) is a barrier to aquatic passage. Padgett Branch
does not appear to have a volume or depth of flow to support trout; however, should
support species of minnows and macro-invertebrates that sustain trout and other fauna.
Interestingly, the Camp Grier Lake Dam appears as though it may impose less of an
aquatic barrier than the referenced culvert due to its spillway design and the continual flow
of water down the non-vertical dam face. This spillway structure appears to allow macro
invertebrate passage over Camp Grier Lake Dam. The lake/dam also provides an
opportunity for enhancement through installation of a cool water release structure that will
enhance Lower Padgett Branch and should be considered as part of the enhancement and
credit generation for the Lower Padgett Branch reach of the project.

The average stream channel slope of Padgett branch from Camp Grier Lake Dam to its
confluence with Jarrett Creek was measured using existing topographic data to be
approximately 11%. The contributing watershed for all of Padgett Branch to the
confluence of Jarrett Creek is approximately 460 acres.

The main stem of Padgett Branch above Camp Grier Lake (Upper Padgett Branch) has a
generally shallower slope than the lower reach downstream of the lake. Tributaries
predominantly enter the upper reach from the north and from Camp Grier property. The
slope of the main stem of the upper reach of Padgett Branch was measured to be
approximately 3%-5%. Its tributaries, T1-T11 steepen significantly up valley. Much of the
riparian buffer along the main stem of Padgett Branch is maintained using traditional non-
environmentally sensitive mowing and vegetation management techniques. The main
stem of Upper Padgett Branch and several of the downstream ends of its tributaries
appear to have been historically relocated toward the edge of their natural valleys and
appear to have been straightened and deepened. Preliminary cross-sections and
observations for this project support these findings. Four small impoundments have been
observed and noted in Upper Padgett Branch and its tributaries, one along the main stem
(reportedly historically used to fill the Camp swimming pool), one in Tributary T1A
(apparently to help regulate flow in trout ponds constructed within the riparian buffer), one
in T2A (also associated with trout pisciculture) and a fourth in Tributary T2 for an unknown
purpose (see Exhibit A). Finally, an apparent .01-acre wetland area at the upstream end of
Tributary T2A has been historically impacted by excavation and water conveyance
infrastructure. A United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) NC Wetland
Assessment Methodology (NC WAM) form has been completed for this and other areas
and is included in Exhibit F-Stream & Wetland Data Forms.

2.5 PRELIMINARY STREAM CLASSIFICATION
Nearly all of the approximately 20,000 linear feet of stream within the CGMB project area
have been observed on multiple occasions prior to submittal of this prospectus document.
Photographic documentation of representative areas of streams are included as Exhibit E.
USACE North Carolina Stream Assessment Methodology (NC SAM) forms have been
completed for both Jarrett Creek and the main stem of Padgett Branch (Exhibit
F). Preliminary cross-sections of the main stem of Padgett Branch were measured using
non-survey grade techniques and conventional measuring tools. Measurements were
converted to cross-sections and measured dimensions were applied to the Key for the
Rosgen Classification of Natural Rivers. Cross-sections, current Rosgen Classifications,
and proposed conditions are included as Exhibit G- Stream Classification Exhibit, Sheets 1
and 2. Jarrett Creek within the project reach has a lower slope (estimated to be 4%) than
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
8
the reach above the Padgett Branch confluence. Jarrett Creek within the project area is
preliminarily classified as a classic, minimally impaired “B4a-B5a” stream by the Rosgen
Classification of Natural Rivers, however is suffering from the impacts discussed above.
Lower Padgett Branch below Camp Crier Lake at Cross-Section 1 is preliminarily classified
as an impaired “A5” stream. The main stem of Upper Padgett Branch above Camp Grier
Lake at Cross-section 2 was preliminarily assessed as an impaired “B6” stream with low
sinuosity due to historic straightening and dredging. Further upstream above the
swimming pool on Upper Padgett Branch at Cross-section 3, Padgett Brach was classified
as an impaired G6 stream (Exhibit G).

3.0 CONCEPTUAL RESTORATION PLAN

3.1 OVERVIEW
Mitigation within the project area will consist of Stream Restoration (Priority Level 1 and 2),
Stream Enhancement (Levels 1 & 2), Stream Preservation for streams and their buffers
upstream of restored and enhanced areas and Wetland Creation/Restoration. Riparian
Buffer Restoration, and a holistic Stormwater Management Plan will contribute to the
CGMB project and the improvements to water quality and habitat that will be protected in
perpetuity by the CGMB Conservation Easement and MBI. The Camp Grier project has a
greater potential to improve water quality, habitat, and ecology than other mitigation
projects due to its location in the watershed and its connectivity with tens of thousands of
acres of protected land. The Conceptual Mitigation Plan is attached as Exhibit A. It is the
opinion of Camp Grier and Quible that the combination and cumulative effect of:
stormwater management both inside and outside conservation easement boundaries;
riparian buffer creation and enhancement; relocation of camp infrastructure outside
conservation easements; and the proposed in-channel work could be considered
“Restoration” for many of the proposed stream reaches. It is also understood, based on
the IRT’s preliminary feedback, that these cumulative activities do not fit into the IRT’s
definition of “Restoration”. The prospectus and conceptual restoration plan have been
revised from the original draft that was submitted to IRT members. Nearly all proposed
work has been modified from “Restoration” to “Enhancement” per IRT comment and
proposed credit ratios for nearly all stream reaches have been reduced. For this important
project to be viable, credit ratios for “Enhancement” must to take into consideration the
location of the CGMB at the top of the watershed, its connectivity to high quality stream
reaches, potential for water quality and ecological uplift, effort and cost associated with the
proposed work and the cumulative benefit to the Preserved, Restored and Enhanced
streams within the project, waters downstream and relevance to development and future
impacts within the Catawba Basin.

Buffer correction factors for buffers wider than the required 30-feet width have not been
applied for this project at this time. It is proposed that buffer correction factors be applied
during the MBI and Mitigation Plan phase of the project.

3.2 RESTORATION AND ENHANCEMENT
Restoration and Enhancement of streams and wetlands within the project area are being
conducted based on industry standard assessment techniques and methodologies
developed and adopted by, but not limited to: Rosgen/Wildland Hydrology; North Carolina
State Stream Restoration Institute; NC DEQ, USDA Forest Service; USFWS and United
States Army Corps of Engineers. Assessment of channel dimension, pattern, and profile
and natural channel design concepts are being used for streams within the project area.
Streams will be designed to resemble and function as stable and natural stream systems
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
9
based on nearby “reference” conditions.

Wetland assessment, restoration, and creation is being conducted using the USACE three
parameter approach and restored wetlands will be designed to incorporate wetland soils, a
dominance of wetland plants, endure wetland hydrology and mimic “reference” wetlands
found in similar undisturbed settings on the Camp Grier property and nearby. Wetlands
within the project area have, or will be, delineated and flagged in the field before the formal
Mitigation Plan is submitted for the CGMB project.
It is assumed, based on observations made within the project area, that all locations and
lengths of streams are not accurately portrayed as “blue lines” on USGS maps of the area
and other readily available sources of stream information. North Carolina Division of Water
Resources, Stream Identification Forms have been filled out for many of the streams within
the project area and the upstream jurisdictional extent of streams has been flagged in the
field (Exhibit F). Confirmation of the jurisdictional boundary for streams and wetlands
within the project area is requested before survey grade data is collected for the project by
a NC Licensed Surveyor.

Approximately 1,261 linear feet of Stream Restoration, 9,229 linear feet of Stream
Enhancement, 12,000 linear feet of Stream Preservation and 0.27 acres of Wetland
Creation/Restoration is proposed for the CGMB. Stream restoration will include Priority 1
and 2 Options for restoring incised and impaired channels. Restoration and Enhancement
of CGMB streams will be augmented by stormwater, sediment and erosion control and
agricultural Best Management Practices that will significantly reduce the following inputs to
streams and wetlands:

• Peak flows and excess stream power resulting from impervious surface runoff
• Warm water temperature inputs
• Sediment, nutrient, and biological inputs

Riparian buffers within the project area will be restored, enhanced, and preserved to a
minimum average width of 30 feet and will be much wider in most areas. It is assumed
that a buffer correction factor will be applied to credit generation once the conservation
easement is surveyed and recorded for the project.

JARRETT CREEK
Jarrett Creek from the Camp Grier property line, upstream to the confluence with Padgett
Branch (approximately 860 linear feet) will be enhanced by completing the following list of
activities that are expected to fall within the Enhancement Level I category and generate
mitigation credits at a ratio of 2.5:1. Specifically, the enhancement of Jarrett Creek is
proposed to include but may not be limited to:

• Installation of an in-stream structure that will reduce hydraulic stress and reduce
erosion on the river-right streambank at the downstream bridge,
o A rock single arm vein structure is needed to prevent the ongoing erosion
of the river-right bank and direct flow toward the center of the bridge;
▪ After viewing the high flow and erosion that has taken place since
the preliminary IRT on-site meeting, Camp Grier and Quible
maintain that an in-stream structure is needed at this location
• Enhancement of the riparian buffer, including purchase of adjacent property on
river-right so that the buffer can be expanded to a minimum 30-feet width on the
river-right side of the stream;
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
10
• Relocation of Camp Grier Road to enable buffer enhancement. Relocation of the
road should be considered an enhancement to the stream reach and factored into
credit generation for the reach.
• Installation of engineered SCMs along Camp Grier Road
o SCMs within the CGMB conservation easement, if constructed, will be
“zero maintenance”
o SCMs outside the CGMB will be maintained for the life of the camp. All
SCMs should be factored into the effort put forth for the CGMB project and
credits generated by the enhanced reach. Stormwater Control Measures
appear to have similar, and in some cases greater, potential to improve
water quality within the project area than traditional restoration and
enhancement activities
• Adjustment of the lateral slope of Camp Grier Road to direct stormwater to SCMs
and away from direct pathways to Jarret Creek.
• Modification to bridge approaches along Camp Grier Road to reduce sediment
input from vehicle traffic.
• Removal of plastic sheeting and historic water supply infrastructure from Jarret
Creek buffer and stream, excluding removal of the concrete pad which was
recommended to be left in place during the preliminary IRT site visit.

The conceptual plan for Jarrett Creek and the surrounding project area is visible on Sheet
2 of Exhibit A. Jarrett Creek and Camp Grier Road are located within a FEMA FIRM Zone
AE with no apparent regulatory floodway. No other areas of the project are located with
FEMA flood zones. The proposed Enhancement of Jarrett Creek will not require FEMA
permitting. The conservation easement for the project will encompass the entire FIRM
zone and will preclude further encroachment and development.

LOWER PADGETT BRANCH
The lower reach of Padgett Branch (approximately 846 feet) will be enhanced by relocating
Camp Grier Road in combination with construction of SCMs, riparian buffer enhancement,
and stream channel enhancement (Sheet 3-Exhibit A). The following list of activities are
expected to fall within the Enhancement Level I category and generate mitigation credits at
a ratio of 2.5:1. Lower Padgett Branch is a steep “A” stream type with natural bedrock and
boulder grade control throughout (Exhibit G). A majority of the Lower Padgett Branch
channel and the river-left bank is clogged with unnatural rock debris from road building.
The clogged channel has increased hydraulic stress on the river-right side streambank and
is causing erosion and bank failure (Exhibit E). Buffer enhancement will include addition of
stabilized soil and installation of native riparian plantings to the predominantly rock talus
river-left streambank. The stream is further impaired by warm, unmitigated, sediment
laden stormwater that originates from Camp Grier Road. Warm water is also being
introduced from the surface of Camp Grier Lake.

The section of Camp Grier Road that produces stormwater flowing to and impacting Lower
Padgett Branch will be modified to promote infiltration and indirect flow to the stream
buffer. The longitudinal slope of the road slope will be reduced, and the lateral slope will
permanently be modified to direct stormwater to multiple, sequenced SCMs designed to
mitigate stormwater for the design storm event with an emphasis on infiltration. Excess
rock debris removed from the channel will be relocated to failing and higher stress areas of
the streambank and strategically incorporated into hydraulic structures that reduce near-
bank hydraulic stress on the impaired river-right bank. Rock debris may also be carefully
placed high on the streambanks or be removed from the channel and project area
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
11
altogether. The suspended culvert beneath Camp Grier Road will be addressed to
improve aquatic passage by constructing a step-pool structure at its downstream end. A
cool water release structure will be installed in Camp Grier Lake and designed to provide
cooler, more natural temperature water to Lower Padgett Branch and Jarrett Creek. The
MBI for the project will specify that if the culvert at this location is ever to be replaced that
the stream length occupied by the culvert will be restored and a non-impacting bridge or
bottomless culvert will be used to replace the existing culvert. Similarly, the MBI will state
that if the Camp Grier Lake Dam is ever to undergo maintenance or be replaced that a
similar cool water release structure will be specified for the new or modified dam.
Additionally, the MBI will state that if the dam is to ever be removed the stream within the
impounded lake bed will be restored to a natural condition. Please refer to Exhibit A for
additional detail about enhancement within Lower Padgett Branch and the project area.
Exhibit G contains preliminary existing condition cross-sections for Lower Padgett Branch.
Exhibit E contains photographs of this reach.

TRIBUTARIES T1, T1A, T1B, T1C & T1D
Tributary T1 as it approaches Camp Grier Lake will be modified to include an area of
constructed wetlands. Fencing and pasture along the northeast side (river-right side) of T1
and other development and infrastructure within a minimum 30-feet riparian area will be
relocated outside the conservation easement buffer to allow for a 30+ feet buffer and
stream enhancement. Enhancement Level 2 activities will be used in this area in
combination with agricultural BMPs and SCMs. Credit generation for Stream T1 where
Enhancement Level 2 activities take place is expected to be 4:1. Credit generation for
Enhancement Level 1 activities along stream T1A are expected to generate credits at a
ratio of 2.5:1. Preservation along these reaches and throughout the project is expected to
generate mitigation credits at a ratio of 7:1. Historic trout farming infrastructure,
construction and landscaping debris, and a small dam and sediment filled impoundment
will be removed from Tributary T1A and its buffer as an Enhancement Level 1 activity.
Finally, the suspended culvert at the upper road crossing over Tributary T1A will be
modified to allow for improved aquatic passage to the preservation reach upstream.
Above the enhanced stream areas, streams associated with Tributary T1 will be preserved
and establishment of permanent trail crossings and installation of zero-maintenance SCMs
associated with the trails and historic soil roads will be constructed. Recordation of the
conservation easement and MBI for the CGMB project will help ensure that additional
stream crossings are not created in the future. Please refer to Sheets 8 and 9 in Exhibit A.

UPPER PADGETT BRANCH AND TRIBUTARIES T2, T2A & T2B
The riparian buffer will be restored and enhanced along Upper Padgett Branch tributaries
to a minimum width of 30 feet. The main stem of Upper Padgett Branch from Camp Grier
Lake to a head-cut noted in the preliminary IRT meeting and area northeast of the
swimming pool will be addressed using a Priority 1 Restoration option. A constructed
wetland will be installed just upstream of Camp Grier Lake. Implementation of a SCMs,
relocation of overhead powerlines, realignment and out-sloping of Camp Grier Road, and
riparian buffer creation and enhancement will contribute to the restoration and will qualify
as Enhancement Level 2 for areas upstream of the Restoration area on Upper Padgett
Branch and Tributaries T2 and T2a. Additionally, historic, sediment filled, impoundments
and small dam structures will be removed from the main stem of Padgett Branch and
tributaries of Upper Padgett Branch. Impoundment locations are shown on Sheets 4 and 5
of Exhibit A and in the photos within Exhibit E.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
12
Enhancement Level 1 and 2 options are proposed along Tributaries T2, T2A and T2B (See
Sheets 4 and 10-Exhibit A). Suspended culverts located beneath Camp Grier Road and
access roads to the Maintenance Building and Caretakers House are proposed to be
addressed by the enhancement. Removal of a small dam structure and impoundment are
proposed from Tributary T2. Stormwater Control Measures are proposed for the
Caretakers House, Maintenance Building, Camp Grier Road and other impervious areas
that drain to the area. Road and powerline relocation in order to combine utility and traffic
at stream and buffer crossings are proposed to reduce the number of breaks in the
conservation easement and reduce impacts. Wetland restoration/creation is proposed at
the upstream end of Tributary T2A in an area impacted by historic trout farming
infrastructure. Above the enhancement areas these streams are proposed to be preserved
through establishment of permanent trail crossings, installation of SCMs, and recordation
of the conservation easement and MBI for the project. Restoration areas are proposed to
generate mitigation credits at a 1:1 ratio. Enhancement Level 1 areas are proposed to
generate credits at a 3:1 ratio. Enhancement Level 2 areas are proposed to generate
credits at a 4:1 ratio.

