20180199 Ver 2_Final Draft Mitigation Plan_2020_20200407

ID#* 20180199 Version* 2
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 04/07/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 4/7/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* r Yes r No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
V Stream Pr Wetlands r- Buffer r- Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
LINDSAY CROCKER
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20180199
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Buffalo Creek
County: Johnston
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version:
*2
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: BuffaloCreek_100042_FDMP 2020.pdf 65.84MB
Rease upload only one RDFcf the conplete file that needs to be subnitted...
Signature
Print Name:* Lindsay Crocker
Signature:*

Mitigation Plan
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Johnston County, North Carolina
FINAL DRAFT VERSION

NCDEQ DMS Project Identification # 100042
NCDEQ DMS Contract # 7422
Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201)
USACE Action ID Number: SAW-2018-00425
Contracted Under RFP # 16-007279
DWR Project # 2018-0199 V2

Prepared for:

North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

April 2020

April 3, 2020
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker, Project Manager
217 West Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27603

RE: WLS Responses to NCDEQ DMS Review Comments for Task 3 Submittal, Draft Mitigation Plan
for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID
#100042, Contract #7422, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC Dear Ms. Crocker: Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Final Draft Mitigation Plan for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Per the DMS review comments, WLS has updated the Final Draft Mitigation Plan and associated deliverables accordingly. We are providing the electronic deliverables via a CD. The electronic deliverables are organized under the following folder structure as required under the digital submission requirements for mitigation plans: 1. Report PDF 2. Background Tables 3. Permitting Info 4. Existing Conditions Data Data Tables Map Data Model Data Photos 5. Design Data Once the Final Draft Mitigation Plan is approved by DMS, we will provide the required financial assurances and five (5) hard copies and a digital (.pdf) copy of the Final Draft Mitigation Plan, to be posted for review by the NC Interagency Review Team (IRT) to start their review period. We are providing our written responses to NCDEQ DMS’s review comments on the Draft Mitigation Plan below. Each of the DMS review comments is copied below in bold text, followed by the appropriate response from WLS in regular text:

General:
• Add page numbers to all pages (currently only odd pages are numbered). Response: We have corrected and added even page numbers of the report.
• If possible, revise report so tables (Table, 1, 2, 13, 15, asset tables on page 31 and 32, etc.)
are showing up on the same page. This is important because the headers for the split
tables are on different pages. Response: The document has been formatted so that all tables are on the same pages.

• This mitigation plan contains a lot of great educational and cited resources on ecological
aspects of stream and wetland restoration. In future submittals and if WLS is interested,
it is ok to stick to project specific information to lessen the extent of the report. Response: In the future we will refine document information and remove references that are not site specific or directly related to stream and wetland restoration.
• The site’s wetland was initially proposed for rehabilitation credit in the technical
proposal, but it appears that WLS and the LSS have hydrology data and soils information
to indicate this is not jurisdictional and is better suited for reestablishment. Explain if
and why WLS did not consider jurisdictional areas currently proposed for enhancement
as rehabilitation considering the hydrologic footprint is being expanded through raising
the stream bed for those features. Response: The small jurisdictional wetland areas WB, WD and WC are toe of slope wetlands and have a hydrology source. Raising the stream bed elevation and will increase the hydrologic footprint and improve the function of the existing aquatic resource.
• Update tables (asset) using 5/2019 templates. Response: The asset table has been updated.

Specific:
1. Cover Page, Add DWR number (2018-0199 V2) Response: WLS has added the DWR number to the cover page.
2. Table 1. Please show stream lengths out to the whole foot, and wetland areas out three
significant digits. Show assets (credits) for all types out to three significant digits
(example stream credit is 4,122.500). Response: Credits are taken to 3 decimal places.
3. Table 2. The bottom of the ‘project information’ table is clipped and is missing the
planted acreage row. Response: The table has been fixed and the planted acreage row had been added.
4. Table 2. Page 8, paragraph 2 lists 4.33 acres wetland, page 45, paragraph 2 lists 4.26
acres (+0.074 jurisdictional), Figure 6 shows 5.4 acres hydric and the asset table shows
3.87 acres wetland. Revise report to be consistent and explain somewhere in text the
difference in Figure 6 (hydric soils) and area of wetland proposed for rehabilitation.
Typically, the hydric soils layer matches up with proposed restoration areas. Response: The wetland numbers and hydric soil numbers have been corrected in the report as well as the asset table. The proposed wetland areas in the mitigation plan differ slightly from the areas in the proposal based on the detailed to topographic survey, PJD results and conservation easement boundary. Added language in Section 6.4 explaining the reason for this difference.
5. Table 2. Page 11 and 12- 404 and 401 are listed as not resolved and supporting docs as
Categorical exclusion. Those should be listed as pending, and the supporting doc is a 404
and/or 401 permit. Response: Table 2 was updated accordingly.
6. Page 10 paragraph 1. Please change the word ‘remove’ to ‘treat’ or similar word with
respect to effluents and pollutant inputs. Response: WLS has changed ‘remove’ to ‘treat’.
7. Page 12 paragraph 1. Fine sediment delivery, deposition and transport is part of the
‘hydrologic and geomorphic process’ and should not be singled out in this sentence. Response: WLS agrees and has revised the sentence to reflect the comment.
8. Page 13 paragraph 2. Please clarify why ‘measuring’ sediment can have longer transport
times. Response: WLS has revised the sentence by removing ‘measuring’ to clarify and distinguish the difference between structural versus legacy effects in this context. As stated in the referenced paper, ‘Legacy effects can be classified into two categories: signal and structural effects. Signal legacy effects arise from lags in material transport along relatively slow and long flow paths. For example, the agricultural nitrogen transported to estuaries by way of groundwater generally arrives later than that transported in surface waters (Meals et al. 2009). In contrast, structural legacy effects rearrange physical systems to alter material interactions within the ecosystem, fundamentally altering material transformations and transport (e.g.,