UPPER PADGETT BRANCH AND TRIBUTARIES T3 & T3A
Tributary T3 is proposed to be enhanced through Enhancement Level 1 options from its
confluence with Padgett Branch upstream for approximately 300 feet to the access road for
Main Camp (Sheets 5 and 12-Exhibit A). Two suspended culverts beneath Camp Grier
Road and the Main Camp access road will be addressed to improve aquatic passage as
part of the enhancement. Stormwater Control Measures associated with the buildings,
roads and infrastructure on the east side of Main Camp will contribute to the enhancement.
Credit generation for this reach is proposed at 2.5:1.

The reach of Tributary T3 extending upstream from Camp Grier Road to a location just
upstream of the cabin visible on Sheet 12 of Exhibit A (approximately 581 linear feet) is
proposed to be enhanced (Level 2) through riparian buffer restoration and SCMs
associated with impervious infrastructure. Above the cabin, Tributary T3 and T3A are
proposed to be preserved by establishment of permanent trail crossings, installation of
SCMs for trails, and the conservation easement and MBI for the project. Proposed credit
generation for these reaches is shown on Exhibit A.

TRIBUTARIES T4, T4A, AND T5
Tributaries T4 and T5 (Sheets 6 and 13) are proposed to be restored using a Priority 2
Restoration Option in combination with riparian buffer establishment and SCMs from their
confluence with Upper Padgett Branch to Camp Grier Road (431 linear feet). Powerlines
currently crossing T4 and T5 will be relocated adjacent to Camp Grier Road to limit
impacts and breaks in the conservation easement. Level 2 Enhancement is proposed on
Tributary T5 from Camp Grier Road to the jurisdictional stream boundary and will consist of
buffer enhancement and bank stabilization. Enhancement Level 2 is proposed on
Tributary 4 from Camp Grier Road to the furthest upstream trail crossing. Enhancement
Level 2 is proposed to generate stream credits at a ratio of 4:1 for these stream reaches.
Preservation is proposed above Restoration and Enhancement reaches to the jurisdictional
boundary for the stream (2,598 linear feet) as shown on Sheet 13 of the Camp Grier
Conceptual Mitigation Plan.

UPPER PADGETT BRANCH AND TRIBUTARIES T6, T7, AND T8
The upstream end of Padgett Branch appears to flow near, and possibly beyond, the east
property line with USDA Forest Service land. Until surveyed boundary information is
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
13
available for this area, it is unclear whether the entire reach of Padgett Branch, or enough
of its stream buffer exists on Camp Grier property for this area to be included in the project.
Regardless, Enhancement Level 2 of Tributaries T6, T7, and T8, through stormwater
management associated with cabins, roads and trails that drain to the tributaries, and
buffer enhancement are proposed as part of the CGMB project (proposed credit generation
ratio of 4:1). Reaches of stream above enhancement areas are proposed to be preserved
by the conservation easement and MBI for the project and generate credits at a ratio of
7:1.

TRIBUTARIES T9, T10, & T11
Tributaries T9, T10 and T11 that drain to Camp Grier Lake and Padgett Branch from the
east from USDA National Forest land will be preserved by the conservation easement and
Mitigation Banking Instrument for the project and are proposed to generate credits at a
ratio of 7:1.

3.2.1 WETLAND RESTORATION AND CREATION
Restoration of wetlands within the project area will include restoration of the wetland area
associated with Tributary T2 described above and in areas where Padgett Branch and
Tributary T1 flow into Camp Crier Lake. Creation of other wetlands within the project may
occur through construction of zero maintenance stormwater SCMs when located within the
conservation easement for the project but are not factored into the proposed credit
generation for the project.

4.0 PROPOSED MONITORING PLAN
The Monitoring Plan for Camp Grier Mitigation Bank will be developed to document and
assess that the site is trending toward success and that it is meeting the goals of the
Mitigation Plan. The Monitoring Plan will adhere to the Monitoring and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina document produced by the North
Carolina Interagency Review Team-February 8, 2013 or more recent guidance specified by
the Interagency Review Team (IRT) as triggered by the submittal of this prospectus
document and as needed to meet Chapter 33 CFR part 332 (Mitigation Rule).

4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
Site monitoring will occur for a period of seven years. It is understood that if performance
standards have not been met by year seven additional monitoring and/or remedial action
may be required. Monitoring reports will be completed annually for all seven years and will
be submitted to USACE by April 1 of the year following the monitoring. Monitoring reports
will be prepared and formatted per Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL 08-03) or as directed
by the IRT for this project.

As-built surveys, red-lined design drawings and all documenting information will be
completed within 60 days following construction of the CGMB project in order to document
baseline conditions. As-builts will include but may not be limited to: photo documentation
of all cross-sections and structures, plan view diagrams, longitudinal profiles, vegetation
information, and the location of all monitoring activities. As-builts will not be provided for
Preservation-only portions of the project area.

4.2 PLANTED VEGETATION MONITORING
Vegetation plots will be monitored for seven years with monitoring events on years 1-3, 5
and 7. Vegetation planting and replanting will be conducted between November 15 and
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
14
March 15. Vegetation monitoring will be conducted between July 1 and leaf drop. Planted
vegetation will be in the ground for no less than 180 days before the first year of monitoring
on Year 1.

Vegetation survey plots will be randomly located across the site to provide random
sampling of all vegetation community types reestablished at the site. Vegetation
monitoring will follow the 16-step procedure outlined in the Monitoring and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (February 8, 2013) requirements
specified in Section V, A-Vegetation Planting and Monitoring Requirements and Section V,
B-Planted Vegetation Performance Standards.

4.3 STREAM CHANNEL STABILITY AND HYDROLOGY MONITORING
Stability and Hydrology Monitoring will be conducted per the Monitoring and Performance
Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina Section VI to show that proposed
in-stream work has corrected channel bed and bank instability for areas of the site where
instability is identified as a primary objective in the Mitigation Plan and for areas where
instream work changes channel dimensions below bankfull elevation.

Channel stability will be monitored for seven years. Reference stakes marking surveyed
stations and corresponding as-built survey and longitudinal profile will be installed in the
buffer near the stream bank every 100 feet along the stream.

Permanent, monumented cross-sections will be installed at an approximate frequency of
one per 20 bankfull widths measured along the thalweg.

Monitored cross-sections located in stream bends will include an array of bank pins per the
referenced guidance. Lateral movement of the streambanks as indicated by pin exposure
will be reported in all monitoring reports.

Crest gauges will be installed to document bankfull events. At least one gauge will be
installed on each stream reach greater than 500 feet in length. One gauge will be installed
for every 5,000 feet of length on each tributary to main-stem stream reaches.

Stream Channel Stability and Stream Hydrology Performance Standards outlined in
Section VI, B of the referenced guidance will be followed. Jurisdictional stream
determinations will be requested before the Mitigation Plan is complete.

4.3 STREAM WATER QUALITY AND MACROINVERTEBRATE MONITORING
It is the opinion of the project sponsor and Quible that water quality and macroinvertebrate
monitoring will be beneficial for this project. As with other stream monitoring described
above water quality and macro-benthos monitoring will comply with Monitoring and
Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina and specifically with
Section VII of the referenced standards.

Water quality sampling will be conducted prior to construction and twice a year throughout
the monitoring period. Sampling will include measurements of pH, temperature, dissolved
oxygen, and conductivity. Biological and nutrient monitoring will also be monitored in an
effort to show a reduction in coliforms and nutrients.

Each tributary longer than 500 feet will be sampled at two locations, one near the upstream
and one near the downstream end of the reach.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
15

Water quality sampling will be conducted during normal flow conditions 48 hours or longer
after any precipitation event totaling one inch or greater as determined by nearby weather
stations or on-site rain gauges.

Macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted post construction once a year during
monitoring years three, five, and seven. Sampling will be conducted on tributaries greater
than 1000 feet in length. Sampling points will be located on riffles with the first point
located on the lowest riffle of the tributary.

A reference location will be sampled for comparison and will be located in an on-site
preservation reach or be identified nearby the project area. All samples will be collected in
accordance with the Qual 4 protocol described in Standard Operation Procedures for
Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates by a qualified professional. Water
quality and macroinvertebrate sampling will be conducted during the same time of year
and within the index period specified in the NC DWR Small Streams Biocriteria
Development document (May 29, 2009). Samples will be identified to the lowest practical
taxonomic level by a NC DWR certified laboratory for macroinvertebrates.

5.0 BANK OPERATION
The subject property is currently owned by Camp Grier 501(c)(3) and the project area is
not encumbered by a conservation easement. A conservation easement does exist on
Camp Grier Property to the west of the project area (Exhibit A-Sheet 1). The existing
conservation easement in combination with the proposed CGMB conservation easement
will protect all jurisdictional waters on the 620-acre parcel with the exception of Camp Grier
Lake. Camp Grier will serve as the legal entity and Bank Sponsor for the purposes of the
CGMB project. Camp Grier, the Town of Old Fort, USDI and the USDA are the only entities
that have any control of streams, wetlands, and infrastructure affecting the hydrology of the
site. The CGMB project team, consists of licensed geologists, professional engineers,
planners, and surveyors who have extensive experience in water resource and riparian
restoration projects. In addition, the Sponsor employs staff that hold degrees in and have
professional experience with business, finance, law ecology, forestry, and natural resource
management. Together, the project team possesses the necessary credentials to execute
the proposed project such that it meets the goals that will be further outlined in the MBI and
Mitigation Plan for the project. A Statement of Qualifications and Description of Project
Duties is included as Exhibit C. Some of the site evaluations (e.g. soil survey, stream and
wetland delineations, and conceptual planning and design) have been completed for the
site. However, a more detailed stream assessment, additional survey, design, and
engineering work will be necessary for the development of the Mitigation Plan. The MBI will
also be developed and submitted prior to completion of the Mitigation Plan and project
construction.

Upon acceptance of the final Mitigation Plan by the IRT, the Bank Sponsor will initiate
proposed construction activities for the development of the CGMB site. Mitigation bank
credits are proposed to be calculated using the following ratios:

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
16
Mitigation Type Unit Unit of Treatment:Credits

Stream Restoration feet 1:1

Wetland Restoration/Creation 0.25 acre 1:1

Stream Enhancement (Level I) feet 2.5:1

Stream Enhancement (Level II) feet 3.5:1-4:1

Stream Preservation feet 7:1

Mitigation credits generated by CGMB will be used to offset wetland and stream impacts
authorized by federal permits or state water quality certifications that are in compliance
with the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1) guidelines and other applicable federal and
state legislation, regulations, and policies. Prior to release of CGMB credits, the following
requirements will be met: (1) approval of the final Mitigation Plan and execution of the MBI;
(2) securing the bank site; and (3) establishment of appropriate financial assurances.

Assuming the proposed ratios for stream and wetland: restoration, enhancement, and
preservation are accepted, and without considering BCF adjustments to credit generation,
it is estimated that approximately 6,129 stream credits and 1.1 wetland credits will be
generated through the establishment of the Camp Grier Mitigation Bank (Exhibit H). It is
assumed that the Bank Sponsor may choose to initiate construction of the project in two
separate phases if market demand is deemed to be insufficient during the initial stages of
development. A tentative Schedule for establishment of the bank site is outlined below.

Upon execution of the MBI, a conservation easement deed for the site will be conveyed to
an appropriate public land trust organization. The terms and conditions of the conservation
easement will ensure the protection of the site in perpetuity. The ownership of the Bank will
reside with the Sponsor until completion of the debiting of the Bank. The holder of the
conservation easement will be responsible for long-term protection and management of the
site. The easement will prohibit any activities (e.g. timbering, farming, building, etc.) that
would alter the environmental state of the Bank site. Conditions of the easement are
proposed to not restrict passive recreational, educational, and/or research activities.

The Bank Sponsor will be responsible for securing appropriate financial assurances in the
form of construction, monitoring, and maintenance bonds to cover contingency measures
in the event of Bank default or failure. Performance monitoring will be conducted for a 7-
year period subsequent to project construction. Annual monitoring will evaluate the
development of stream function and document site performance relative to established
success criteria. In addition, monitoring activities will identify any site deficiencies that may
warrant remedial action. Monitoring reports documenting site success and/or failure will be
submitted to the IRT each year. Upon submittal of annual monitoring reports
demonstrating the fulfillment of site success criteria, stream credits will be released
according to an approved credit release schedule. The table below outlines proposed
information on project timeline and credit release schedule.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19, 2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
17

Proposed Credit Release Schedule

Task Percentage of Credits
Released
(cumulative)
Date of Completion
Execution of MBI;
Approval of Final
Mitigation Plan;
Recordation of
Conservation
Easement
15 (15) May 2019
Completion of all
Restoration
Activities
15 (30) May 2020
Monitoring Plan
Year 1 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (40) November 2021
Year 2 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (50) November 2022
Year 3 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (60) November 2023
Year 4 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (70) November 2024
Year 5 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (80) November 2025
Year 6 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (90) November 2026
Year 7 Monitoring
(post-construction)
10 (100) November 2027
TOTAL 100

The Sponsor will develop accounting procedures for maintaining accurate records of
debits made from be Bank that is acceptable to the IRT. Procedures will include the
generation of a debit report by the sponsor documenting all credits used at the time they
are debited from the bank. Debit reports will be provided to each member of the IRT
within 30 days of the date of credit sale. In addition, the Sponsor will prepare an Annual
Report to be provided to each IRT member within thirty (30) days of each anniversary of
the date of execution of the MBI, showing all credits used and the balance of credits
remaining. The Sponsor's reporting obligations will end upon the sale of all credits or
termination of the MBI, whichever event first occurs.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19,
2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
18

6.0 CONCLUSION
The proposed restoration, enhancement, and preservation activities at CGMB will
provide tangible benefits to both water quality and habitat within a watershed that has
been degraded by decades of silviculture, development and poor land management.
Successful implementation of the CGMB will provide stream and wetland mitigation
credits that will offset wetland and stream impacts authorized by federal permits or state
water quality certifications that are in compliance with the Clean Water Act, Section 404
(b)(1) guidelines and other applicable federal and state legislation, regulations, and
policies.

Bank success will be realized through:
• Stabilization and restoration of streams and streambanks
• Restoration of wide riparian corridors within the project area
• Implementation of an engineered holistic Stormwater Management Plan and
installation of Stormwater Control Measures for the entire developed area of the
property
• Stewardship of the land by an accredited Land Trust or Conservancy

8.0 SOURCES OF INFORMATION
• Ecoregions Map of North Carolina (Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A.,
Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., and MacPherson, T.F., 2002,
Ecoregions of North Carolina, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
OR, (map scale 1:1,500,000))
• CLASSIFICATION OF THE NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF NORTH CAROLINA
THIRD APPROXIMATION (Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990, NC Natural
Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.)
• CUSTOM SOIL RESOURCE REPORT FOR MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH
CAROLINA (Natural Resources Conservation Service, September 13, 2017)
• Additional sources as listed on Exhibits.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Prospectus September 19,
2018

P.O. Drawer 870 ▪ Kitty Hawk, NC 27949
Telephone [phone] ▪ Fax [phone]
______________________________________
19
9.0 EXHIBITS

A Camp Grier Conceptual Mitigation Plan

B Camp Grier Mitigation Bank Service Area Map

C Statements of Qualifications

D NRCS Soil Resource Report

E Photos of Existing Conditions

F Stream and Wetland Data Forms

G Stream Classification Exhibit

H Proposed Credit Generation Spreadsheet

Exhibit A-Conceptual Mitigation Plan

0
m
51TE
US
VICINIT)' MAP (Old Fort)
M�1 \
e� /
APPROXIMATE Lffr5 OF EX15T/NO l C
CON5ERVAT10N EASEMENT -41
�l
/ W
V
oll
NOTE. THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CON
ssu Fa:.ivu.,, .. .•-c '"..-:. "ir iti.x:: Yi ,., ,vw,,,.se.:.. a�tlw:.i
STRUCTION,
IRECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES - THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
WTI' J
JARRETT CREEK
v�
UPPER PAD6ETT
BRANCH
gET 4
/ NOTES:
J / / 1.
OWNER: CAMP GRIER
PO BOX 490
2.
OLD FORT, NC 28762
PROPERTY INFORMATION:
PIN# 075000140924
/
D.B. 01148, PG. 0518
SHEET 3 A 3.
LOWER PAD6ETT
THIS IS NOT A CERTIFIED BOUNDARY SURVEY. BOUNDARY
INFORMATION BASED ON MCDOWELL COUNTY GIS TAX
BRANCH
/ \
DATA. AERIAL OVERLAY IS GEOREFERENCED 2014
IMAGERY. THIS INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE
I
CONSIDERED A CERTIFIED SURVEY. THIS SHALL BE
/
CONSIDERED PRELIMINARY AND FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.
I 4.
LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS
/ l
�I
AND FEATURES, INCLUDING ROADS, BUILDINGS, ASSUMED
POWER LINE EASEMENTS, OVERHEAD UTILITIES, ETC., ARE
DELINEATED FROM AERIAL IMAGERY AND ARE
I(
APPROXIMATE ONLY.
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
0
O
0
00
_u
Q
z
JW
O �
U o Z
oo
= w
� J
0
O U)
z
U
d
o
W pJ
O zQ o
rU) ooWaz
0, ��m
UOJO��
a s LL' z=F-
�N oaz u o=>:
ul L )� 0
cl
a W W W Z pZ—Q Z wl fn
U) w w Z O N Z pw
2N NO~ =oH oodw UK
UQ u>Wz�oz z
>-41 Z< nu
V)
ow �d z za1QCn �cl 0o
O U = W p Z
U m U w Q Q m H p p j
W W
oomw �npwz�Ww>
nO� =JH�wm�O
= Q W U
H W Ln U
r
/
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
/
SHEET 2
a m
5. LIMITS OF EXISTING CONSERVATION EASEMENT LINE
BASED ON SURVEY ENTITLED, "SURVEY OF A
PROPOSED RESTORATION
o
=
ro
�
CONSERVATION EASEMENT FOR FOOTHILLS CONSERVANCY
STREAM REACH
I
—�
OF NORTH CAROLINA, INC.", AS PREPARED BY MCMAHAN
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
/��
& ASSOCIATES, P.A., DATED JULY 27, 2016. THIS LINE
IS APPROXIMATE ONLY.
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
\
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT\/
�\
^
6. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS BASED ON LIDAR DATA.
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
\
\
7. BLUE LINE STREAM SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
,,
BASED ON USFWS WETLAND INVENTORY MAPPING
STREAM REACH
�
\
INFORMATION AND USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS.
PROPOSED BUFFER
T1 TRIBUTARY IDENTITY
i
/
1 1
1
8. STREAM AND TRIBUTARY ALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE
PROJECT AREA HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BASED ON AERIAL
IMAGERY AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA.
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
0
O
0
00
_u
Q
z
JW
O �
U o Z
oo
= w
� J
0
O U)
z
U
d
o
W pJ
O zQ o
rU) ooWaz
0, ��m
UOJO��
a s LL' z=F-
�N oaz u o=>:
ul L )� 0
cl
a W W W Z pZ—Q Z wl fn
U) w w Z O N Z pw
2N NO~ =oH oodw UK
UQ u>Wz�oz z
>-41 Z< nu
V)
ow �d z za1QCn �cl 0o
O U = W p Z
U m U w Q Q m H p p j
W W
oomw �npwz�Ww>
nO� =JH�wm�O
= Q W U
H W Ln U
r
ro
LLj
a m
"
o \
CL
o
=
ro
�
U

151 FT. BUFFER
REMOVE PLASTIC
SHEETING AND PIPING/
BANK STABILIZATION/
ESTABLISH HERBACEOUS
BUFFER PLANTINGS
I\
\ V ----A �
PADGETT BRANCH
EXISTING CONCRETE DEBRIS TO REMAIN
PER RESULTS OF PRELIMINARY IRT MEETING
J4RRETT 6REFK
EXISTING ±495 LN. FT. SECTION OF CAMP GRIER ROAD
TO BE RELOCATED (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
PARCEL LINES AS PER GIS
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT/
STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES
ALONG CAMP GRIER ROAD ON151 FT. BUFFET
A wt
I I
I APPROX/MATE L/M/T5 OF \ ::0 3 \
II CONSERVATION EASEMENT
I \
I \
I \
y 1 \
I \
\
\
PROPOSED RELOCATION
OF CAMP GRIER ROAD
c�M,b GiP/�i�
o,4I�
MINIMUM 30 FT.
BUFFER
NOTE: MITIGATION BANK PROJECT SCOPE INCLUDES A PROPOSED
PROPERTY LINE RELOCATION IN THIS AREA BASED ON A PURCHASE
OF PROPERTY BY CAMP GRIER TO ACCOMMODATE THE MINIMUM 30
FT. BUFFER AND RELOCATION OF CAMP GRIER ROAD IN THIS AREA.
JARRETT CREEK:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1)
151 FT. BUFFER
BANK STABILIZATION AND
IN—STREAM HYDRAULIC
STRUCTURE
PRESERVATION ALONG TRIBUTARY
WITHIN PROPERTY OWNED BY CAMP GRIER. \
LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE TO BE
DETERMINED BY FUTURE SURVEY.
7/idm
79 [71OCUMENT
OTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
ECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
:CAMPGRIER ISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
05, PC 0606 IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
LL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
Y ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
1'o
N 7 Z Z W.
f W N W
m aa • Z> -o N I Z
y W
NV)
U J U a ro u Q
Z � 3
q� to 2,
!3 •rIZz avmMo
UAV) 3�mo
M C
r^ H t-
d Z
z O 1V1 N
Z o w
L [
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
N
z
O
U
J
J
W
O
0
U
0
o -
Q
z
J
O
Q o
U 'o
I
O
Z
0-
cl-
O zQ o
r� aowaz U)
U Kaz ��m0�0��
as LLJ
�N oaz u Q =U) �
�~ a �o
N000a�zzU)U)n
a ww wzoz_azwrn
Li OSwzoLnzLL �
= V) N01 _ wUK w ZO
OQ V>w OZ UC)0- Z
ZQOa wJO Uw 0V)
�� �Oa U
O U}_ N w Z
Umu om�oowow
_W W
O n 5 W U) W Z w w(Ld
[n OJ= -=Oa m O
= Q � W U
H w Ln U
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THEr
EXISTING STREAM REACH
m
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
°Q
PROPOSED RESTORATION
u =
STREAM REACH --
o c
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
a co
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT /
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
a
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
E7PROPOSED
BUFFER
Z 1
)PROPOSED MITIGATION
J
CREDIT RATIO
7/idm
79 [71OCUMENT
OTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
ECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
:CAMPGRIER ISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
05, PC 0606 IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
LL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
Y ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
1'o
N 7 Z Z W.
f W N W
m aa • Z> -o N I Z
y W
NV)
U J U a ro u Q
Z � 3
q� to 2,
!3 •rIZz avmMo
UAV) 3�mo
M C
r^ H t-
d Z
z O 1V1 N
Z o w
L [
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
N
z
O
U
J
J
W
O
0
U
0
o -
Q
z
J
O
Q o
U 'o
I
O
Z
0-
cl-
O zQ o
r� aowaz U)
U Kaz ��m0�0��
as LLJ
�N oaz u Q =U) �
�~ a �o
N000a�zzU)U)n
a ww wzoz_azwrn
Li OSwzoLnzLL �
= V) N01 _ wUK w ZO
OQ V>w OZ UC)0- Z
ZQOa wJO Uw 0V)
�� �Oa U
O U}_ N w Z
Umu om�oowow
_W W
O n 5 W U) W Z w w(Ld
[n OJ= -=Oa m O
= Q � W U
H w Ln U
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THEr
,o
m
m
°Q
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
u =
z Y
o c
a
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
"'
a co
v
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
a
o

NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
f151 FT. BUFFER
'" W,
ROAD WORK AND
STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURE
INSTALL COOL
WATER RELEASE '
STRUCTURE
CAMP GR/ER pr707
LAKE
ISTORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURE
/
i -
ADDRESS SUSPENDED CULVERT
TO ALLOW AQUATIC FISH PASSAGE
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
i STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFER
(Z : 1 1 PROPOSED MITIGATION
J I )PROPOSED
RATIO
A&
/
/
STORMWATER
/ PoR CONTROL MEASURE
1.0 /
/
Mp 6�IER ���D
CROSS SECTION N0. 1 �' /
REMOVE EXCESS ROCK DEBRIS FROM CHANNEL
AND REINFORCE RIVER -RIGHT BANK /
LOWER PADGETT BRANCH: /
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1) / APPROXIMA7ELIMIT5OF005T
/ CON5ERVATION EA5&-IE T
`
p
•o*• ���
UZZ� �mNm
�(V' "I
Q NL�OZUOd�OZ z
� of
•Zi -O N I Z �
Q
O W zQ m Q Q Q U
C7
Q
Um Dw0 0m �n0 Q
UO Q D m D O w
O5LL Ll) ZL�ww>
m�o
=<v
U
v, z
w
U
�„�jW 34vi°'a
ZZfVl/1
Z -`
cd (n Zp OIC °Coe
.1"I Z w w a y m m -2
—
rl
0o 1
U
m
m
CAMP CRIER
d V VI n •`-
Z W Z
Q he
N W O
DB 00605, PG 0606
Lij
w Z } ro
w
ap
ZOw Uri
\
04
v
\
0 ' ? L
O O
"wN °0apa
II
rn
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
\REVIEWED BY A
h
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
/ v AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
PROPOSED
151 FT. BUFFER /
/
rIA
Fo �u n nm :5�zUU)
C�
1
�(V' "I
Q NL�OZUOd�OZ z
uvi
Q
O W zQ m Q Q Q U
C7
Q
Um Dw0 0m �n0 Q
UO Q D m D O w
O5LL Ll) ZL�ww>
m�o
=<v
=oa =<,~u
V
w
U
m U)
�
co
U
m
m
CAMP CRIER
J
Q he
ao
DB 00605, PG 0606
Lij
m
w
ap
0
04
v
O
II
z
�
Ld
I i
E
V
Q
C)w
Q
U
N
I
y
z
I
Qi
U
U
Q
z
af
0
o
I
V
Q
0
I
U
o
J
I
0
o
ozQ o
r`" Qowaz �
ao—32
a�w zwm�a�gw
0- U m O0�m 0 0
"5ooloa-,<= �
a ww wzowzw w _¢zw(n O U S S Ul � O J w p
Fo �u n nm :5�zUU)
C�
1
�(V' "I
Q NL�OZUOd�OZ z
uvi
Q
O W zQ m Q Q Q U
C7
Q
Um Dw0 0m �n0 Q
UO Q D m D O w
O5LL Ll) ZL�ww>
m�o
=<v
=oa =<,~u
V
w
U
m U)
m
co
m
m
CAMP CRIER
v�
Q he
ao
DB 00605, PG 0606
a a
m
w
ap
v
O

.i
0
m
PRIORITY 1 RESTORATION TO END
AT LOCATION OF EXISTING HEAD CUT
AND TRANSITION TO ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1
N WETLAND RESTORATION
IN EXISTING CHANNEL
'CONCEPTUAL•-
REMOVESTREAM ALIGNMENT
PIT TOILETS
PROPOSED RELOCATION
OF CAMP GRIER ROAD
s.
— NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, o U Z Z N
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
121
U '� Qw Urn rn
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS W a N
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY. ? Uj �, a"o�
/EXTEND PROPOSED BUFFER ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS .2 N z ..m 151 FT. y� L-
TO o y o
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY. z = U o a 4 m
A` �v>Z on—oo�
'1"IZWw av rno
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE rl U o � � > m o
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE rA z W Z
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.w g i ° N",A
/ ZOw
Z Z N L U L
REMOVE EXISTING
1wCROSSING
EXISTING ±490 LN. FT. SECTION OF CAMP GRIER
ROAD TO BE RELOCATED (APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURES7I
MEASURES CONTROL
MEASURES
REMOVE CONCRETE
SLAB AND BUILDINGy
REMOVE EXISTING
IMPOUNDMENT
_PROPOSED RELOCATION
OF CAMP GRIER ROAD
EXISTING ±320 LN. FT. OF
CAMP ROADS TO BE RELOCATED
(APPROXIMATE LOCATION)
ALIGN STREAM CROSSING WITH
EXISTING POWER LINE LOCATION
hM
PROPOSED BUFFER
END WETLAND RESTORATION
(WITHIN EXISTING CHANNEL
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURE
7
ALIGN ACCESS WITH
EXISTING POWER LINE
LOCATION
PROPOSED CONSTRUCTED
WETLAND
REMOVE EXISTING
CROSSING
TT 8��`NGN
PPRS
U
_..
iymmm
/ CROSS SECTION NO. 2
got.0010 ops
EXISTING STREAM REACH
f i (OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
CONCEPTUAL PRIORITY 1
qF STREAM ALIGNMENT PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
- PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
!, STORMWATER CONTROL PROPOSED PRESERVATION
MEASURE FOR HOUSE j
STREAM REACH
ALIGN WITH EXISTING PROPOSED BUFFER
r POWER LINE LOCATION ^"
PROPOSED MITIGATION
BUFFER ENHANCEMENT( (3. 1
CREDIT RATIO
UPPER PADGETT BRANCH:
PROPOSED PRIORITY 1 RESTORATION (1:1)
i .
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1)
T2 AND T2A TRIBUTARIES:
�vi BU�FERED PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1)
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (3.5:1)
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
o
o zQ o
Qowaz �
p-
a�aw zwm�<
=o_
W N 0U70= }U7 D 0'I
U �cn �. X00
O~ u O Ua~Z=N U7 U)
Q LLJw W ZpZ—Qz U7
OO LJ ~ LLJ E)
U= m N Z Z W Z O Ul Z
=In N o S LJU� w Z O
Q U7 0(D O d�
O= Z
> IL- a W a 0 a-: J p p U� 0 w
O w �� Z =)Q p O Z
Um UJ1 om~LLJE) cn
0}
w w
�p Om� U7pw Z= W w>
cf) =J��of C)
= Q W U
U) U
m m
am
a a o = a0
U 0
Z
0
O
U
aJ
aJ
w
O
N
w �
0
�
II
z
J
�
Ld
V
U
o Z
F
=
�
O
w
J
Q
N
`
�
U
U_
Q
�
z
o
0
U
ry
O
U
O
o
O
o
o zQ o
Qowaz �
p-
a�aw zwm�<
=o_
W N 0U70= }U7 D 0'I
U �cn �. X00
O~ u O Ua~Z=N U7 U)
Q LLJw W ZpZ—Qz U7
OO LJ ~ LLJ E)
U= m N Z Z W Z O Ul Z
=In N o S LJU� w Z O
Q U7 0(D O d�
O= Z
> IL- a W a 0 a-: J p p U� 0 w
O w �� Z =)Q p O Z
Um UJ1 om~LLJE) cn
0}
w w
�p Om� U7pw Z= W w>
cf) =J��of C)
= Q W U
U) U
m m
am
a a o = a0
U 0

BUFFER EXTENDED
TO PROPERTY LINE REMOVE EXISTING
PARCEL LINES AS PER GIS IMPOUNDMENT AND DAM'
' (NOT SURVEYED)
--------- --
N/F -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
US FORESTRY SERVICE �F
DB 00401, PG 0301�—
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXI5TINO OVERHEAD
POWER UTILITY
ADDRESS SUSPENDED
CULVERTS
STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
0
CONCEPTUAL RELOCATION OF
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
UTILITY TO COINCIDE WITH
ROAD ACCESS THROUGH
BUFFER (APPROXIMATE).
NOTE: OVERHEAD POWER
UTILITY RELOCATION SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
UTILITY PROVIDER
REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL
ASSOCIATED OVERHEAD
POWER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
MINIMUM
30 FT. BUFFER
HANCEMENT LEVEL 2
T
LEVEL 1
ENHANCEMENT
ASSUMED EXISTING
5EPTIC FIELD
STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURES
co
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, o
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
Lu
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
2
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS co
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
CROSS SECTION NO. 3
STORMWATER
CONTROL
0
MEASURE
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURES AT EXISTING
OUTFLOW TO STREAM
UPPER PADGETT BRANCH:
\A�
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1)
i/ T3 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (2.5:1)
/ PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
STORMWATER
`CONTROL
MEASURE /
!#I 41 -..
151 FT. BUFFER
�NGy
rl
9
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
a
EXISTING STREAM REACH
m
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
STORMWATER CONTROL
PROPOSED RESTORATION
MEASURES AT EXISTING
STREAM REACH
--OUTFLOW TO STREAM
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LLJ
U21,
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
a a
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
CAMP
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
U
STREAM REACH
CPROPOSED
BUFFER
3 1
PROPOSED MITIGATION
) CREDIT RATIO
151 FT. BUFFER
�NGy
rl
9
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
a
m
O
STORMWATER CONTROL
in
MEASURES AT EXISTING
--OUTFLOW TO STREAM
W
LLJ
U21,
a a
o
CAMP
a0
STORMN
9wftp.ACONTROL
MEASURES
STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
N
H
O
z
o -
O
O
II
L�
z
w
J
U
N
U
2
d
af
0
o
zQ
Qowaz �
o-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
roN owz �~
Q
w U � c'
O� X 0 0 �000a�z�~nn
aww wzoz_¢zwn
U=mNz�wzo�zo
=V) NO S wUOfw O
�Q-Nwozooa�oz _z
a
awaoa�J�oo -
ow��z �¢��oLwoz
O m U J 0 0. H O D O}
w w
agm� Ln C) ww>
U7OJ =JH OUwm�O
= Q W U
U) U
m
m
Q m
LLJ
U21,
a a
o
=
a0
U
0