tillage, stream entrenchment and incision). These structural changes are commonly widespread and often effectively irreversible over management time scales, which requires the forces of landscape evolution to act in a particular combination or in a specific sequence to truly reset the system (Phillips 2006). For example, the European settlers' clearance of the North American landscape led to substantial erosion and valley deposition in areas with relatively thick soils (Trimble 1999). Stream downcutting has lowered local water tables and isolated floodplain sediments from hydrologic systems (Groffman et al. 2002). Although both legacy-effect types are important, signal legacy effects are more straightforward to quantify. The characterization of catchment water-residence-time distribution (McGuire and McDonnell 2006) relative to material input histories can illustrate potential deleterious temporal lags (Pijanowski et al. 2007). Structural legacy effects are harder to characterize, since reconstructing historic landscapes and historic material fluxes with fine-scale specificity is demanding. (Bain, Daniel J.
2012. https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/62/6/575/249228)
9. Page 13, Paragraph 3. Please specify where, when and how often benthic sampling will
occur. Correct typo ‘where’ should be ‘were’. Response: WLS has corrected the typo and added language in Section 3.1.4 that states ‘Sampling will be conducted before the stream restoration and additional sampling will be conducted again in Spring/Summer during the third year of post-construction monitoring.’
10. Page 15 Table 4. Please clarify the definition of ‘minimum erosion potential’ in the
footnote. Response: R4 does not currently receive any stream flow (base flow or erosive storm flow) due to the stormwater drainage network, therefore there is currently experiencing minimal erosion potential along the entire reach length.
11. Page 15. The Russell 2008 reference is not in the cited literature section. Response: This citation has been added.
12. Page 19. Existing reach stream is listed as 5,451 does not match Asset table. Clarify or
update. Response: The original stream lengths have been updated in the mitigation plan to match the asset table.
13. Page 20. It may be helpful to mention that this begins at an existing bedrock outcrop
downstream of a pond. It is mentioned later in the MP in section 6.1.2 Design Reach
Summary, however, adding it would add clarification if it were noted in the earlier
section. Response: WLS has added language in Section 3.4.1 that more accurately describes the upstream condition.
14. Page 25. Update PJD language to reflect information discussed via phone 2/14 (original
submittal was a map of the hydric soils rather than jurisdictional features and that the
new submittal is pending and will need regional review). It is not clear what is going on
with this as written. Response: WLS submitted a preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) application package to the USACE in July 2018 and an email concurrence was sent August 2018. It was later discovered that the PJD submitted was incorrect and showed only the hydric soils instead of the delineated wetlands. An updated PJD package was sent to the USACE in August 2019. Chris Hopper sent an email concurrence on April 3, 2020. The final PJD will be provided in the final mitigation plan if available and issued with the NWP 27.
15. Page 31, Table 12. Update benefits to include wetlands instead of just stream function. Response: Additional wetland benefits have been added to Table 12.
16. Page 37, R6 approach states R, but map shows E1. Revise to reflect intent. Please also
clarify in this section what is being done with the pond. Response: This section has been revised to explain that the pond will remain and Enhancement Level I activities are proposed for this entire reach.
17. Page 38. clarify if the stream reference sites are recently constructed Lake Wendell
cluster sites or the preservation sections of those projects. Response: The reference sites are located at Lake Wendell, Pen Dell and Edwards Johnson sites in the preservation sections on each project. The note in Table 16 has been updated to make this clear.

18. Page 52. Wetland success criteria are written to indicate that success will be greater than
12% AND less than 16%. Clarify if this is the intent or just state hydrology is based on a
hydroperiod greater than 12%. Response: WLS has updated section 7.2 to clarify the intent is for the performance standard to be based on a hydroperiod greater than 12%.
19. Page 50, Stream Horizontal Stability. Please clarify why it is necessary to classify (e.g.,
Rosgen) cross sections to monitor horizontal stability. Response: Cross-sections have historically been classified to note any changes in stream type from proposed design. Removed language to be consistent with current DMS monitoring requirements.
20. Page 57 and/or Sheet 18 of plan sheets with vegetation plan. Indicate approximate size of
planted area (in acres). Response: The approximate size of proposed planted acres is reference on Sheet 17 planting notes #1.
21. Figure 6. Consider adding a monitoring cross section to MS-R1 (or move the lower one up
stream). This request is left to the judgement of WLS. Response: Figure 6 shows pre-construction cross section data taken for analysis and design purposes. Figure 10 has proposed monitoring cross sections, including 3 on MS-R1.
22. Appendix 3. Update with revised deed book and page numbers for final Mitigation Plan
and revise verbiage. Response: The easement verbiage and corresponding deed book and page numbers will be updated for the final mitigation plan after easement recordation.
23. Appendix 4. Credit release table for Wetlands. Update with 2016 guidance for this
mitigation type (attached in separate document). Response: Appendix 4 has been updated with the correct credit release tables.
24. Insert the day and month of growing season start and end (Page 51 in the success criteria
section)? This will be what is used to set the date for all future reporting. If you want to
use 3/1 start, you can install a soil temp probe and /or correlate it with bud burst as well. Response: The beginning and end dates of the growing season were added to the success criteria section. The dates were taken from the NRCS Soil Survey from the weather station in Smithfield, NC. The growing season starts March 21st and ends November 3rd. As an alternative to using the March 21 published growing season start date, Water and Land Solutions may install a soil temperature probe and correlate soil temperature with bud burst to establish a start date for the growing season. The earliest possible start date used for hydro period determination will be March 1.
Plan Sheets:
1. Sheet 8 shows a steep drop (~25%) in the first 20’ of MS-R1. If this is bedrock, indicate
that on the design or explain how that drop will be addressed. Response: Sheet 8 has been revised to indicate a bedrock slide/outcrop that serves as a natural knickpoint between the upstream pond and the start of MS-R1. The bedrock outcrop is stable and will not affect the downstream project.
2. Sheet 19 shows a new subdivision to the west of R6. Revise report (existing conditions,
land use development trends) to describe this new development or explain where this is
described in report. Response: WLS has added sentence in section 3.3 to identify the future development (Cardinal Preserve – Phase II) west of R6. WLS has also noted the new development in the existing conditions R6 reach write-up.

Electronic Data:
1. Provide stream cross section data using the Mecklenburg spreadsheet or the DMS excel
template. DMS suggests using an excel template rather than Rivermorph to better
support the visualization of cross section change throughout time, and so that DMS can
retain these data in our database. Response: WLS has added cross-section data from the Mecklenburg spreadsheet to Existing Conditions electronic data section.