L
0
m
a
00
co
0
/ 11F
j UNITED 5TA7E5 OF AMERICA
U5 FORE5TRY 5ERVICE
DO 00401, PG 0501
NOTE: LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE AND STREAM
TOCBEION DETERMINED ARE ROY IMATE.SURV.ACTUAL LOCATIONS s (yJ
STORM WATER \
CONTROL
MEASURE ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF EXI5TING OVERHEAD
POWER UTILITY
�P_ _ —
P P—
P
CONCEPTUAL RELOCATION OF P,
EXISTING OVERHEAD POWER
UTILITY TO COINCIDE WITH
ROAD ACCESS THROUGH
BUFFER (APPROXIMATE).
NOTE: OVERHEAD POWER /T"0PkAWATPP
UTILITY RELOCATION SHALL
BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
UTILITY PROVIDER
REQUIREMENTS AND SHALL
COMPLY WITH ALL
ASSOCIATED OVERHEAD
\ POWER SAFETY REQUIREMENTS.
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
[ PROPOSED BUFFER
CZ 1 ) PROPOSED MITIGATION
J CREDIT RATIO
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 `�
PARCEL LINES AS PERS
--�ho rTRIM)
BUFFER EXTENDED
TO PROPERTY LINE
EXISTING BUILDING TO
BE DEMOLISHED/REMOVED
F'l
L w
PRIORITY 2 RESTORATION
--- -----
PRIORITY 2 RESTORATION
P ADDRESS SUSPENDED CULVERT Z
s ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
STORMWATER
\
!CONTROL — _p
P P MEASURE
CAMP CRIER ROAD
STORMWATER
rn� CONTROL
_ _ _ MEASURES
4&-�.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
UPPER PADGETT BRANCH:
' PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
—STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
Ift
PROPOSED
PROPOSED
T4 TRIBUTARY:
PRIORITY 2 RESTORATION (1:1)
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
T5 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRIORITY 2 RESTORATION (1:1)
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
of
zQ
Qa
oowz �
—
_ oma =o =
�� oo�z cno=}cn���
U a Ll Q� 0� 0 0
NF- N000a�Z��U7 U7
a ww wzoz ¢zwcn
UQ U7�OZUOd�OZ _z
, =a
0_0 J00U 0w
O W I� LLJ Z u Q 0� O Z
UO] LLJ
UJO Om~����}
w w
aom� Nowz�wLL
= Q ~ w LLJ U
N U
z
U h
m
0
O
w \
Q m
U
U
E a
aJ
=
ro
aJ
w
O
N
_J 0
w
U
�
�
II
z
z
J
�
O
IV
�
�
�D
U
o z
co
Ey
=
O
w
J
U
y
`
z
�
U
U
Q
z
o af
0
C0
U
O
o
of
zQ
Qa
oowz �
—
_ oma =o =
�� oo�z cno=}cn���
U a Ll Q� 0� 0 0
NF- N000a�Z��U7 U7
a ww wzoz ¢zwcn
UQ U7�OZUOd�OZ _z
, =a
0_0 J00U 0w
O W I� LLJ Z u Q 0� O Z
UO] LLJ
UJO Om~����}
w w
aom� Nowz�wLL
= Q ~ w LLJ U
N U
m
U h
m
o
w
w \
Q m
U
U
E a
o
=
ro
0

L
0
m
NOTE: LOCATION OF PROPERTY LINE AND STREAM LOCATION
PARC ARE APPROXIMATE. ACTUAL LOCATIONS TO BE DETERMINED
7I NES AS p
----- BY SURVEY. FINAL DETERMINATION ON PROPOSED
�R Cis RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT OF UPPER PADGETT BRANCH
SHALL BE DETERMINED BASED ON RESULTS OF SURVEY DATA.
PRESERVATION
! V
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFER
(..J:1 )PROPOSED MITIGATION
J CREDIT RATIO
STORM WATER
STORMWATER CONTROL
CONTROL MEASURE
MEASURES
NOTE: RELOCATE EXISTING POWER LINE IN THIS AREA SO
THAT POWER LINE AND CAMP GRIER ROAD MAY SHARE
THE SAME ACCESS THROUGH THE PROPOSED BUFFER.
ML-\- L 1.r_i Lel. - s - It.
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
HANCEMENT LEVEL 2
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
i
N/F
UNITED 5TATE5 OF AMERICA
U5 FORESTRY SERVICE
DB 0040/, F6 030/
UPPER PAD6ETT BRANCH
T6 AND T7 TRIBUTARIES:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (5:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
oa
0
•�» ����
p
U a • Z> O Z
m J J Z Z s, 7
W i w N p N E
? rw•� * N U O Lo N 3 N o
_1 V7 m N X X
i U ,,�.t�Ua d4cyi� a
Z N
o
Z o n
ww aymo, o
rl U�Nw
O= N M C
a O .
Z Ow U
Q� >
• _. -V wZ� � rUt
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
\ STORMWATER LAND DEVELOPMENT
CONTROL REGULATIONS.
MEASURE
z
0
0
U
aJ
04
o
STORM WATER Z p
CONTROL \
MEASURES II
OfJ W
O
l� U o Z
LdU
U��
z
a
z 0
o
d
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 `
C0
�J
I?�
of
o zQ o
o �
j
a m
f aw zw��Q�gw
co
--vi o�z
�U7000a-�Z�NU7 U7
Oa W w W Z p Z— Q z IyJ U7
U= v www o<wo
151 FT. BUFFER ���o��o�wm����o
/ zooa oz _
CL wQ���J�o��0w
ow��z Da�mo�woz
U m U w 0 m 0}
w w
% ao°�w �owz�w�>
=�=O�° �o
= a w w o
,0 o
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
T8 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
j
Lr)
w
a
m
z x
Q m
o
m
LIJ -�
U
�
°°
C
ro
o

PRESERVATION TO
UPSTREAM END OF
TRIBUTARIES
XISTING STREAM REACH
OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
ROPOSED RESTORATION
TREAM REACH
ROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
EVEL 1 STREAM REACH
ROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
EVEL 2 STREAM REACH
ROPOSED PRESERVATION
TREAM REACH
ROPOSED BUFFER
ROPOSED MITIGATION
REDIT RATIO
EXTEND PROPOSED BUFFER
TO 50 FT. OR SURVEYED
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
ADDRESS SUSPENDED
CULVERT
r 8j
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES - THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
\ BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
24 y USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURE FOR
AGRICULTURAL FIELD
w'
j
TIA TRIBUTAR K
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1
151 FT. BUFFER
STORMWATER CONTROL IF
MEASURES — REMOVEIMPOUNDMENT,
�4p DAM, AND TROUT
INFRASTRUCTURE
T1 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
T1A TRIBUTARY:
b6m; PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 2.5:1
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
151 FT. BUFFER
PROPOSED !'
r CONSTRUCTED
WETLAND
C�
I it
V
CAMP CRIER
LAKE
ON Z oz
' �0 X00
p ZZ�U mmNm
°� •Z %"O N Z
U
ZIn
y y
PZ
L-
(01
N�
O
c�zo 0
i/�ZZz zr.: a
g. O N N °
Z W U i
z' Ct C
ZV ° U °
ww; roapa
m
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
z
0
0
U
aJ
aJ
w
0 o
Q N
w � �
II
z �
J
00 U p Z
= w
U
Q
O N
U_
(n Q
Z 0
O �
U
O0
U
0
o
zQ
Qowaz LLJ
o-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
00 -0 n }
o=N���
w U � Na -
0 0
�~ �000a�z�~nn
a ww zpzLL�_¢zwcn
�o-102 �wzouzo
=In N O~ S w U w Z O
E) LLj=Z _z
IL ad w a O a- � J O 0 U O w
owQ
���o�oz
U m U J D g m H D O}
w W
�p O m N o w t= w w>
D m 0
S ~ LL J w
Q U
U) U
m m
w�
w z = w -� v
a a o = a0
U a

s_i
PRESERVATION
I
PRESERVATION
T LEVEL 2
T1 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
TIC AND T1 D TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
151 FT. BUFFER
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
y�
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
0
PROPOSED RESTORATION
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
STREAM REACH
w N I U l
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
w
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
Uj �, a"o m
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
STREAM REACH
CPROPOSED
BUFFER
3:
1 )PROPOSED MITIGATION
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
I / CREDIT RATIO
U 3 m o
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
T LEVEL 2
T1 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
TIC AND T1 D TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
151 FT. BUFFER
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
y�
co
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
0
U Z Z N
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
� n
w N I U l
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
w
a � = N
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
?
"
Uj �, a"o m
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
N N m x x
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
z
_, W � O Y O
N z Q o ^ m
U_
rIZWw ay rnw
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
rl
U 3 m o
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
_ E
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
rA z W z N
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
(;",a
g Z ° N" CA
ZOw U"i`
51 FT. BUFFER
z' Ct C
0� W a a
o
T LEVEL 2
T1 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
TIC AND T1 D TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
151 FT. BUFFER
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
y�
z
D
O
U
w�
mm
aJ
aw
LLJ
aQ
z=
m
ZO
_J 0
w �
0
U
�
0- a
o
=
a0
U
0
U_
U
N
o
C0
U
0
o
o -
O
Z
o-
o �
o zQ o
Qowaz �
o-
a�aw zwm2a�gw
�'i' 0Wa x0 =
roN ocj�z n0=}LnDQ �
W U W O E X 0 0
o~ ADO Ua�ZOZ �U7 U)
OQ W w W Z p Z— Q z W U7
O ~ U= m N Z Z W Z O Z
00 U7 O� S� LJ U tr W aY Z O
�Q U7WOZUOd�OZ -Z
>-ad=-,J�,u��w
(c)LLJ o u 1� 1woz
O m U J 0 0 m H O D cn O}
w W
�p D m� N O W w>
LnO ] =J�0�07 W O
S Q ~ W W U
W U) U
w�
mm
�-,
LLJ
aQ
z=
m
in
U
0- a
o
=
a0
U
0

BUFFER ENHANCEMENT
T23 TRiBUr,MMIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
4Rr
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
APPROXIMATE LOCATION
OF FORMER CHAPEL
END BUFFER
151 FT.
% j:. A1gP
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
T2 T=—
MAINTENANCE
NTENANCE
BUILDING
STORM WATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
VEP"&—"V'A WETLAND
RESTORATION
AREA
REMOVE EXISTING
IMPOUNDMENT
T2A TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
T2 AND T2B TRIBUTARIES:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (3j. -j
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
MINIMUM 30 FT.
BUFFER
STORM WATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
T2 TRIBUTAR K
REMOVE-mir
REMOVE
won
T24 TR/BUT,4R� \
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
MINIMUM 30 FT.
BUFFER
•o*"
0 U Z Zit m m N m
� of •Zi' -O N I Z �
U
Nay ON 3N o
. x:1 x -E5
Z w\ :3 Q)
o� °m®
V/ •1�IZwz- I mrno
i
0 it J O 2
(AN VNn
Z'o
�� Zc5Zz
gz O N m N
zow 11 "N)
{w.,�yl' z
Z OU O
(3ww*. maoa
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
0
o -
H
O
Z
o-
o �
o zQ o
Qowaz �
o-
a�aw zwm2a�gw
w'i' 5wa =0 =
roN 0z vn0=}LnDQ �
W U W OX 0 0
O~ �DOaZ
0= �NU7 Ul
OQ W w W ,�Z—Qzw U7
O ~ U= m N co Z W Z O Z
=
0In N O~_ w U� W Z O
a-Nwoz00a-0z _z
aad=< a- 00Uw0'-''
owz Da��o0woz
U m U J O O m H O D O}
w w
�p OmL Ln C)
ZL�ww>
nom =�=0ofm�o
S Q ~ LL J w U
W U) U
EXISTING STREAM REACH
h
w
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
o\
w
PROPOSED RESTORATION
z
Q m
LLJ
021,
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
a a
o
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
a0
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
U
0
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
7--
PROPOSED BUFFER
b
(�)PROPOSED
MITIGATION
CREDIT RATIO
VEP"&—"V'A WETLAND
RESTORATION
AREA
REMOVE EXISTING
IMPOUNDMENT
T2A TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
T2 AND T2B TRIBUTARIES:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 1 (3j. -j
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
MINIMUM 30 FT.
BUFFER
STORM WATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
T2 TRIBUTAR K
REMOVE-mir
REMOVE
won
T24 TR/BUT,4R� \
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
MINIMUM 30 FT.
BUFFER
•o*"
0 U Z Zit m m N m
� of •Zi' -O N I Z �
U
Nay ON 3N o
. x:1 x -E5
Z w\ :3 Q)
o� °m®
V/ •1�IZwz- I mrno
i
0 it J O 2
(AN VNn
Z'o
�� Zc5Zz
gz O N m N
zow 11 "N)
{w.,�yl' z
Z OU O
(3ww*. maoa
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
0
0
o -
H
O
Z
o-
o �
o zQ o
Qowaz �
o-
a�aw zwm2a�gw
w'i' 5wa =0 =
roN 0z vn0=}LnDQ �
W U W OX 0 0
O~ �DOaZ
0= �NU7 Ul
OQ W w W ,�Z—Qzw U7
O ~ U= m N co Z W Z O Z
=
0In N O~_ w U� W Z O
a-Nwoz00a-0z _z
aad=< a- 00Uw0'-''
owz Da��o0woz
U m U J O O m H O D O}
w w
�p OmL Ln C)
ZL�ww>
nom =�=0ofm�o
S Q ~ LL J w U
W U) U
m
h
w
m
=
o\
w
z
Q m
LLJ
021,
� v
a a
o
=
a0
U
0

O
m
7F
a
0
• to
i
MAIN STO
CAMP AREA CONTROL MWATER
MEASURE /
r AI,
STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURE
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
[ PROPOSED BUFFER
151 FT.
1 )PROPOSED MITIGATION
3: (
1 CREDIT RATIO
_
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUI
& ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
0
STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
f .wit
STORMWATER
CONTROL
MEASURE
i'
�¢ I
i
STORMWATER
—CONTROL—
MEASURES
�2.
� ro
O Z Z_ u r n m N m
� °� •Z%"O N I Z
U
z cdNzo on fop®
rl U80(ol�
0 04V)N`
c'-1
+�
Z' _ °U °
ww; roa0a
rn
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
z
0
O
U
aJ
aJ
w
zo 0
0
0 g ^U-)
O J
o u-
-0 z
E- = J
y 0 Q
O U
Z
` � U
U
Z 0
0 o
0
O
U o
J
O
o �
o zQ o
Qowaz �
p-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
w�i� Awa xU =
roN owz 7 '02 0 0
w U � O� X 0 0
O~ OpUa~Z E=) Ul
Q w U.l w Z p Z— Q Z w U7
OO ~ U=- N Z Z W Z O Z
=V) NU _, w Uofw ZO
UQ U7wOZU_Od�oZ _z
IL W a O J p p U O w
ow��Z �a�opwoz
U m U J O O m H p p O}
w w
�p O m Of '7') Z� W w>
cnO� =LLJ 0- �z0
= Q W U � U
U) U
Lr) m m ao
pw \
w z = w -� v
Q m o \
a a o = a0
0

N/F
UNITED 5TATE5 OF AMERICA
U5 FORE5TRY SERVICE
DB 00401, F& 0,301
APP
r
�y
10
�N
�N
fl me,
T3 AND T3A TRIBUTARIES:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2_(4:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, 1�
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS °
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
W
rl
Ind
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
T3 TRIBUTARY
ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2
Z
D
0
/
J
^
W
Q
O
_J 0
U
O
II
W
�u-
V
U
\
=
w
mmpJ
0
O
Q
N
y
Z
�
U
2
STORMWATER CONTROL
U
MEASURE
z
af
0
\
U
EXTEND BUFFER
0
TO 151 FT.
O zQ U
r� azowaz �
o-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
EXISTING STREAM REACH
°0 w owa =U =
o w 0�� `" 0 0
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
v D
o 2 w o a s
a wwoo�ozz< LL Cf)
LL
EREACHTORATION
�o N o= m z U w w o
STREAM
~ w U of
0< w O Z U O d O Z z
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
cn
a z a U a- J 'u w
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH \
o w zo u a=" o �w o z
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
U- U } w V Q
U
o m m z z w
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
o z z o m Q o
�
U , a U
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
U
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFERh
m m °Q
o w.
MITIGATION \
o m Y o
(3 1 )PROPOSED
J
CREDIT RATIO
a a o = oo

i
0
m
7F
a
0
51 FT. BUFFER
T4 TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT LEVEL 2 (4:1)
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
T4A TRIBUTARY:
PROPOSED PRESERVATION (7:1)
I
---
BUFFER EXTENDS
TO 151 FT.
i
`7151 FT. BUFFER
EXTEND BUFFER
TO 151 FT.
STORMWATER
CONTROL MEASURE
r
t EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED LEVEL STREAM REACH ENHANCEMENT
l/ PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFER
-- -/--- - ZZ PROPOSED MITIGATION
(J: 1)CREDIT RATIO
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES - THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
00 ' o
p UZZ� �mNm
of • Z> -O N Z
U
J 1 Z Z y y
U A\ z* J a U
J V/ ZNm iii x�
Z
V! •rIZWw (L
~
(Z5 ZOz fir.: a
;J 4 LEg U O N M N
Z CK W U i
a I w 0 3� � C z C
Z OU O
ww; roapa
rn
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
o
o zQ o
r`" Qowaz CLIJ
o-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
rovi no=}n���
w U O� 0 0
�~-000a�z
@�~nn
a ww wzoz_¢zLL cn
If) 1= uzo
= N N o~_ w U O w Z O
UQ UIw UZU(D _z
IL w a O-� L'jJ O 0 U O w
ow��z-¢��o�woz
U m U J D g m H D S O}
w w
�p Om� NOwZL� W w>
owm�o
= Q W U
U) U
Z
h
LLJ-jo
m
=
0
0
w \
aQ
z
m
U
v
0- a
aJ
=
a0
aJ
w
O
o
O
0
J
All
w
O
o
u-
U
Z
Fe.
mmp
^
=
0
O
w
J
Q
N
W
Z
U
U
Q
z
O
0
U
00
U
o
o
o zQ o
r`" Qowaz CLIJ
o-
a�aw zwm�a�gw
rovi no=}n���
w U O� 0 0
�~-000a�z
@�~nn
a ww wzoz_¢zLL cn
If) 1= uzo
= N N o~_ w U O w Z O
UQ UIw UZU(D _z
IL w a O-� L'jJ O 0 U O w
ow��z-¢��o�woz
U m U J D g m H D S O}
w w
�p Om� NOwZL� W w>
owm�o
= Q W U
U) U
m
h
LLJ-jo
m
=
w \
aQ
z
m
w in
U
v
0- a
o
=
a0
U
a

151 FT. BUFFER
at
151 FT. BUFFER
f / T6
PROPOSED
coNOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, o Z Z N
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR• Z'" o N Z
7
J DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS w N N
1 DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS .2 co N PZN m x x
'BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY. z N z ¢ o
rIZW�w av°'rnP
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE rl U (ol 3 m o
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE 0 * E
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE z zZ N z o
USE OF THIS INFORMATION. g Z ° N"
Zzowc°"i..
� wZin �t r
THIS MAP IS NOT A
. - -- -o�, -_ CERTIFIED SURVEY
��"�'■/ AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
\1�p LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
z
UT,4�
o
aJ
aw
o
o� .
�o0
Ld
[� w
O U
Z
� U
\ \ U�=
af �3
O
\ O
U
OZ
Q O
Qowaz �
U �7-
EXISTING STREAM REACH
a 5
a z= g
- (OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
Q LLw o 0
�o
0 o z z a z w
STREAM REACH
�Q�
LL
Nz�w�OQ Jo
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
"a N o O
� w U � �
z o a O z
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
a
a
o
w z
O W �� O
a o Q
U =� O W O Z
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
"m w 7
o m� o o�� r
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
a o m w
o? z W u>
PROPOSED PRESERVATION
= a
= w ~ F --m z
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFER
}
,o
m
m
co
1 MITIGATION
)PROPOSED
3
J I/ CREDIT RATIO
Lo
Q
m
o
a_ a
o
w
z
O

.0
0
s
m
7F
a
0
TAX )JAP /
N/F
UNITED 5TATE5 OF AMERICA
U5 FORE5TRY 5ERV16E
DB 0040/, P& 030/
Q
Q
EXISTING STREAM REACH
(OUTSIDE PROJECT AREA)
PROPOSED RESTORATION
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT
LEVEL 1 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED ENHANCEMENT �
LEVEL 2 STREAM REACH
PROPOSED PRESERVATION /
STREAM REACH
PROPOSED BUFFER
(ZZ PROPOSED MITIGATION
J: 1 )CREDIT RATIO
/
/ /
/
/
Ll
W r /
•
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION, o U Z Z N
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR ' Za W U m Z
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS w IL Q� = N
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.? Uj 0 U 0
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS " N N m x x
- W O Y O
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY. z A` Ce3 N z¢ o
W rIZW�wavmrn2
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE rl U o � > Z. m o
- COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE rA z Wz No
USE OF THIS INFORMATION. W g Z ° N" CA
wZZvvLL
w; roaoa
rn
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
-�� LAND DEVELOPMENT
' REGULATIONS.
- z
O
aJ
w
� o
-- \ u')
/
All
0 L�
v O w
o Z
\ U
\ v y 0 a
O U
� U
2 d
(n Q
Z of
trl 0 o
ry
U
0
- J
0
�_ rn azowaLnz
o -
a haw zwm�=<
= U S
roN o no=}cn�IYH
X00
151 FT. BUFFER oaww�ozoz?

Exhibit B-Bank Service Area Map

WATAUGA
SITE
FRENCH CAT,
BROAD
LITTLE
TENNESSEE BROAD
SAVANNAH
HIWASSEE
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
YADKIN
PEE -DEE
ROANOKE ,��� CHOWAN
CAPE FEAR
LUMBER
NEUSE
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE NORTH CAROLINA RIVER BASINS
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE 1 " = 300,000'
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
WHITE OAK
CATAWBA RIVER BASIN
I" = 100,000'
MCDOWELL COUNTY
1 " = 30,000'
I �
I �
% — r /
f /% SITE I/
VICINITY VICINITY MAP(OLD FORT)FORT)
1" = 3,000'
NOTES:
1. BOUNDARIES OF COUNTIES, PARCELS, AND RIVER BASINS
DOWNLOADED FROM NC ONE MAP GIS DATA.
o
.0�� w
N
Z * w + v
�ZZU rn�Noo
X97//
N W
N E
y U
�O
n U7 y u) c Lo °
z
cd V) of fop ®
� \
l�
4.4 Z' �mMo
U-N4,�ma?
0 * 3 M C
J O 2rn:'rn,_
6
rA 0 Z Z O
� K Oif1NN
LL
Wc
Z , 0. 0
3 5; z ' o , o
�V ww : 00aoa
THIS MAP IS NOT A
CERTIFIED SURVEY
AND HAS NOT BEEN
REVIEWED BY A
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
AGENCY FOR
COMPLIANCE WITH
ANY APPLICABLE
LAND DEVELOPMENT
REGULATIONS.
z
Z)
0
U
aJ
aJ
w
O
0
U
o�
w
U
ril
T
PIA
n'
0
0
J
O
0
C
co
W
J
Q
U
a
0
z¢
aw w zw��Q�Q�
W U Q = U =
�N 0 W (n O S}(nW
o�� �0�00
�'' �C)p0 �zzc~ncncn
a W W wzoz—azwcn
cn"���o<Jo
7 U Ln Z
=v7 �nO�S�w U�w� _DO
UQ cn�Oz UOd�Oz _z
D_ w a O W� J 0 0 O W
O W ��'O u> W D��z
U m U J Q O m H � D O w
O0 cnowz�ww>
(f) C)< ?w�0wmW0
N U
N m m 00
Q m
Q_ a. o = o
U

Exhibit C-Statement of Qualifications and Key Staff
Resumes

Quible & Associates, P.C. www.quible.com Company Profile 2018 v.3.3

QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Engineering - Environmental Sciences - Planning - Surveying

HISTORY

Quible & Associates was founded in 1959 by F. Richard
Quible, P.E., and R.L.S. and was originally based in
Chase City, Virginia. In its early years and throughout
the 1960s and 1970s, the company established its
reputation in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia
and Texas as an engineering and land surveying
practice specializing in land development, wastewater
treatment and water supply. In 1966 the firm,
operating as “Quible and Charlton”, began offering
engineering and surveying services in northeastern
North Carolina. All operations were relocated to the
northeast coast of NC in 1984. Quible opened a
western North Carolina office in 2013. Quible’s offices
currently reside in the towns of Powells Point and Black
Mountain allowing coverage of the entire State.

Today, Quible has solidified its position as a regional
consulting leader, with an impressive track record of
successful projects within a majority of the counties in
eastern and western North Carolina.

Quible specializes in the dynamic fields of
environmental science and engineering including:
stream and wetland delineation, conservation,
preservation, enhancement and restoration; species
and habitat assessment; compensatory mitigation
services; environmental permitting; regulatory
interpretation and correspondence; hydraulic
modeling and floodplain analysis; site assessments;
erosion and sedimentation control; stormwater
management; construction management, oversight
and observation. Quible also a leader in sustainable
mountain and coastal land development, planning,
design & permitting and project management.

EXPERIENCE

The strength of the firm is founded in the experience
and professionalism of the staff members, each having
from 11 to 26 years’ experience in their respective
specialty. The administrative support staff at Quible
is mature, efficient, and well versed in the functions
of the firm and provide valuable service to our clients.

In addition to being registered with the NC Board of
Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors (C-0208) and
the NC Board for Licensing of Geologists (C-468),
Quible is registered with NCDOT as a SPSF firm, and
approved by NCDOT as a Private Consulting Firm.

Quible & Associates, P.C. www.quible.com Company Profile 2018 v.3.3

QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Engineering - Environmental Sciences - Planning - Surveying

Each of our licensed professionals are leaders in Civil
Engineering, Environmental Science and Surveying.
Quible has put together a team of respected licensed
professionals and supporting staff with the ability to
efficiently maneuver projects from concept to
construction.

SERVICE

Quible is founded on the principle of offering the best
information available to help all of our clients realize
their project goals. We provide knowledge and
experience with a commitment to service to the client.
Quible is a regional leader in mountain and coastal
development, planning and environmental science.

PHILOSOPHY

The philosophy of Quible & Associates, P.C., is and
always has been, "service to the client". We are
attentive to what people think of our respective
professions and our Quible’s expert staff.
Understanding that professional engineering and
environmental services must be provided with the best
interest of the public and environment at the
forefront, we endeavor in both our professional
performance and civil behavior, to prove that
“service” is our goal.

With increased ecological pressures and rapidly
changing environmental regulation being implemented
more stringently than ever before, our staff of licensed
environmental professionals offer our clients the tools
to navigate environmental and natural resource
regulation for any project or issue that may arise.

Quible believes that sensitivity and understanding of
our client's needs is of paramount importance. We
remain flexible, within the parameters of regulatory
restrictions and good design judgment. In this manner
we best serve our clients.

CONTACTS

Warren D. Eadus, P.G. Michael W. Strader, Jr., P.E.
President Director of Engineering
PO Box 870, Kitty Hawk NC PO Box 870, Kitty Hawk NC
Tel. [phone] Tel. [phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail]

Brian D. Rubino, P.G. Joel D. Lenk, P.G.
Vice President Western Branch Manager
PO Box 870, Kitty Hawk NC PO Box 87, Fairview, NC
Tel. [phone] Tel. [phone]
[e-mail] [e-mail]

Quible & Associates, P.C. www.quible.com Company Profile 2018 v.3.3

QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
Engineering - Environmental Sciences - Planning - Surveying

Please visit our website at www.quible.com for more information, recent projects and news.

SERVICES OFFERED

Environmental Sciences
SEPA and NEPA Documents
Wetlands Delineation, Permitting and Mitigation
CAMA Permitting/ USACE/401 Permitting
UST Removal
Soil and Groundwater Assessment
Remediation
Landfill Assessment and Reclamation
ASTM Standard Phase I ESA’s
Wetlands Planning and Creation
Stream and Habitat Restoration
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation Surveying and
Mitigation Banking Sevices
Essential Fish Habitat Assessment
Certified Well Contracting Services and
Consulting (NC WCC #3410B)
Buffer Zone Enhancement Plans

Civil Engineering
Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling
Wastewater Design/Permitting
Stormwater Management Design/Permitting
Streetscape and Roadway Improvements
Stream and Wetland Restoration Design
Multi-Use Path Design
Site Planning
Water Distribution and Treatment Design
DOT Permitting
Soil Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plans
Dam Design and Permitting
NPDES Permitting
Roadway Design
Waterway Design
Recreational Park Layout and Design

Surveying
Utility Surveys
Elevation Certificates
Lot Surveys
As-Built Surveys
Flood Plain Mapping
Bathymetric Surveys
ALTA/ACSM Land Title Surveys
LOMA

Planning
Conservation
Preservation
Restoration
Municipal
Residential
Commercial
Coastal
Infrastructure
PUD
LID

Other
CADD Applications & Color Imaging
Bid Document Preparation
Contract Administration
Construction Management
Construction Inspection
Hydraulic Modeling
Stormwater Modeling
Feasibility Studies

Joel D. Lenk, P.G.
Manager, Western North Carolina Office Quible & Associates, P.C.
Education
East Carolina University 1997
Bachelor of Science in Geology
Post Graduate:

North Carolina State University-NC
Stream Restoration Institute,
Natural Channel Assessment and
Design
US Army Corps of Engineers-
Certified Wetland Delineator

Key Areas of Expertise
➢ Project Management
➢ Phase I and II Environmental
Site Assessments
➢ Wetland Delineations and
Evaluations of Jurisdictional
Waters
➢ Wetland/Stream Mitigation
Planning and Analysis
➢ 404 and 401 Permitting
➢ Stream Restoration
Assessment, Design,
Permitting, and Construction
Oversight
➢ Dam Permitting & Maintenance
➢ Emergency Action Plans
➢ Bid Documents & Contractor
Procurement
➢ Grant Writing
➢ Landfill Maintenance & Solid
Waste Regulation
➢ Landfill Gas Monitoring
➢ Expert Witness Deposition &
Testimony
➢ Soil, Surface water, and
Groundwater Sampling
➢ Sediment & Erosion Control
➢ Construction Administration

Mr. Lenk is a licensed professional geologist in North and South Carolina
with 17 years of experience working as an environmental consultant with
highly respected firms. He earned his Bachelor of Science degree in
Geology from East Carolina University in 1997. He has extensive
experience working in mountain and piedmont riverine environments, and
is familiar with State and Federal law and policy associated with stream
systems, wetlands, and groundwater.
Mr. Lenk’s professional experience includes environmental restoration,
compensatory mitigation and banking, wetland delineation and
jurisdictional determination, environmental permitting, soil, water, and
gas sampling, and assessment and remediation of soil and groundwater.
Additionally, he has provided expert witness testimony related to potential
impacts to ecological resources for projects in western North Carolina.
Relevant Highlights
➢ Familiarity with North Carolina and Federal Environmental Regulations
➢ State and Federal Environmental Permitting and Compliance (401 Water
Quality, and 404 Permitting)
Trainings and Certifications
➢ State of North Carolina Professional Geologist License 2005 (#2044)
➢ State of South Carolina Professional Geologist License 2010 (#2541)
➢ 40-Hour Occupational Safety and Health Administration HAZWOPER
Certification
➢ US Army Corps of Engineers – Certified Wetland Delineator
➢ North Carolina State University – NC Stream Restoration Institute,
Natural Channel Assessment and Design Training

Representative Experience
➢ Staff Geologist- Geological Resources, Inc. 2000-2004
➢ Senior Geologist, Co-owner – Altamont Environmental, Inc. 2004-2013
➢ Geologist, Office Manager – Quible & Associates, P.C., January 2015-
present

Brian D. Rubino, P.G.
Vice President Quible & Associates, P.C.