Please contact me if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC

Kayne M. Van Stell Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services Water and Land Solutions, LLC 7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615 Office Phone: [phone] Mobile Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]

Prepared by:

This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register, Title
33, Navigation and Navigable Waters, Volume 3, Chapter 2, Section § 332.8, paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument, signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services operations and procedures for the
delivery of compensatory mitigation.

Kayne M. Van Stell
Vice President, Ecosystem Design Services
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
Office Phone: [phone]
Mobile Phone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]

Table of Contents
1 Project Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .............................................................................................. 2
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment .................................................................. 3
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions ........................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Watershed Overview ............................................................................................................ 5
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification ................................................................................................. 6
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function ................................................................................. 6
3.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat ................................................................ 6
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations .............................................................................................. 6
3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls ........................................................................ 8
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology .................................................................................................... 8
3.2.2 Soils ....................................................................................................................................... 8
3.2.3 Climate .................................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.4 Existing Vegetation ............................................................................................................. 11
3.3 Land Use and Development Trends ............................................................................................ 11
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response ....................................................................................... 12
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary .................................................................................... 12
3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment.................................................................. 16
3.4.3 Channel Evolution ............................................................................................................... 17
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage .............................................................................. 18
3.4.5 Jurisdictional WOTUS .......................................................................................................... 18
3.5 Potential Site Constraints ............................................................................................................ 19
3.5.1 Existing Easements and Right-Of-Ways on the Site ............................................................ 19
3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site .......................................................................................... 19
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance .................................................................................... 19
3.5.4 Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................................................................ 19
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation ................................................................................................ 19
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions ....................................................................................................... 19
4 Functional Uplift Potential .................................................................................................................. 20
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods.................................................. 20
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity ............................................................... 21
4.1.3 Restoration Potential .......................................................................................................... 21

5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives............................................................................................. 22
5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary ................................................................................................... 24
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan ....................................................................................... 25
6.1 Stream Design Approach ............................................................................................................ 26
6.1.1 Proposed Design Parameters .............................................................................................. 27
6.1.2 Design Reach Summary ....................................................................................................... 29
6.2 Reference Sites ........................................................................................................................... 32
6.2.1 Reference Streams .............................................................................................................. 32
6.2.2 Reference Wetlands ............................................................................................................ 33
6.3 Flow Regime ................................................................................................................................ 33
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge .............................................................................................. 34
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison ................................................................................................ 35
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge ................................................................................................ 36
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis ........................................................... 37
6.4 Wetland Design Approach .......................................................................................................... 39
6.5 Riparian Buffer Design Approach ................................................................................................ 40
6.5.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting ............................................................................................ 41
6.5.2 Planting Materials and Methods ......................................................................................... 42
6.6 Water Quality Treatment Features ............................................................................................. 44
6.7 Site Construction Methods ......................................................................................................... 45
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements ............................................................................ 45
6.7.2 In-stream Structures and Site Improvement Features ....................................................... 45
6.7.3 Construction Feasibility ....................................................................................................... 46
7 Performance Standards ...................................................................................................................... 46
7.1 Streams ....................................................................................................................................... 46
7.2 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................................... 47
7.3 Vegetation ................................................................................................................................... 47
8 Monitoring Plan .................................................................................................................................. 48
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................... 48
8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring .................................................................................................. 49
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 49
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring ..................................................................................................... 49
8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring................................................................................................... 50

8.3 Wetland Monitoring ................................................................................................................... 51
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring ................................................................................................................ 51
9 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................................................... 54
10 Long-Term Management Plan ............................................................................................................ 54
11 References .......................................................................................................................................... 54

Tables
Table 1. Project Asset Summary ................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information ........................................................... 4
Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from the STEPL Model .......................... 7
Table 4. BANCS Reach Assessment ............................................................................................................... 8
Table 5. Project Soil Type and Descriptions .................................................................................................. 9
Table 6. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages ............................................. 10
Table 7. Existing Site Vegetation ................................................................................................................. 11
Table 8. Existing Channel Morphology Summary ....................................................................................... 16
Table 9. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary ............................................ 21
Table 10. Functional Lift Scoring Summary ................................................................................................. 21
Table 11. Function-Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary ............................................................. 23
Table 12. Project Benefits Summary ........................................................................................................... 24
Table 13. Mitigation Components and Proposed Stream Credit Summary................................................ 26
Table 14. Proposed Design Parameters ...................................................................................................... 28
Table 15. Reference Reach Data Comparison ............................................................................................. 33
Table 16. Flow Level and Ecological Role .................................................................................................... 34
Table 17. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations ......................................................... 35
Table 18. Design Discharge Analysis Summary ........................................................................................... 37
Table 19. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power .................................................................................. 38
Table 20. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings ................................................... 42
Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding............................................................................ 44
Table 22. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary .......................................................................................... 53

Figures
Figure 1......................................................................................................................... Project Location Map
Figure 2........................................................................................................................ Existing Geology Map
Figure 3......................................................................................................................USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4...................................................................................................................................NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5..........................................................................................................................................LiDAR Map
Figure 6.....................................................................................................................Current Conditions Map
Figure 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, 7e................................................................................................... Historic Aerial Map
Figure 8....................................................................................................................... FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9....................................................................................................Proposed Mitigation Features Map
Figure 10.................................................................................................Proposed Monitoring Features Map
Figure 11............................................................................................................Reference Site Location Map

Appendices
Appendix 1................................................................................................................................... Plan Sheets
Appendix 2............................................................................Site Analysis Data/Supplementary Information
Appendix 3............................................................................................................Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 4............................................................................................................... Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 5...................................................................................................................... Financial Assurance
Appendix 6........................................................................................................................ Maintenance Plan
Appendix 7................................................................................................ DWR Stream Identification Forms
Appendix 8............................................................................... . USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms
Appendix 9......................................................................................................................WOTUS Information
Appendix 10.................................................................................................................. Invasive Species Plan
Appendix 11............................................................................ . Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
Appendix 12.........................................................................Agency Correspondence & Floodplain Checklist

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 1
DMS Project #100042

1 Project Introduction
The Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (“Project”) is a North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) full-delivery stream and wetland
mitigation project, contracted with Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), on January 11th, 2018 in response
to RFP 16-007279. The Project will provide stream and riparian wetland mitigation credits in the Neuse
River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201). The project site is located in Johnston County, North Carolina,
between the Town of Wendell and the Community of Archer Lodge. The Project is located in the Lower
Buffalo Creek Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504, study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed
Plan Phase II, Final Report (RWP), and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse
River Basin (Figure 1).
The Project will involve the restoration, enhancement, and permanent protection of eight stream reaches
(MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (upper), R3 (lower), R4, R5 (upper), R5 (lower) and R6 and their riparian buffers,
totaling approximately 5,063.000 linear feet of streams. The Project will also include riparian wetland
restoration (re-establishment) and enhancement of approximately 3.874 acres. The Project will provide
significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through stream and wetland restoration and
decreasing nutrient and sediment loads within the watershed. See Section 5 for a detailed benefits
summary and Table 1 for a summary of project assets. Figure 9 illustrates the project mitigation
components.
Table 1. Project Asset Summary
Project
Component
Type of Mitigation
(Priority Level)
Creditable Units
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Stream Mitigation
Credits (SMCs)
MS-R1 Stream Restoration (PI) 1,577.000 1 1,577.000
MS-R2 Stream Restoration (PI) 1,351.000 1 1,351.000
R3 (upper) Stream Preservation 565.000 10 56.500
R3 (lower) Stream Restoration (PI/PII) 116.000 1 116.000
R4 Stream Enhancement Level I 459.000 1.5 306.000
R5 (upper) Stream Enhancement Level I 585.000 1.5 390.000
R5 (lower) Stream Restoration (PI) 158.000 1 158.000
R6 Stream Enhancement Level I 252.000 1.5 168.000
Totals 5,063.000 4,122.500
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 2
DMS Project #100042

Project Wetland
Component Mitigation Type
Wetland
Acreage
(AC)
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Riparian Wetland
Mitigation Credits
(RWMCs)
W1 Wetland Re-establishment 2.080 1 2.080
W2 Wetland Re-establishment 1.080 1 1.080
W3 Wetland Re-establishment 0.640 1 0.640
WD Wetland Enhancement 0.040 2 0.020
WC Wetland Enhancement 0.004 2 0.002
WB Wetland Enhancement 0.030 2 0.015
Totals 3.874 3.837
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.

The project streams are all unnamed tributaries of Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek flows southeast to its
confluence with the Little River west of Kenly, North Carolina. Buffalo Creek is listed by the NCDEQ Division
of Water Resources as a Class C and Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) from a point 200 feet upstream from
West Haywood Street near Wendell to its confluence with the Little River. The project site is in the
Northern Outer Piedmont (‘45f’) US Environmental Protection Agency Level IV Ecoregion and the North
Carolina Piedmont Physiographic Province (Omernik, 2014).
2 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
In an effort to revise its watershed prioritization process, DMS developed a Regional Watershed Plan
(RWP) for the upper Neuse River Basin within Hydrologic Unit (HU) 03020201. The purpose of the Neuse
01 RWP is to identify and prioritize potential mitigation strategies to offset aquatic resource impacts from
development and provide mitigation project implementation recommendations to improve ecological
uplift within the Neuse 01 subbasin. The recommendations include traditional stream and wetland
mitigation, buffer restoration, nutrient offsets, non-traditional mitigation projects such as stormwater and
agricultural BMPs, and rare, threatened, or endangered (RTE) species habitat preservation or
enhancement (Neuse 01 RWP – Phase II, 2015).
The Project site is situated in the lower Piedmont where potential for future development associated with
the I-540 corridor and rapidly growing Johnston County area is imminent, as described in the RWP. The
USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data (NLCD, 2011) GIS Dataset was used to estimate the impervious cover
and dominant land use information for the project catchment area. Currently, the catchment area has an
impervious cover estimated to be approximately 13 percent and the dominant land uses are agriculture
and mixed forest. An existing high school, Corinth Holders, was built in 2009, adjacent to the project area,
which has contributed to a significant increase in impervious surface area and surface runoff within the
project watershed. Currently, the surrounding upland areas that drain directly into the lower project
reaches are being developed for residential housing. The project will extend the wildlife corridor and
protect diverse aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the area through a permanent conservation easement,
ahead of the anticipated development.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 3
DMS Project #100042

The proposed in-stream restoration practices will improve habitat diversity (e.g. restore floodplain and
riparian wetlands, provide deeper pools and backwater areas) and promote native species propagation
throughout the conservation easement (FISRWG, 1998). Additionally, water quality treatment basins will
be incorporated to treat direct effluent inputs and pollutant contamination from the Project streams and
wetlands.
As cited in the Neuse 01 RWP, the Project site was selected to provide a unique opportunity for
implementing “project clusters”, or combinations of different practices or measures, as part of a
comprehensive watershed approach to improve and protect aquatic resource functions, as outlined in the
DMS Compensation Planning Framework (CPF) and the Federal Mitigation Rule (USACE, 2008). Expected
benefits to water quality, ecology, and hydrology functions, as a result of implementing these “project
clusters” are further described in the Neuse 01 RWP. Developing specific goals and objectives that directly
relate to functional improvement is a critical path for implementing a successful restoration project. The
expected functional uplift is discussed further and in more detail under Section 4, and project goals and
objectives are further described and discussed under Section 5.
3 Baseline Information and Existing Conditions Assessment
WLS performed an existing conditions assessment for the Project by compiling and analyzing baseline
information, aerial photography, and field data. The purpose of this assessment was to determine how
aquatic resource functions have been impacted within the catchment area. Watershed parameters such
as drainage patterns, percent impervious cover, controlling vegetation and hydrology (rainfall/runoff
relationships) were evaluated, along with the analysis of physiography, local geology, soils, topographic
position (basin relief, landforms, valley morphology), and flow regime (discharge, precipitation, sediment
supply).
Combined with historical context, the processes of hydrology and geomorphology must be linked to
evaluate current physical and biological conditions and system responses to human activities within the
riparian ecosystem (Montgomery and Bolton, 2003). Identifying the hydrogeomorphic variability, site
constraints, and cause-and-effect relationships plays a key role in determining the functional loss and
maximizing potential uplift (Harman et al., 2012). The following sub-sections further describe the existing
site conditions, degrees of impairment, and primary controls that were considered for developing an
appropriate restoration design approach. Table 2 represents the project attribute data and baseline
summary information.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 4
DMS Project #100042