 Environmental Scientist – Quible & Associates, P.C., September 2000–Present
Education
East Carolina University 1997
Bachelor of Science in Geology
East Carolina University 2002
Master of Science in Geology
Key Areas of Expertise
 Project Management
 Phase I and II Environmental Site
Assessments
 Preparation of SEPA and NEPA
Environmental Assessments
 Preparation of Essential Fish
Habitat Assessments
 Wetland Delineations and
Evaluations of Jurisdictional
Waters
 Wetland Mitigation Planning and
Analysis
 Wetland Restoration Planning and
Analysis
 Natural Resource and Habitat
Evaluations
 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Surveys
 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation
Resource Mitigation
 Stream Restoration
 Bathymetric Surveys
 Mining Permits
 Landfill Assessments
 UST Closure
 NPDES Sampling
 Soil and Groundwater Sampling
 Corrective Action/Remediation
Plans
 Project Management
 Construction Administration

Mr. Rubino is a licensed professional geologist in North Carolina with
over 17 years of experience working as an environmental consultant
with Quible & Associates, P.C. He earned his Bachelor of Science and
Masters of Science degrees in Geology from East Carolina University
in 1997 and 2002, respectively. He has extensive experience working in
coastal environments, and is intimately familiar with State and Federal
law and policy associated with coastal systems, wetlands, and
groundwater.
Mr. Rubino’s professional experience includes environmental
assessments, compensatory mitigation, wetland assessments, CAMA
permitting, soil and water sampling, remediation, aquatic surveys, and
mine permitting. In addition, he has provided project management and
oversight for marina and residential development projects and has
provided expert witness testimony related to potential impacts to
ecological resources on projects in the Outer Banks of North Carolina.
Relevant Highlights
 Familiarity with North Carolina and Federal Environmental Regulations
 Extensive environmental planning
 State and Federal permitting (including CAMA, 401 Water Quality, and
404 Permitting)

Trainings and Certifications
 State of North Carolina Professional Geologist License 2003 (#1933)
 40-Hour Occupational Safety and Health Administration HAZWOPER
Certification # 13334

Representative Experience
Michael W. Strader, Jr. P.E.
Director of Engineering Quible & Associates, P.C.
Education
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University 2001
Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering
Key Areas of Expertise
 Water System Design, Permitting
and Certification
 Water Main/Fire Line System
Design
 Project Management
 Subdivision Design and Permitting
 Commercial and Residential Site
Planning
 Stormwater Collection and
Treatment System Design,
Permitting and Certification
 Wastewater Collection and
Treatment System Design,
Permitting and Certification
 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Planning, Design, and
Permitting
 Bidding Assistance and
Construction Administration
 Construction Inspection

Trainings and Certifications
 State of North Carolina
Professional Engineer- License No.
037813
 Commonwealth of Virginia
Professional Engineer – License
No. 041282
 American Water Works Association
 Subsurface Wastewater Systems
Operator Training
 WaterCAD Modeling Software

Relevant Highlights
 Local, State and Federal
permitting
 Local Site Plan, Utilities,
Stormwater Management, and
Erosion and Sediment Control Plan
Reviewer

Mr. Strader is a licensed Professional Engineer with more than 18
years of engineering experience. He has extensive knowledge in the
areas of Water Treatment and Distribution design, hydraulic modeling,
groundwater well development, water resource planning, water supply
storage, booster station design, wastewater collection and conveyance
design, pump station design, Stormwater Management, Erosion and
Sedimentation Control, and roadway design. His experience includes
residential and commercial site development and the associated
permitting process. Mike has written Preliminary Engineering Reports
and Environmental Assessments, including those meeting state and
federal funding requirements, Letter Reports, O&M Manuals, Cost
Estimates, prepared bid documents and construction documents
suitable for public advertisement. In addition to his experience listed
above, Mike is familiar with dam inundation mapping and analyses,
streetscape improvements, and downtown revitalization projects. Mike
has been the designated technical review authority for several
municipalities and service authorities. Plan review responsibilities
include site plans, master plans, subdivision plans, roadway
improvements, drainage plans, recreational facilities, utilities and
traffic control. Mike began his professional career at Quible while in
college and as an EIT after graduation, and has re-joined our team in
2011 after working with a leading Civil Engineering firm in Lynchburg,
VA. Mike has also been employed with USGS, where he conducted
aquifer research and analysis, including age dating of groundwater
using CFC’s as part of the VA Aquifer Susceptibility Study.

Representative Work Experience
 Project Manager/Civil Design Engineer- WW Associates, Inc. 2005-2011
 Hydrologist- USGS 1998-1999 and 2004-2005
 E.I.T- Quible & Associates P.C. 2001-2004

Brandon K. Harris, P.E.
Project Engineer Quible & Associates, P.C.
Education
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University 2004
Bachelor of Science in Civil
Engineering
Key Areas of Expertise
 Project Management
 Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling
 Stream Restoration
Planning/Design
 Flood Studies within FEMA
Mapped Floodways
 Stormwater Collection and
Treatment System Design and
Permitting
 Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Planning, Design, and
Permitting
 Dam Spillway Analyses and
Improvements
 Dredge Design and Permitting
 Bidding Assistance and
Construction Administration
 Construction Inspection
Trainings and Certifications
 State of North Carolina
Professional Engineer – License
No. 046020
 NC State Stream Restoration
Program Training (River Course
101 and 302)
 State of North Carolina
Professional Teaching License
Relevant Highlights
 Hydraulic/Hydrologic Modeling
 Dam Spillway Analyses and
Improvements
 Stormwater Management
Design
Mr. Harris is a licensed Professional Engineer with career experience
in both engineering as well as professional teaching. It was his
passion for creating innovative engineering solutions to a wide range
of problems that led Brandon to the classroom, where he used that
passion to teach students to enhance their problem-solving mentality
through teaching Advanced Placement Calculus and other branches of
mathematics, and through implementing Science, Technology,
Engineering, and Mathematics events and lessons throughout Dare
County. Brandon earned the honor of receiving the title of Dare
County District Teacher of the Year in 2013, and his passion for
engineering led him back to the engineering profession. Brandon’s
civil engineering experience includes stream restoration planning and
design, flood studies within FEMA mapped floodways, stormwater
management design, and water and wastewater utility design.
Brandon has specialized interests in hydraulic and hydrologic
modeling, and the utilization of modeling software such as HEC-RAS
to enhance project designs. He has experience in design of dam
spillways and appurtenances, and inundation analyses.
Representative Work Experience
 Project Engineer – Quible & Associates, P.C. December 2017 – Present
 Engineer In Training – Quible & Associates, P.C. July 2015 – December
2017
 Math Teacher – Virginia and North Carolina 2006 - 2015
 Engineer In Training - Bay Design Group, P.C. 2005
Related Project Experience
 Lake Evens Dam Improvements
Design of spillway improvements to accommodate increased design
storm requirements based on increased hazard classification.
Utilized HEC-RAS for spillway modeling.
 Harmon Field Stream Restoration Project
Worked on design team for approximately 3,100 linear feet of
stream restoration design and permitting for the Town of Tryon.
Performed FEMA Flood Study for CLOMR process.
 Budleigh Street Stormwater Improvements
Design, bidding, and construction oversight for multiple phases of
streetscape revitalization project, including stormwater conveyance
and water quality upgrades.

Exhibit D-NRCS-Soil Report

United States
Department of
Agriculture
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
McDowell County,
North CarolinaNatural
Resources
Conservation
Service
September 13, 2017
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nrcs) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at [phone] (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call [phone] (voice) or [phone] (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface....................................................................................................................2
Soil Map.................................................................................................................. 5
Soil Map................................................................................................................6
Legend..................................................................................................................7
Map Unit Legend..................................................................................................8
Map Unit Descriptions.......................................................................................... 8
McDowell County, North Carolina................................................................... 11
BrC2—Braddock clay loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, eroded.......................11
CaF—Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to 80 percent slopes, stony..................12
DdB—Dillard loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded............................15
EcF—Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 25 to 80 percent slopes, stony..........17
EsB—Elsinboro loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded.......................18
EvD—Evard loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes................................................ 19
EwE—Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes..............................20
HeD—Hayesville-Evard complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes.........................22
MaD—Maymead fine sandy loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes, stony.............24
MgD—Maymead-Greenlee-Ostin complex, 3 to 25 percent slopes,
very stony..............................................................................................25
PtB—Ostin cobbly loamy sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes, frequently flooded..27
RoA—Rosman loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded..............28
TaC—Tate loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes..................................................... 29
TaD—Tate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes................................................... 30
W—Water....................................................................................................31
References............................................................................................................32
4
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
5
6
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
3944000394420039444003944600394480039450003945200394540039456003945800394600039440003944200394440039446003944800394500039452003945400394560039458003946000391000 391200 391400 391600 391800 392000 392200 392400 392600
391000 391200 391400 391600 391800 392000 392200 392400 392600
35° 39' 12'' N 82° 12' 18'' W35° 39' 12'' N82° 11' 10'' W35° 37' 59'' N
82° 12' 18'' W35° 37' 59'' N
82° 11' 10'' WN
Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 17N WGS84
0 500 1000 2000 3000
Feet
0 150 300 600 900
Meters
Map Scale: 1:11,000 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet.
Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Special Point Features
Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
Closed Depression
Gravel Pit
Gravelly Spot
Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
Mine or Quarry
Miscellaneous Water
Perennial Water
Rock Outcrop
Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
Other
Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
Aerial Photography
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale.
Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause
misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil
line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of
contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed
scale.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: McDowell County, North Carolina
Survey Area Data: Version 17, Sep 19, 2016
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jan 15, 2014—Feb 5,
2017
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
7
Map Unit Legend
McDowell County, North Carolina (NC111)
Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI
BrC2 Braddock clay loam, 6 to 15
percent slopes, eroded
11.7 2.0%
CaF Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to
80 percent slopes, stony
220.7 37.6%
DdB Dillard loam, 1 to 4 percent
slopes, rarely flooded
33.6 5.7%
EcF Edneyville-Chestnut complex,
25 to 80 percent slopes,
stony
1.5 0.3%
EsB Elsinboro loam, 1 to 4 percent
slopes, rarely flooded
8.2 1.4%
EvD Evard loam, 10 to 25 percent
slopes
19.3 3.3%
EwE Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60
percent slopes
229.6 39.1%
HeD Hayesville-Evard complex, 15
to 25 percent slopes
7.9 1.3%
MaD Maymead fine sandy loam, 10
to 25 percent slopes, stony
4.8 0.8%
MgD Maymead-Greenlee-Ostin
complex, 3 to 25 percent
slopes, very stony
10.8 1.8%
PtB Ostin cobbly loamy sand, 1 to 5
percent slopes, frequently
flooded
3.7 0.6%
RoA Rosman loam, 0 to 3 percent
slopes, occasionally flooded
17.5 3.0%
TaC Tate loam, 6 to 15 percent
slopes
4.8 0.8%
TaD Tate loam, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
10.4 1.8%
W Water 2.9 0.5%
Totals for Area of Interest 587.4 100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
Custom Soil Resource Report
8
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha-Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
9
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha-Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
Custom Soil Resource Report
10
McDowell County, North Carolina
BrC2—Braddock clay loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lccw
Elevation: 1,750 to 2,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 50 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Braddock, moderately eroded, and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Braddock, Moderately Eroded
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Old alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 11 inches: clay loam
Bt - 11 to 57 inches: clay
BC - 57 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately low to
moderately high (0.06 to 0.20 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Urban land
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
11
Udorthents
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, tread
Down-slope shape: Linear, convex
Across-slope shape: Linear, convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Thurmont
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Drainageways on stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Dillard
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Drainageways on stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
CaF—Chestnut-Ashe complex, 25 to 80 percent slopes, stony
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcd0
Elevation: 1,090 to 3,150 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 48 to 60 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 100 to 176 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Chestnut, very stony, and similar soils: 50 percent
Ashe, very stony, and similar soils: 35 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Chestnut, Very Stony
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from biotite gneiss and/or gneiss that is
affected by soil creep in the upper solum
Custom Soil Resource Report
12
Typical profile
A - 0 to 3 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bw - 3 to 28 inches: fine sandy loam
Cr - 28 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 95 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Ashe, Very Stony
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from granite and gneiss that is affected by
soil creep in the upper solum
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: gravelly sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 31 inches: gravelly sandy loam
R - 31 to 80 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 95 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to lithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 5.95 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Custom Soil Resource Report
13
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Buladean, stony
Percent of map unit: 9 percent
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Edneyville, stony
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Ridges, mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Greenlee, extremely stony
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Drainageways on coves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Tate, stony
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Landform: Toes on coves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit: 0 percent
Landform: Mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
14
DdB—Dillard loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcd5
Elevation: 1,750 to 2,340 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 50 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Dillard, rarely flooded, and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Dillard, Rarely Flooded
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bt - 7 to 50 inches: clay loam
BCg - 50 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 36 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
15
Minor Components
Dillard, rarely flooded eroded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Thurmont
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Toes
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Cullowhee, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Reddies, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Rosman, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Hemphill, undrained
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Microfeatures of landform position: Swales
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Linear, concave
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
16
EcF—Edneyville-Chestnut complex, 25 to 80 percent slopes, stony
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcdd
Elevation: 2,400 to 4,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 54 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 124 to 176 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Edneyville, stony, and similar soils: 45 percent
Chestnut, stony, and similar soils: 35 percent
Minor components: 1 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Edneyville, Stony
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Affected by soil creep in the upper solum over residuum
weathered from biotite granitic gneiss and granodioritic gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 43 inches: fine sandy loam
C - 43 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 95 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
17
Description of Chestnut, Stony
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Affected by soil creep in the upper solum over residuum
weathered from biotite granitic gneiss and granodioritic gneiss
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
Bw - 4 to 36 inches: gravelly fine sandy loam
Cr - 36 to 80 inches: weathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 50 to 95 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rock outcrop
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
EsB—Elsinboro loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes, rarely flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcdf
Elevation: 0 to 1,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 38 to 46 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 50 to 55 degrees F
Frost-free period: 150 to 210 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Custom Soil Resource Report
18
Map Unit Composition
Elsinboro and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Elsinboro
Setting
Landform: Stream terraces
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Alluvium and/or colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic
rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 12 inches: loam
Bt - 12 to 60 inches: clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 4 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 60 to 72 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.4 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
EvD—Evard loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcdg
Elevation: 1,400 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 40 to 80 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 170 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Evard and similar soils: 75 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
19
Description of Evard
Setting
Landform: Ridges, mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Creep deposits over residuum weathered from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bt - 8 to 21 inches: clay loam
BC - 21 to 34 inches: loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
EwE—Evard-Cowee complex, 25 to 60 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2vx23
Elevation: 970 to 3,510 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 47 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 110 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Evard and similar soils: 55 percent
Cowee and similar soils: 35 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
20
Description of Evard
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes, hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from gneiss and/or mica schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bt - 8 to 21 inches: sandy clay loam
BC - 21 to 34 inches: loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 60 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 9.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Cowee
Setting
Landform: Mountain slopes, hillslopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Residuum weathered from gneiss and/or mica schist
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: loam
Bt - 5 to 26 inches: gravelly sandy clay loam
Cr - 26 to 80 inches: bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 25 to 60 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 20 to 40 inches to paralithic bedrock
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very low to high (0.00
to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
21
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: C
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Tate
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Landform: Toes on coves
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Concave
Hydric soil rating: No
HeD—Hayesville-Evard complex, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcdm
Elevation: 1,100 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 35 to 80 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 130 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Hayesville and similar soils: 45 percent
Evard and similar soils: 40 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Hayesville
Setting
Landform: Ridges, mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Creep deposits over residuum weathered from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: loam
Bt - 5 to 38 inches: clay
Custom Soil Resource Report
22
BC - 38 to 48 inches: sandy clay loam
C - 48 to 80 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Evard
Setting
Landform: Ridges, mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Upper third of mountainflank, side slope
Down-slope shape: Convex
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Creep deposits over residuum weathered from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: loam
Bt - 8 to 21 inches: clay loam
BC - 21 to 34 inches: loam
C - 34 to 80 inches: loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 25 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 7.7 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
23
MaD—Maymead fine sandy loam, 10 to 25 percent slopes, stony
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcdw
Elevation: 1,800 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 55 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 48 to 54 degrees F
Frost-free period: 170 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Maymead, stony, and similar soils: 80 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Maymead, Stony
Setting
Landform: Coves on mountain slopes, drainageways on mountain slopes, fans on
mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Colluvium derived from arkose and/or graywacke and/or
metaconglomerate and/or metaquartzite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 60 inches: cobbly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 10 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
24
MgD—Maymead-Greenlee-Ostin complex, 3 to 25 percent slopes, very
stony
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2lfcl
Elevation: 700 to 3,500 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 90 to 190 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Greenlee and similar soils: 30 percent
Ostin and similar soils: 30 percent
Maymead, very stony, and similar soils: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Greenlee
Setting
Landform: Coves on mountain slopes, drainageways on mountain slopes, fans on
mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Stony and bouldery colluvium derived from igneous and
metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: very cobbly sandy loam
Bw - 8 to 40 inches: very bouldery sandy loam
C - 40 to 80 inches: very bouldery sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 5.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Custom Soil Resource Report
25
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Ostin
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Sandy alluvium over cobbly and gravelly alluvium derived from
igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
A - 0 to 4 inches: very cobbly loamy sand
C - 4 to 80 inches: very cobbly loamy sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 3 to 8 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Very low (about 2.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 6s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Description of Maymead, Very Stony
Setting
Landform: Coves on mountain slopes, drainageways on mountain slopes, fans on
mountain slopes
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope, backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Lower third of mountainflank, base slope
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Colluvium derived from arkose and/or graywacke and/or
metaconglomerate and/or metaquartzite
Typical profile
A - 0 to 5 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 5 to 80 inches: cobbly sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 25 percent
Percent of area covered with surface fragments: 1.6 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
26
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 9.6 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
PtB—Ostin cobbly loamy sand, 1 to 5 percent slopes, frequently flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: 2lfcn
Elevation: 1,200 to 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 45 to 70 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Ostin and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Ostin
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Parent material: Cobbly and sandy and gravelly alluvium
Typical profile
A - 0 to 8 inches: cobbly loamy sand
C - 8 to 96 inches: very cobbly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 1 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 24 to 42 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Low (about 3.1 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Custom Soil Resource Report
27
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
RoA—Rosman loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes, occasionally flooded
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcf8
Elevation: 1,690 to 2,590 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 50 to 58 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 116 to 170 days
Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rosman, occasionally flooded, and similar soils: 80 percent
Minor components: 20 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rosman, Occasionally Flooded
Setting
Landform: Flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Loamy alluvium
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
Bw - 10 to 59 inches: fine sandy loam
C - 59 to 80 inches: fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 3 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High (1.98 to 5.95
in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 42 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: Occasional
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: Moderate (about 8.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2w
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
28
Minor Components
Biltmore, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Natural levees on flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Convex
Hydric soil rating: No
Dillard, rarely flooded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Stream terraces on flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase, base slope
Down-slope shape: Linear, concave
Across-slope shape: Concave, linear
Hydric soil rating: No
Toxaway, undrained
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Depressions on flood plains
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Concave, linear
Across-slope shape: Concave, linear
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Cullowhee, occasionally flooded
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Landform: Swales on flood plains on valleys
Landform position (three-dimensional): Mountainbase
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across-slope shape: Linear, concave
Hydric soil rating: No
TaC—Tate loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcfd
Elevation: 2,050 to 3,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 50 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 124 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of statewide importance
Map Unit Composition
Tate and similar soils: 95 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Custom Soil Resource Report
29
Description of Tate
Setting
Landform: Coves, drainageways, fans
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bt - 7 to 46 inches: clay loam
C - 46 to 80 inches: cobbly loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 8 to 15 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Medium
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 3e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
TaD—Tate loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: lcff
Elevation: 2,050 to 3,200 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 42 to 50 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 46 to 57 degrees F
Frost-free period: 124 to 170 days
Farmland classification: Farmland of local importance
Map Unit Composition
Tate and similar soils: 85 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Tate
Setting
Landform: Coves, drainageways, fans
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across-slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Colluvium derived from igneous and metamorphic rock
Custom Soil Resource Report
30
Typical profile
Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam
Bt - 7 to 46 inches: clay loam
C - 46 to 80 inches: cobbly loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 30 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Natural drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: High
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to
high (0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Available water storage in profile: High (about 10.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 4e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
W—Water
Map Unit Composition
Water: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Water
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8w
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
31
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep-water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?cid=nrcs142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nrcs142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
32
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430-VI. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nrcs/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nrcs142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nrcs142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
Custom Soil Resource Report
33

Exhibit E-Photographs of Existing Condtions

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 1: View north from Camp Grier Road at lower bridge over Jarrett Creek. Note lack of stormwater
BMPs and opportunities for riparian buffer enhancement.

Photograph 2: View southwest of Jarrett Creek flowing away from Camp Grier property to Mill Creek.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 3: View of northeast side of lower bridge over Jarrett Creek. Note failing streambank and opportunity
to install instream structure and reduce hydraulic stress on the bridge and bank.

Photograph 4: View northwest of upper bridge over Jarrett Creek and sediment pathway to stream.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 5: View northeast of Camp Grier Road ditch. Unmitigated, sediment laden stormwater are major
contributors to reduced water quality in Jarrett Creek and Padgett Branch within the project area and Mill Creek
downstream.

Photograph 6: View west of Jarrett Creek streambank between upper and lower bridge. Note sediment flowing to
stream and opportunity to enhance riparian buffer.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 7: View north of concrete remains associated with historic Town of Old Fort water supply
infrastructure and opportunity for stream channel enhancement.

Photograph 8: View east of plastic sheeting on river-left streambank of Jarrett Creek and opportunity for buffer
enhancement.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 9: View northwest of river left streambank downstream of upper bridge on Jarrett Creek.

Photograph 10: View northwest of upper bridge over Jarrett Creek and opportunities for stream, buffer and
stormwater enhancement.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 11. View south of Camp Grier Road ditch and pathway for sediment laden stormwater to enter
Jarrett Creek.

Photograph 12. View north of Camp Grier Road ditch and pathway for sediment laden stormwater to enter Jarrett
Creek.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 13. View northwest of Padgett Branch/Jarrett Creek confluence on right, just above upper bridge.
Note condition of riparian corridor above Camp Grier Road and sediment input from Padgett Branch.

Photograph 14. View north of Padgett Branch/Jarrett Creek confluence, just above upper bridge. Note sediment
input from Padgett Branch.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 15. View north of lower reach of Padgett Branch just upstream of confluence with Jarrett Creek.
Note unnatural upland sediment deposits in channel.

Photograph 16. View north of lower reach of Padgett Branch, relic water supply infrastructure and upland
sediment in stream channel.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 17. View north of lower reach of Padgett Branch and upland sediment in stream channel.

Photograph 18. View north streambank erosion on lower reach of Padgett Branch.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 19. View west of streambank erosion on lower reach of Padgett Branch.

Photograph 20. View east of fill slope above river-left streambank of lower reach of Padgett Branch. The slope
was created by blasting for road building. Rock debris has been pushed into and is clogging the stream channel
resulting in the erosion of the river-right streambank shown above.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 21. View north of Padgett Branch clogged with rock debris from road building.

Photograph 22. View north of lower reach of Padgett Branch clogged with debris at Cross-Section 1.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 23. View north of representative upland sediment deposits in a pool in the lower reach of Padgett
Branch.

Photograph 24. View northeast of lower reach of Padgett Brach downstream of a suspended culvert and
impediment to aquatic passage that conveys the stream beneath Camp Grier Road.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 25. View northeast of culvert shown above. Not only is the culvert suspended at its downstream
end, it is also suspended internally.

Photograph 26. View northwest of representative stormwater and sediment input from Camp Grier Road to the
lower reach of Padgett Branch.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 27. View northwest of representative stormwater and sediment input from Camp Grier Road to the
lower reach of Padgett Branch. Exotic/invasive Japanese Knot Weed Visible in foreground.

Photograph 28. View north of lower reach of Padgett Branch between culvert shown above and Camp Grier Lake
Dam. The dam provides an opportunity for future cool water release to the stream while maintaining current
aquatic passage to macrobenthos.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 29. View northwest stormwater/sediment input location on the lower reach of Padgett Branch and
opportunity for stormwater management and streambank stabilization.

Photograph 30. View west of impoundment structure associated with historic trout farming in Tributary T1A, an
opportunity for restoration.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 31. View southwest of main stem of Padgett Branch looking downstream from Tributary T2 to Camp
Grier Lake. Note opportunities for restoration and buffer enhancement.

Photograph 32. View east of main stem of upper reach of Padgett Branch at Cross-Section 2.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 33. View north of hanging culvert on Tributary T2.

Photograph 34. View north of Tributary T2 and opportunities for restoration and buffer enhancement.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 35. View southwest of historically excavated channel on Tributary T2A.

Photograph 36. View northwest of Tributary 2B and historic trout farming infrastructure.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 37. View northwest of Tributary 2B and historic trout farming infrastructure and opportunity for
restoration.

Photograph 38. View southwest of the upper reach of the mainstem of Padgett Branch.
Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 39. View southeast of Cross-Section 3 on mainstem of upper reach of Padgett Branch, between
Tributaries T2 and T3.

Photograph 40. View northwest of suspended culvert on Tributary T3.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 41. View southeast of historic impoundment on main stem of upper reach of Padgett Branch
between Tributaries T3 and T4, formerly used to fill the swimming pool.

Photograph 42. View northeast of historic impoundment on main stem of upper reach of Padgett Branch between
Tributaries T3 and T4, formerly used to fill the swimming pool.

Camp Grier Mitigation Bank August 28, 2017
Prospectus Photos of Existing Conditions

Q:\2015\P15115-QW\Documents\Prospectus Photos CGMB 82817.Docx

Photograph 43. View southwest of Tributary T4 and opportunities for restoration and buffer enhancement.

Photograph 44. View southeast of Tributary T5.

Exhibit F-Stream and Wetland Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:g
Project/Site: UW mg�G�
Latitude: 1C..
Evaluator: I
County: 4,�CflD+�Qn�
Longitude: $Z l�SSZ{o
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent (/� .1
Stream Determination {cir
Ephemeral Intermittent erennia
Other bC9 Kms"
Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30' 7
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
e.g.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = 2S
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
Q3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2)3
1
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
1.5
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
'3
1. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes: = 3
Sketch:
1. vur�
C _,n
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = /n )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
21. Aquatic Mollusks
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1
C. Biology (Subtotal = 12,'7c )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 7 OBL =
1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:
1. vur�
C _,n

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4-11
Date: Z�7
Project/Site: T 1, t g
Latitude: 3 4 �9 5
Evaluator: L�
County: f
Longitude:_82 ,1 °tq Sol
Total Points:
Stream is at least tr ttenf
e>_
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other pv43
: 3 �
if >_ 19 or perennial if 30
l if
e e Intermittent Perennial
e. Quad Name:
9'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
2
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
Co
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
16. Organic debris lines or piles
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
.- Ari P (Loy . off& &X" 6,4
1 �IN
arnnciai mcnes are not rates; see aiscussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
5 1
0.5
Co
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5)
1
i-5-
16. Organic debris lines or piles
00.
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
1
fflisMrelROUTMl5�mnili 18
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
M1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL =
1.5 Othe = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: t Vr-�-n 0--1
r
E
*kjl
N
T
Sketch: GC
.- Ari P (Loy . off& &X" 6,4
1 �IN

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: QC\ l '
Latitude: �� �� At v�•l
Evaluator:
County:-
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent-
Stream Determination (circ
Ephemeral Intermitten
Other VOV7-
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30" `2S
erennia
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =' 2/_ ,S )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
1.5
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple sequence
0
Q
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
22. Fish
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
.1
3
7. Recenl alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
CID -
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o ='O)
Yes = 3
- IDL pq
artmaai ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydroloqy (Subtotal = I "Z�' )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0 1
2 3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2 3
14. Leaf litter
1.5 1
5 0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0 0.5
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0 0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes 3
C. Biology Subtotal = CI .Z� )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
.1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
.5lnnl
I 1 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75;
OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.
35 of manual.
Notes:
- IDL pq
{J �>
may®
Sketch:
�t3
LZ -r -TION

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID #: NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes" section if supplementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): cQ (�,QAFQ niTy,�1 %pµL2. Date of evaluation:
3. Applicant/owner name: ` � �52� (� ��� �� 4. Assessor name/organization. IL
5. County:, E r 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: G�
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):3S . 'Z �tI �j \ ? u\'o
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): L,pLz�� '?pKx_VA ' 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): (01.4
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): - Z5� t ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): Z�s 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes o
14. Feature type: XPerennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORM6TIQN:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) ❑Piedmont (P) ❑Inner (coastal Plain (1) ❑Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ❑a`flatter vl b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, alley slope) less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip []Size 1 (< 0.1 mit) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mit) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (z 5 mi)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? WYes E] No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters ater Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II []III [-]IV ❑V)
NEssentlal Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
El Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect E] Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Ixy7es [:]No
1. Channel Water- assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
VA Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
❑ B Not A
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
)ZA A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
nB Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile -assessment reach metric
KA Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
C, > 25% of channel unstable
vii

6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
❑B ❑B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
XCC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Jeck all that apply.
Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
0 Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes" section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
❑I Other: ^S-ib2M.12_ (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑BDrought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
RC No drought conditions
9. Large or D,pngerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes pqNo Is stream too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. Wes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Aeck all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses N ❑F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent w r 11 ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y t ❑I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots g ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E Little or no habitat
****************************'`****REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes tWo Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
fc,
Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least
one box in each row.
Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%,
Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R
A P
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Bedrock/saprolite
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Cobble (64— 256 mm)
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Detritus
❑
❑
❑ ❑
Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. XYes
❑No
Are pools filled with sediment?
viii

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

19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Mature forest
Vegetated
Wooded
LB RB
A
, BRB
A
❑A >_ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B ❑B
❑BB
From 50 to < 100 feet wide
❑C C
EICMID
C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
[:]D❑D
From 10 to < 30 feet wide
❑E E
❑E
❑E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
�B
Mature forest
B
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
LJ� ❑C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
❑D ❑D
Maintained shrubs
❑E ❑E
Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB a.
❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A ❑A Row crops
❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B ❑B Maintained turf
❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C ❑C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D ❑D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
A ❑A Medium to high stem density
'ffB Low stem density
❑C vOC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
VA ❑A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
❑B Rt The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
❑C nC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
$�A ❑'A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
❑B �413 Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities .of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
❑C ❑C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. ❑Yes *o Was conductivity measurement recorded?
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
❑A < 46 ❑B 46 to < 67 ❑C 67 to < 79 ❑D 79 to < 230 ❑E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:
?-Ib r*0

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
ies user manual version z.i
USACE AID #: NCDWR #
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5 -minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same property,
identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User Manual for
detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes" section if supplementary measurements were
performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): CfV\Q OMLDate of evaluation: I
3. Applicant/owner name: �9�p% 4. Assessor name/organization:
5. County: ���p"t �` 6. Nearest named water body
7. River basin: on USGS 7.5 -minute quad: LI�fiN(3 UN-cQ_
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): �rj b1A � 1°t , — 001-1 R %A Qn !t
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9_ Site number (show on attached map): off V j_ 190Q.pT 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): ,r—Z p
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): .r ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at to of bank (feet): v ` A
p ( ) `L,U 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? ❑Yes No
14. Feature type: 14Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
'15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) XPiedmont (P) []Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for tKa` J ❑b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 miZ) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 miZ) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mit) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mit)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? 1AYes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water 1KCIassified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑I ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area %High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
El Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? []Yes ❑No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
%A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
ZA At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
dB Not A
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
k A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑ B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile —assessment reach metric
Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
❑B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
`®`B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
Ut > 25% of channel unstable
vii

P
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
BB Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
❑C ❑C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reach/!ntertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
L IA Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
❑D Odor (not. including natural sulfide odors)
❑E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in "Notes' section.
❑F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
❑G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh ve etation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
HI Other: M ����c_ z+ 9 (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
MB Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes gNo Is stream too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a.j�Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat .over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
'��ll sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
IKA Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses N ❑ F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(including liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) �g E ❑G Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or.emergent o w ❑H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation Y COC El Sand bottom
❑C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) I; ❑J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots ❑K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
WE Little or no habitat
***************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. ❑Yes 04o Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
❑A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
❑B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
RC Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach — whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row. Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare (R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%,
Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative percentages should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Bedrock/saprolite
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Boulder (256 — 4096 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Cobble (64 — 256 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Gravel (2 — 64 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Sand (.062 — 2 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Detritus
❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. ❑Yes [:]No Are pools filled with sediment?
viii

12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. RKY es
❑No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select
one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. ONO Water []Other:
12b. XYes
❑No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1
>1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for Size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for Size 3 and 4 streams.
❑
❑Adult frogs
❑
Aquatic reptiles
❑
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Eleetles
(including water pennies)
[EllCaddisfly
larvae (Trichoptera [T])
[Ell
Asian clam (Corbicula)
❑
5ZCrustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
❑
EfDamselfly and dragonfly larvae
❑
❑Dipterans (true flies)
❑
Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
❑
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
❑
❑Midges/mosquito larvae
❑
❑Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
❑
❑Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
❑
❑Other fish
❑
❑salamanders/tadpoles
❑
MSnails
[ionefly
ISPbJ larvae (Plecoptera [P])
❑
❑ ipulid larvae (Cranefly)
❑
❑Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland
runoff.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�B 'RB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
Fic LJC Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil
compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
❑A ❑A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water z 6 inches deep
❑B ❑B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
�C r0Q Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Ely ❑JY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
RN 'KN
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
❑A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
❑B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
❑C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods affecting assessment reach (ex: beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
❑D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
❑E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
AF None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
L A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
Obstruction not passing flow during low -flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
❑C Urban stream (>- 24% impervious surface for watershed)
Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
PF None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
❑A Stream shading is appropriate for the stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
❑B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
`I Stream shading is gone or largely absent
ix

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

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5
USACE AID #: NCDWR #:
Project Name yA,,\,T\(_JW o4 'spoX Date of Evaluation
Applicant/Owner Name Cp<rN9G7•tU kk Wetland Site Name
Wetland Type Assessor Name/Organization vv
Level III Ecoregion -r,,W � � � _ Nearest Named Water Body 'YpG.
River Basin USGS 8 -Digit Catalogue Unit p O\ O�
County tt���3O�� NCDWR Region v r -
1W Yes ❑ No Precipitation within 48 hours? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) '�C royy h-�q - Z•\q�Q�Z
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, olear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? XYes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d) -listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d) -listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (ctteok all that apply)
Blackwater
Brownwater
Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind;, `❑ iBoth
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes X No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes No
e
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in
the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the
assessment area based on evidence of an effect.
GS VS
DA A Not severely altered
,JZB B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
141— sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing,
reduced diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration - assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration
(Sub). Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch >
1 foot deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
EfB ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
Water storage capacity or duration is substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
KC
)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief - assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column for each group below. Select for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 foot deep
❑B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
WC SJC Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
ob 1110 Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
KEvidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
viii