Table 2. Project Attribute Data and Baseline Summary Information
Project Information
Project Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
County Johnston
Project Area
(acres) 17.4
Project
Coordinates
(latitude and
longitude)
35.722751° N, -78.342849° W
Planted Acreage
(acres of Woody
Stems Planted)
6.3
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic
Province Piedmont
River Basin Neuse
USGS Hydrologic
Unit 03020201180050
DWR Sub-basin 03-04-06
Project Drainage
Area (acres) 543 acres
Project Drainage
Area Percentage
of Impervious
Area
13.0%
CGIA Land Use
Classification 2.01.03, 2.01.01, 3.02 (20% cultivated crops/hay, 9% grass/herbaceous, 48% mixed forest)
Reach Summary Information
Parameters MS-R1 MS-R2 R3 (upper and
lower) R4 R5 (upper and
lower)
R6
Length of reach
(linear feet) 1,803 1,475 701 469 766 208
Valley
confinement
(Confined,
moderately
confined,
unconfined)
moderately
confined
moderately
confined unconfined unconfined unconfined unconfined
Drainage area
(acres) 442 543 24 30 19 25
Perennial,
Intermittent,
Ephemeral
Perennial Perennial Perennial/
Int1 Ephemeral2 Perennial Intermittent
NCDWR Water
Quality
Classification
C, NSW C, NSW C, NSW C, NSW C, NSW C, NSW

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 5
DMS Project #100042

Reach Summary Information Continued.
Parameters Cont. MS-R1 MS-R2 R3 (upper and
lower) R4 R5 (upper and
lower)
R6
Stream
Classification
(existing)
G4c G4c/Incised E4 C5b upper,
G5 for lower G5c/C5
Incised E5
upper, G5c
lower
B5a
Evolutionary
trend (Simon) III/IV III III IV/V I/III I
FEMA
classification N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting
Docs?
Water of the
United States -
Section 404
Yes Pending 404 Permit
Water of the
United States -
Section 401
Yes Pending 401 Permit
Endangered
Species Act Yes Yes Categorical
Exclusion
Historic
Preservation Act Yes Yes Categorical
Exclusion
Coastal Zone
Management Act
(CZMA or CAMA)
No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain
Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential
Fisheries Habitat No N/A Categorical
Exclusion
Note 1: Indicates that the lower section of the reach was classified as perennial and upper stream reach was classified as
intermittent.
Note 2: Reach R4 is shown as a blue line stream on the USGS topographic map. The historic flow path has been piped from
an existing stormwater BMP towards Reach R5 and diverted away from its natural stream valley.

3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Watershed Overview
Spatial and temporal variability of hydrologic and geomorphic processes have influenced the overall
system response and stability trends in multiple reach segments across the Project site. Measurable
changes in the landscape ecology were first identified upon review of aerial photography, including native
buffer vegetation disturbance and/or removal and stream channel alteration. Evidence of these observed
changes were documented throughout the watershed as increased channel widths/depths and bank
height ratios, decreased riffle-pool frequency and bedform diversity, as well as limited floodplain
connectivity and hyporheic zone interaction. Additionally, agricultural fertilization and development of
adjacent parcels has increased nutrient and sediment levels within the watershed. These ecological

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 6
DMS Project #100042

impacts have negatively impacted historic stream and wetland functions at the site and have likely
increased over the past few decades due to anthropogenic changes within catchment.
3.1.2 Surface Water Classification
Buffalo Creek is classified as Class ‘C’ and Nutrient Sensitive Water (NSW) (Stream Index 27-57-16-(3))
“From a point 200 feet upstream from West Haywood Street near Wendell to Little River”. Class ‘C’ waters
are protected for secondary recreation, fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival,
agriculture and other uses suitable for Class ‘C’. NSW waters is a supplemental classification intended for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to being subject to excessive growth of microscopic
or macroscopic vegetation.
3.1.3 Aquatic Resource Health and Function
WLS reviewed DWR biological and water quality data within the Upper Buffalo Creek watershed to identify
any potential stressors near receiving waters. Currently, one DWR water quality monitoring station exists
well upstream of Lake Wendell. However, no benthic or fish monitoring sites are currently active in Upper
Buffalo Creek Watershed. A future monitoring site is proposed by DWR within the Lower Buffalo Creek
watershed and additional sites may be added by DWR as land use changes (i.e., land development) have
direct impacts to water quality throughout the watershed. At this time of this report no DWR monitoring
sites are proposed for monitoring use by WLS for this project.
It is generally accepted that nutrient loading and sedimentation from streambank erosion is a significant
pollutant to water quality and aquatic habitat. However, there can be data uncertainties and excessive
costs for monitoring nutrient levels and sediment delivery in streams (HESS, 2014). Without an extensive
nutrient monitoring and management plan, types, application rates, groundwater leaching, and lag times
can vary considerably, making it difficult to effectively determine water quality improvements in response
to various restoration practices. Additionally, measuring in situ sediments that deposit or collect in
ponds/reservoirs over time can often have longer transport times and legacy effects that can mask the
water quality improvements and biologic functions related to common stream and wetland restoration
activities (Bain, 2012).
3.1.4 Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Aquatic Habitat
WLS will sample benthic macroinvertebrate (BMI) communities and aquatic habitat at one location along
MS-R2 within the proposed project area. The sample location was selected based on stream lengths,
watershed position and flow regime. Macroinvertebrates are useful biological monitors because they are
found in all aquatic environments, are less mobile than many other groups of organisms, and easily
collectable. BMI sampling will be conducted using methods and procedures defined by DWR’s “Standard
Operating Procedures for the Collection and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates” (NCDWR, 2016).
Sampling will be conducted before the stream restoration and additional sampling will be conducted again
in Spring/Summer during the third year of post-construction monitoring.
3.1.5 Pollutant Load Considerations
STEPL Model: WLS utilized the Spreadsheet Tool for Estimating Pollutant Loads (STEPL v4.3, 2015) to help
quantify how the project may reduce pollutant loads into the Buffalo Creek Watershed. The STEPL model