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

9. Inundation Duration — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short -duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
l
Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long -duration inundation or very long -duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition — assessment area condition metric (skip for non -riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
�A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select "K" for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_ 500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to < 25 acres
❑F ❑F n From 5 to < 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to < 5 acre;
❑H ❑H 0 From 0.5 to < 1 acre
❑I I ni From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
vi Ki J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
Elk < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness — wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent (>_ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas — landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four -lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
KA ;.500 acres
[113B From 100 to < 500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to < 50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
❑F ❑F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes ❑No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/tributary or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non -forested areas >_ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass_ Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
20 1 to 4
5to8
15. Vegetative Composition — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
WA Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or
clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity — assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non -tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50% cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure — assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
WYes [-]No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to17c for non -marsh wetlands.
❑A >_ 25% coverage of vegetation
❑B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non -marsh wetlands. Consider structure
in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
MA ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
OLJ-c C Canopy sparse or absent
A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
RCB
cn
Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
FC
Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
_,❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
B Moderate density shrub layer
Shrub layer sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
!B Moderate density herb layer
❑� Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
MALarge snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
PP Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution —wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
PUb
Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
jJC Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris — wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man -placed natural debris.
_[ZA Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
M Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion — wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non -Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity— assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and SaltlBrackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization,
diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
[]�
Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
�
� v Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes
xi

Exhibit G-Stream Classification Exhibit

O
m
NOTES:
1. OWNER: CAMP GRIER
PO BOX 490
OLD FORT, NC 28762
2. PROPERTY INFORMATION:
PIN# 075000140924
D.B. 01148, PG. 0518
3. THIS IS NOT A CERTIFIED BOUNDARY SURVEY. BOUNDARY
INFORMATION BASED ON MCDOWELL COUNTY GIS TAX
DATA. AERIAL OVERLAY IS GEOREFERENCED 2014
IMAGERY. THIS INFORMATION SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED
A CERTIFIED SURVEY. THIS SHALL BE CONSIDERED
PRELIMINARY AND FOR DISCUSSION ONLY.
4. TOPOGRAPHIC INFORMATION IS BASED ON LIDAR DATA.
5. BLUE LINE STREAM SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE AND
BASED ON USFWS WETLAND INVENTORY MAPPING
INFORMATION AND USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS.
6. STREAM AND TRIBUTARY ALIGNMENTS WITHIN THE
PROJECT AREA HAVE BEEN MODIFIED BASED ON AERIAL
IMAGERY AND TOPOGRAPHIC DATA.
CROSS SECTION N0. 3 /
APPROXIMATE LENGTH /
OF CHANNEL THALWEG /
/ APPROXIMATE
LENGTH OF /
/ VALLEY
CROSS SECTION N0. 2
I
I
I \ \
APPROXIMATE LENGTH POINT A
OF CHANNEL THALWEG
1
APPROXIMATE
CROSS SECTION N0. 1 LENGTH OF
ALLEY
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY — NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES — THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS ` POINT B
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
s
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THE
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
USE OF THIS INFORMATION. /
a
1
I
I
I
J
0
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
N
44 Z
O 0
0
v CJ
a J
aJ
r W
rt�+O+CjJ O o
1 0
�1 `O o
w �0 o
O< II
r� o�! LLJ
W
u < a Z
a M-
= W
J
a
d 0
Z
az
Z
W O oCD
zry
0 0
U o
w 0
of
O Z¢ o
} N Q � w Q Z L'i
U o,Q z O N m H J Z
aw w zWJ�QCga
aU F% W Q =U =
O W� a 7 Vl O=} (n 0 0
U n 0 0
N~ a -
00N 00 aZza 0
wZpz-azO wwcn
U O Q H w w �_ J p
H� U= m V 7 (n � J z UZ W
=(n 1/1O~=� W Uawa JO
oa Nwo2rI-) z z
-+zaoa�JnOUwow
O W Z 0 Q a' 0 0 Q U
O U = w 0 Z
U m Z w O> w N a Q
0 Q 0 m 0 0 D 0 w
a 0 m W 0 0 WZ w w W>
yw=w
N m m h
0 Y p ¢ M
o
U �
ZZ
rn
m
z w
N E
h
•
Q
N O
m
Lu
7
N
D0 U n ai
O Z V o 'p
z
N w v 7
W
U p
�
rn �-
Nw
W
'�ZU
r--1
V o cn
J
0
c N Ln c
ID
O
I^
a
2 d 'O
J o0O
JJ
rw
C X
��
ViZw
IL
Z
Z 3 � o
w O
y >
w w
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
N
44 Z
O 0
0
v CJ
a J
aJ
r W
rt�+O+CjJ O o
1 0
�1 `O o
w �0 o
O< II
r� o�! LLJ
W
u < a Z
a M-
= W
J
a
d 0
Z
az
Z
W O oCD
zry
0 0
U o
w 0
of
O Z¢ o
} N Q � w Q Z L'i
U o,Q z O N m H J Z
aw w zWJ�QCga
aU F% W Q =U =
O W� a 7 Vl O=} (n 0 0
U n 0 0
N~ a -
00N 00 aZza 0
wZpz-azO wwcn
U O Q H w w �_ J p
H� U= m V 7 (n � J z UZ W
=(n 1/1O~=� W Uawa JO
oa Nwo2rI-) z z
-+zaoa�JnOUwow
O W Z 0 Q a' 0 0 Q U
O U = w 0 Z
U m Z w O> w N a Q
0 Q 0 m 0 0 D 0 w
a 0 m W 0 0 WZ w w W>
yw=w
N m m h
0 Y p ¢ M
o
U �

O
0
RIVER LEFT
O 1 2
O
2
3
4
4
5
�6
7
ri
CROSS SECTION NO. 1
HORIZONTAL 015TANCE, FT.
3 4 5 6 7 6 9 /O H 12 13 /4 /5 16 /7 /6
SITE/STREAM: PADGETT BRANCH AT CAMP GRIER
RIVER BASIN: CATAWBA
LOCATION: MCDOWELL COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
LATITUDE: 35.641989 LONGITUDE: -82.195148
VALLEY TYPE: ROSGEN II
RIVER RIGHT
I4 20 2/ 22 23 24 25 26 27
0
RIVER LEFT
O 1 2
O
D 2
3
4
CROSS SECTION
HORIZONTAL D15TANOE, FT.
3 4 5 6 7 6 4 /O 11 12 /3 14 15 16 17 I6
ACTIVELY ERODING RIVER LEFT STREAM BANK -
OB5ERVED
5 NATER LEVEL
RIVER LEFT
0 1 2
0 -J
2
q 3
4
5
6
7
9
2
3
EXISTING CROSS SECTION NO. 1
AREA AT BANKFULL, ABKF = 3.17 FT2 MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL, DBKF = ABKF/WBKF = 0.61 FT
WIDTH AT BANKFULL, WEKF = 5.20 FT ENTRENCHMENT RATIO, ER = WFPA/WBKF = 1.21 FT/FT
WIDTH FLOOD PRONE AREA, WFPA = 6.31 FT WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO, W/D = WBKF/DBKF = 8.52 FT/FT
MAXIMUM DEPTH BANKFULL, DMAx = 1.00 FT BANK HEIGHT RATIO, BHR = DToB/DMAx = 5.08 FT/FT
MAX DEPTH TOP LOW BANK, DTOB = 5.08 FT MAX DEPTH RATIO = DMAx/DBKF = 1.64 FT/FT
OBSERVED MEDIAN PARTICLE SIZE = SAND
p
4 g EXISTING LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (POINT A TO POINT BL
tz�5 LENGTH OF CHANNEL THALWEG, LTy = 478 FT SLOPE OF CHANNEL, SAS = A ELEV/LTM = 0.088 FT/FT
LENGTH OF VALLEY, LvALLEy = 445 FT SINUOSITY, K = LTy/LVALLEy = 1.07 FT/FT
6 ELEVATION CHANGE (HEAD FIRST RIFFLE TO HEAD LAST RIFFLE), A ELEV = 1,545 FT - 1,503 FT = 42 FT
7 1EXISTING ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: IMPAIRED A5
6 RESTORED ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: HIGHER FUNCTIONING A3
RIVER RIGHT
l9 20 2/ 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 24 30
O
/
2 f,
E45TIN6 GRADE
D
4
5
EXISTING CROSS SECTION NO. 2
AREA AT BANKFULL, ABKF = 5.04 FT2 MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL, DBKF = ABKF/WBKF = 0.49 FT
WIDTH AT BANKFULL, WBKF = 10.24 FT ENTRENCHMENT RATIC, ER = WFPA/WBKF = 1.71 FT/FT
WIDTH FLOOD PRONE AREA, WFPA = 17.56 FT WIDTH TC DEPTH RATIO, W/D = WBKF/DBKF = 20.90 FT/FT
MAXIMUM DEPTH BANKFULL, DMAx = 1.17 FT BANK HEIGHT RATIO, BHR = DTOB/DMAx = 2.92 FT/FT
MAX DEPTH TOP LOW BANK, DTOB = 3.42 FT MAX DEPTH RATIO = DMAx/DBKF = 2.39 FT/FT
OBSERVED MEDIAN PARTICLE SIZE = SILT/CLAY
XISTING LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (CROSS SECTION NO. 3 TO CROSS SECTION N0. 2):
_ENGTH OF CHANNEL THALWEG, LTM, = 1,030 FT SLOPE OF CHANNEL, SAVE = A ELEV/LTM, = 0.034 FT/FT
_ENGTH OF VALLEY, LvALLEy = 994 FT SINUOSITY, K = LTy/LvALLEy = 1.04 FT/FT
LEVATION CHANGE (HEAD FIRST RIFFLE TO HEAD LAST RIFFLE), A ELEV = 1,620 FT - 1,585 FT = 35 FT
EXISTING ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: IMPAIRED B6
CROSS SECTION NO. 3 1 RESTORED ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: HIGHER FUNCTIONING 63
HORIZONTAL D15TANOE, FT.
3 4 5 6 7 6 4 /0 H 12 13 /4 15 /6 /7 /6
RIVER RIGHT
I4 20 2/ 22 23 24 25 26 27 26 24 30 3/
NOTE: THIS DOCUMENT IS PRELIMINARY - NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION,
RECORDATION, SALES OR CONVEYANCES - THIS DOCUMENT IS FOR
DISCUSSION PURPOSES ONLY! EXISTING INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS
DOCUMENT IS BASED ON BEST AVAILABLE DATA AND IS NOT A CERTIFIED SURVEY.
ALL INFORMATION SHOWN ON THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO ANY REQUIREMENTS
BY ANY REGULATORY AGENCY, ENTITY OR AUTHORITY.
2
3 N
4 b
5
6
7
EXISTING CROSS SECTION NO. 3
AREA AT BANKFULL, ABKF = 17.94 FT2
MEAN DEPTH AT BANKFULL, DBKF = ABKF/WBKF = 1.46 FT
WIDTH AT BANKFULL, WBKF = 12.29 FT
ENTRENCHMENT RATIO, ER = WFPA/WBKF = 1.51 FT/FT
WIDTH FLOOD PRONE AREA, WFPA = 18.57 FT
WIDTH TO DEPTH RATIO, W/D = WBKF/DBKF = 8.42 FT/FT
MAXIMUM DEPTH BANKFULL, DMAx = 1.83 FT
BANK HEIGHT RATIO, BHR = DTOB/DMAx = 3.01 FT/FT
MAX DEPTH TOP LOW BANK, DTOB = 5.50 FT
MAX DEPTH RATIO = DMAx/DBKF = 1.25 FT/FT
OBSERVED MEDIAN PARTICLE SIZE = SILT/CLAY
XISTING LONGITUDINAL PROFILE (CROSS SECTION NO. 3 TO CROSS SECTION NO. 2)
_ENGTH OF CHANNEL THALWEG, LTy = 1,030 FT SLOPE OF CHANNEL, SAVE = A ELEV/LTy = 0.034 FT/FT
_ENGTH OF VALLEY, LVALLEY = 994 FT SINUOSITY, K = LTv/LvALLEy = 1.04 FT/FT
LEVATION CHANGE (HEAD FIRST RIFFLE TC HEAD LAST RIFFLE), A ELEV = 1,620 FT - 1,585 FT = 35 FT
EXISTING ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: IMPAIRED G6
RESTORED ROSGEN STREAM CLASSIFICATION: HIGHER FUNCTIONING 83
mor
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
N
z
O �
0
v CJ
� aJ
aJ
r w
O oo
0
O 1"Q
II
Of Ll
Ll
o z
a w
J
a
z C)
z
az
z CD
W O o
U
Of
Ow
U o
w 0
z ¢
rN a0wQoz N
U z Z w N 'H J z Z�
aw w zwJ�z¢�gw
d U Lw Q = U =
^N C)of
owa _
NFa
O n�owoo
~ O Q Z n
Q w w O Ow z o z z Q Z w w
0� ~v=04`nZ� z�v¢iz10
N cm,
=
2 O W U w 7 0
O Q M w o Z U_ O w O Z z
�- ZQ Oa w JoU L`O(n
LLJ
o w 21z D Q N W O D Q U
O U = w o z
O m U w O m~
Ja o of
aomW �owz�wW>
=J--07mxw0
_ ¢ ~ w w U
w O U
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THEw
zZ
rn
Z}
m E
I� a
N 09
N
Ozvco9
�C7w
N
m� 7
m
o
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
U
tiYLnNy
U o (r)c
N Ln c
J
O*
O
��
a
�
c
0z o
Viw
0 0
U SIL
Z:3 o
LJ Z
w O
o
�
y >
w iw
PRELIMINARY
NOT FOR
CONSTRUCTION
N
z
O �
0
v CJ
� aJ
aJ
r w
O oo
0
O 1"Q
II
Of Ll
Ll
o z
a w
J
a
z C)
z
az
z CD
W O o
U
Of
Ow
U o
w 0
z ¢
rN a0wQoz N
U z Z w N 'H J z Z�
aw w zwJ�z¢�gw
d U Lw Q = U =
^N C)of
owa _
NFa
O n�owoo
~ O Q Z n
Q w w O Ow z o z z Q Z w w
0� ~v=04`nZ� z�v¢iz10
N cm,
=
2 O W U w 7 0
O Q M w o Z U_ O w O Z z
�- ZQ Oa w JoU L`O(n
LLJ
o w 21z D Q N W O D Q U
O U = w o z
O m U w O m~
Ja o of
aomW �owz�wW>
=J--07mxw0
_ ¢ ~ w w U
w O U
QUIBLE & ASSOCIATES, P.C. DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OR THEw
N
m
m
o
\
COMPLETENESS OF ANY INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT AND IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
=
Z xo
Y
w
FOR ANY ERROR OR OMISSION OR ANY LOSSES OR DAMAGES RESULTING FROM THE
O
a
m
o
USE OF THIS INFORMATION.
U
o

Exhibit H-Proposed Credit Generation Spreadsheet

Restoration, LFEnhancement Level 1, LFEnhancement Level 2, LFPreservation, LFWetland Restoration, AcreProposed Stream Credit Generation Proposed Wetland Credit Generation Jarrett Creek 0 860 0 0 0 343.87 0Lower Padgett Branch 0 846 0 0 0 338.45 0Upper Padgett Branch 830 1,077 644 530 0.15 1,520.180.60T1 0 0 1,187 862 0.02 462.450.08T1A 0 502 0 848 0 322.04 0T1B 0 0 0 150 0 21.43 0T1C 0 0 0 618 0 88.34 0T1D 0 0 0 763 0 109.03 0T2 0 802 0 572 0 402.64 0T2A 0 0 392 0 0.10 112.040.40T2B 0 225 0 771 0 200.28 0T3 0 284 581 941 0 413.89 0T3A 0 0 0 149 0 21.32 0T4 216 0 463 1,573 0 573.04 0T4A 0 0 0 1,025 0 146.49 0T5 215 0 473 0 0 350.50 0T6 0 0 466 1,284 0 316.55 0T7 0 0 426 189 0 148.72 0T8 0 0 0 982 0 140.32 0T9 0 0 0 201 0 28.72 0T10 0 0 0 249 0 35.51 0T11 0 0 0 55 0 7.86 0Unnamed Trib. To Jarret Creek 0 0 0 181 0 25.80 0Totals 1,261 4,596 4,633 11,945 0.27 6,129 1.1 Buffer Area4,581,969 sf105.2acresProposed Credit Generation Spreadsheet