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 7
DMS Project #100042

was developed for the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA, Tetra Tech, 2015) and was
used to estimate sediment and nutrient load reductions from the implementation of agricultural BMPs,
such as wetland detention, and bank stabilization/stream restoration. Model inputs include land use
information, Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE)/runoff curve numbers, eroded streambank
length, streambank height, lateral recession rates, soil type/weight, and BMP type/efficiency applicable
to the Piedmont area. The summary of total annual pollutant loadings and removal estimates are shown
Table 3 below.
Table 3. Total Annual Pollutant Loadings and Removal Estimates from the STEPL Model

Although the STEPL model data is more empirically based, it is intended to be used as a basic planning
tool. Inherently, there are certain assumptions and limitations that must be considered when refining
model inputs and evaluating the results. For example, water quality calculations and sediment loading are
highly dependent on actual BMP efficiencies, sophisticated algorithms, regression analysis, and not
calibrated field measurements.
BANCS Method: As a comparison to the STEPL model results for sediment loading, WLS predicted
streambank erosion rates and annual sediment yields using the Bank Assessment for Non-point-source
Consequences of Sediment (BANCS) method (Rosgen 1996, 2001a) which considers two streambank
erodibility estimation tools: The Bank Erosion Hazard Index (BEHI) and Near Bank Stress (NBS). This rating
method is used to describe existing streambank conditions (i.e., bank migration and lateral stability) and
quantify the lateral erosion potential of a stream reach in feet per year. The components of the BANCS
methodology can be subjective and vary based on the region’s climatic condition, geologic controls, and
the experience level and professional training of the observers. However, it is a repeatable estimation
method and the intent is to be used as a relative comparison for pre- and post-restoration conditions.

WLS used the unpublished NC Piedmont BEHI and NBS ratings curve (personal communication with NRCS,
Walker, 2016) to estimate annual sediment loss based on local observations and streambank
measurements taken in December 2019. The BEHI/NBS estimates for the existing conditions (pre-
construction) predict that the project reaches contribute approximately 217.4 tons of sediment per year
to the Neuse River, which is 4.9 tons lower than the STEPL Model estimates. The BEHI ratings varied from
‘very low’ to ‘very high’, with R3 (upper) average BEHI rating ‘moderate/low’ based on minimal shear
Project
Watershed
(ac)
Existing
Stream
Length
(ft)

Length
of
Scoured
Bank
(ft)
Sediment
Load
(ton/yr)
Nitrogen
Load
(lb/yr)
Phosphorus
Load (lb/yr)

Sediment
Reduction
w/ BMP
(ton/yr,
%)
Nitrogen
Reduction
w/ BMP
(lb/yr, %)
Phosphorus
Reduction
w/ BMP
(lb/yr, %)
543 5,422 2,306 222.3 1,935.4 449.9 145.4,
65.4%
367.9,
19.0%
111.3,
24.7%
Note 1: Soil Texture Class is predominantly fine sandy loam.
Note 2: Average Bank heights in scour areas ranged 1 to 3 feet.
Note 3: Lateral Recession Rates (ft/yr) ranged from slight category (0.01 to 0.05) to moderate (0.06 to 0.20)
Note 4: Agricultural BMP input used for streambank stabilization/restoration.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 8
DMS Project #100042

stress, stream bed/bank stability and controlling vegetation. MS-R1 and MS-R2 contribute the majority of
the bank sediment to the system, due to a lack of bank protection. The average ‘moderate’ to ‘high’ BEHI
ratings and observations are typical of a degraded stream system with active bank erosion. See Table 4
below and Appendix 2 for sediment loading assessment sheets.
Table 4. BANCS Reach Assessment
Project Component BEHI Range NBS Range Sediment Loading
(tons/yr)
MS-R1 Very Low/Very High Low/Very High 126.2
MS-R2 Very Low/Very High Very Low/High 50.7
R3 (upper) Low/Mod Low/Mod 5.7
R3 (lower) Mod/High Mod/High 8.7
R41 N/A N/A N/A
R5 (upper) Very Low/Moderate Very Low/Low 5.9
R5 (lower) Very Low/Very High Very Low/Moderate 7.7
R6 High Moderate 12.5
Note 1: R4 was not assessed due to its small size, lack of consistent channel definition, and minimal erosion
potential.

3.2 Landscape Characteristics and Regional Controls
3.2.1 Physiography and Geology
The Project site is located in the Raleigh Belt region of the eastern Piedmont physiographic province in a
transitional zone near the Eastern Slate Belt and Inner Coastal Plain. More specifically, the geologic unit is
classified as ‘PPmg’ and lies within the Rolesville batholith (Rg) or pluton, which contains igneous intrusive
bedrock formations (USGS, 2016). The lithologic unit is described as foliated to massive granitic rock and
exposed outcrops were observed in the project vicinity east of Lake Wendell (See Figure 2 and
Photographic Log in Appendix 2) (USGS, 1998).
The Piedmont province in this transitional zone or ‘fall line’ is generally characterized by gently rolling,
well-rounded hills and low ridges, with elevations near the project site ranging from 230 to 350 feet above
sea level. The surface topography and dendritic drainage patterns within these alluvial valleys are
consistent along many first order or headwater streams mapped in this region, with average valley slopes
ranging from 1 percent to just over 2 percent (Russell, 2008). The narrow valley confinement and steeper
side slopes (approximately 8 to 15 percent) typically decrease as the contributing drainage areas increase
near the confluence of larger stream systems (i.e., Buffalo Creek).
3.2.2 Soils
Soils at the project site were initially determined using NRCS soil survey data for Johnston County (NRCS
Johnston County Soil Survey, 1994). The soils within the project area were verified during on-site field
investigations. Figure 4 illustrates soil conditions throughout the project area and the soil descriptions are
provided below in Table 5.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 9
DMS Project #100042

Table 5. Project Soil Type and Descriptions
Soil Name Hydric Description
Dorian fine sandy
loam (DoA)
(4.9% of
easement)
No Moderately well drained soils formed on stream terraces in the Piedmont
Region that are rarely flooded. Slopes range from 0 to 2% on landscapes
with wooded-mixed hardwoods and pine. Areas are typically cultivated.
Fine sandy loam surface layer and clay subsoil.
Lynchburg sandy
loam (Ly)
(3.1% of
easement)
No Somewhat poorly drained soils formed mainly on marine terraces or flats in
the Coastal Plain Region that are not frequently flooded. Slopes range from
0 to 2% on landscapes used for cropland/pasture or in wooded areas
dominated by oak and pine. Sandy loam surface layer and sandy loam subsoil
or sandy clay loam underlying material.
Uchee loamy
coarse sand (UcC)
(2.3% of
easement)
No Consists of very deep, well drained, moderately slowly permeable soils that
formed in sandy and loamy marine sediments. They are on smooth ridgetops
and dissected side slopes of the Coastal Plain. Slopes range from 6 to 12% on
land that is predominantly used for crops.
Wehadkee loam
(Wt)
(74.0% of
easement)
Yes Poorly drained soils formed mainly on floodplains along headwater streams
in the Piedmont Region that are frequently flooded. Slope ranges from 0 to
2% on landscapes with low relief and predominance of hardwoods. Loamy
surface layer and loamy subsoil or sandy underlying material.
Wedowee sandy
loam (WoD)
(14.9% of
easement)
No Well drained soils formed on side slopes that are dissected by drainageways.
Mapped areas are commonly long, narrow, and irregular in shape. Typically,
the surface layer is grayish sandy loam (~9 inches) and subsoil is brown sandy
clay loam. Slopes range from 8 to 15% in the uplands on the Piedmont.
Permeability, water capacity and shrink-swell are moderate with rapid
surface runoff. Most areas are used for woodland or pasture since it is poorly
suited to cropland given runoff and erosion potential.
Wedowee sandy
loam (WoB)
(0.6% of easement)
No Well drained soils formed on narrow ridges and on side slopes of uplands in
the Piedmont Region. Slopes range from 2 to 8% within land that is mostly
wooded and includes a mix of oak, pine, and hickory species. Some areas are
cleared for pasture and cropland. Sandy loam surface layer with clay to clay
loam subsoil and underlying material.

The soils within the floodplain and riparian areas are predominantly mapped Wehadkee loam (Wt, Hydric
A). The hydric soil properties have been degraded by historic agricultural activities and stream incision
which has resulted in a significant loss of wetland function, surface/groundwater interaction, and
increased streambank erosion and sedimentation.
3.2.3 Climate
The Project site is located in Johnston County, NC which has a warm humid temperate climate with hot
summers, minimal snowfall and no dry season (NRCS, 1994). The average growing season for the Project
site is 227 days, beginning on March 21st through November 3rd (NRCS Johnston County Soil Survey,

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 10
DMS Project #100042

Weather Station: Clayton, NC). The average annual precipitation in the Project area is approximately 46.95
inches with a consistent monthly distribution, except for convective storm events or hurricanes that occur
during the summer and fall months. In 2019, the area received over 54.93 inches as shown on WETS Table
6. Over the past 48 months, the Clayton weather station (COOP 317994) has recorded over 232 inches of
rain.

Table 6. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts vs. Long-term Averages
Month-Year Observed Monthly
Precipitation (in)
WETS Average Monthly
Precipitation (in)
Deviation of Observed from
Average (in)
Jan-19 4.74 4.24 +0.05
Feb-19 5.11 3.56 +1.55
Mar-19 3.84 4.39 -0.55
Apr-19 8.47 2.97 +5.50
May-19 0.92 3.73 -2.81
Jun-19 6.08 3.74 +2.34
Jul-19 6.35 5.02 +1.33
Aug-19 2.23 4.74 -2.51
Sep-19 2.94 4.74 -1.80
Oct-19 5.18 3.20 +1.98
Nov-19 3.56 3.32 +0.24
Dec-19 5.51 3.30 +2.21
Sum 54.93 46.95 +7.98

Throughout much of the southeastern US, average rainfall often exceeds average evapotranspiration (ET)
losses and areas experience a moisture excess during normal years, which is typical of the Project site.
Excess water leaves the Project site by groundwater flow, surface runoff, channelized surface flow, or
seepage. Annual losses due to seepage, or percolation of water are not considered a significant loss
pathway for excess water. However, groundwater flow and the hyporheic exchange is critical in small
headwater stream and wetland systems like those at the Project site, as most excess water is lost via
surface and shallow subsurface flow.

The Project streams’ drainage density relative to the geomorphic/geologic character and hydrologic
regime is common given the seasonal rainfall patterns, runoff rates, topographic relief, groundwater
recharge, and infiltration capacity/depth to impermeable bedrock layer (USGS, 1998). Further
observations of perennial flow frequency, response time to storm events, pond level fluctuations,
streambank erosion and groundwater saturation over the past year support this conclusion.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 11
DMS Project #100042

3.2.4 Existing Vegetation
Land use surrounding the Project area has been primarily for agricultural, silvicultural and development
purposes. Prior to anthropogenic land disturbances, the riparian vegetation community likely consisted
of Mesic Mixed Forest (Piedmont Subtype) in the uplands with Alluvial Forest and Piedmont Bottomland
Forest in the lower areas and floodplains (Schafale 2012). The existing vegetation within the project area
consists of mixed hardwood forest and some disturbed pine forest. Many of the riparian and upland areas
are dominated by invasive species such as Chinese privet and Japanese stiltgrass.

Table 7. Existing Site Vegetation
Common Name Scientific Name
Canopy Vegetation Red maple Acer rubrum
Yellow-poplar Liriodendron tulipifera
Loblolly pine Pinus taeda
Sweetgum Liquidambar styraciflua
Slippery elm Ulmus rubra
White oak Quercus alba
Understory & Woody Shrubs Black willow Salix nigra
Silky willow Salix sericea
Ironwood Carpinus caroliniana
Chinese privet Ligustrum sinense
American holly Ilex opaca
Eastern red cedar Juniperus virginiana
Herbaceous & Vines Poison ivy Toxicodendron radicans
Switchcane Arundinaria tecta
Greenbrier Smilax rotundifolia
Multiflora rose Rosa multiflora
Christmas fern Polystichum acrostichoides
Lady fern Athyrium filix-femina
Japanese stiltgrass Microstegium vimineum
Soft rush Juncus effusus

3.3 Land Use and Development Trends
The USGS 2011 National Land Cover Data GIS Dataset and StreamStats was used to estimate the current
impervious cover and land use information for the project catchment area. The catchment area has an
impervious cover approximately 13% and the dominant land uses are 20% cultivated crops, 48% mixed
forest, and 9% grassland/herbaceous. WLS conducted extensive field reconnaissance to verify the current
land use practices within the catchment, which include active agricultural land managed as hay/crop
production, pasture for cattle grazing, residential development, and forested areas along the project
reaches.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 12
DMS Project #100042

Prior to the 1970s, most of the watershed was a mixed forested area or agricultural land as illustrated on
historic aerials (See Figures 7a-e). WLS was unable to obtain land use information prior to the 1965. By
the early 2000s, surrounding development began including construction of a school and residential
development. Currently there is a residential development (Cardinal Preserve) to the west of R6 and the
next phase is anticipated in 2020 to the east of MS-R2. Over time the natural stream and wetland
processes and aquatic resource functions have been significantly impacted because of these historic
anthropogenic disturbances.

As described in the Neuse 01 RWP, potential for land use change and/or future development in the areas
adjacent to the Project site is moderate to high, given the proximity to existing development and growth
trends associated with the I-540 corridor and rapidly growing Johnston County areas. As a design
consideration, WLS coordinated with the landowners to extend the easement boundary to capture
additional wetland areas and natural drainage features within the Project corridor. Increasing the Project
footprint will provide wider riparian buffers and ultimately improve floodplain functions and pollutant
removal effectiveness.
3.4 Watershed Disturbance and Response
To determine what actions are needed to restore the riparian corridor structure and lift ecological
functions, it is critical to examine the rates and type of disturbances, and how the system responds to
those disturbances. Across the Project site, landowners historically manipulated and/or straightened
streams and ditched riparian wetland systems to provide areas for crop production and cattle grazing.
These activities have caused changes to channel patterns, sediment transport, in-stream habitat and
restriction of fish movement, thermal regulation, and dissolved oxygen (DO) content. As shown in the
historical aerial photographs (See Figures 7a, 7b, 7c, 7d, and 7e), the riparian buffer area has not been
disturbed since the 1960s, yet the landscape adjacent to the riparian buffer indicates the areas have been
heavily impacted from historic and current land use practices, including agriculture, silviculture, and
development. Historic manipulation of the stream channels has severely impacted the streambanks and
natural flow pattern throughout the Project corridor. The main tributary through the middle of the Project
area is incised and the floodplain connection has been lost in many locations. The past land use
disturbances, active channel degradation, and current land use practices present a significant opportunity
for improving water quality and ecosystem functions through the implementation of this project. Figure
7d shows when the land was developed for Corinth Holders High School and Figure 7e show the most
recent aerial photography depicting a new subdivision being built adjacent to the riparian buffers.
3.4.1 Existing Reach Condition Summary
The streams at the Project site were categorized into eight reaches (MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (upper), R3 (lower),
R4, R5 (upper), R5 (lower) and R6 totaling approximately 5,451 linear feet of existing streams. Reach
breaks were based on drainage area at confluences, changes in existing condition,
restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial stream status. Field
evaluations conducted by WLS during existing conditions assessments determined that Project reaches
MS-R1, MS-R2, and R5 are perennial streams, and R3 and R6 were determined to be intermittent streams.
Determinations were based on NCDWQ’s Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial
Streams and Their Origins, (NCDWQ v4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment
protocols. Copies of the referenced DWR Stream Identification Forms are included in Appendix 7 and
reach condition summaries are provided below.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 13
DMS Project #100042

MS-R1: MS-R1 is the main stem perennial
tributary that begins at an existing bedrock
outcrop downstream of a pond and flows to
the confluence with MS-R2 and an existing
culvert crossing. MS-R1 has an average valley
slope of 0.7 percent and drainage area of
approximately 442 acres. Based on
watershed reconnaissance, field
observations, depositional patterns and
landscape position, the excess sediment
appears to be fine grained material mostly
from active bank erosion and surface runoff
from adjacent fields and impervious surface
from a nearby high school.
The channel in this section lacks a floodplain connection and is laterally unstable as mechanical bank
failures were observed in many of the meander bends. According to the landowner and historic aerials,
portions of the stream have been manipulated to accommodate silvicultural and agricultural practices. In
this area, the degree of incision is severe, with bank height ratios exceeding 2.0 and a low to moderate
sinuosity (k=1.17). Woody riparian vegetation has re-established and is mostly present throughout the
reach. However, MS-R1 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the form of high sediment
inputs from severe bank erosion. Based on the existing channel conditions and anthropogenic
disturbances, the reach is classified as Rosgen ‘G4c’ stream type throughout most of its length.
MS-R2: MS-R2 begins downstream of MS-R1 at
an existing (2) 54 inch concrete pipe culvert
crossing and flows south. The valley slope in
this area is approximately 0.6 percent and the
channel is vertically stable; however, most of
the reach appears to be moderately-to-
severely incised, with active bank erosion and
bank height ratios averaging 1.6. The sinuosity
is low (k= 1.08) and active bank erosion was
observed over 70 percent of the stream banks.
The lateral instability is caused by near bank
stresses during storm flows and the lack of
deep rooting vegetation.
Throughout MS-R2, portions of the stream
appear to be overly widened and historically
manipulated. However, the riparian buffer is
greater than 50 feet throughout its entire length. The reach has mature trees interspersed along the
streambanks and floodplain; any large canopy trees will be saved and incorporated as part of the
restoration design. Based on the existing conditions and coarse gravel material, MS-R2 is classified as a
Photo of MS-R1 showing excess aggradation
resulting from active stream bank erosion.
Looking downstream at lateral instability and stream
bank erosion along MS-R2.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 14
DMS Project #100042

Rosgen ‘G4c/Incised E4’ stream type. MS-R2 is actively subject to water quality stressors, mainly in the
form of high sediment inputs from severe bank erosion.
R3: R3 begins near the top of the project and
flows southwest towards its confluence with
MS-R1. The valley slope is approximately 2.6
percent and the channel in the upper section
is currently stable, bedform diversity is
abundant, and the degree of incision is low,
with bank height ratios near 1.1. Stream
bank erosion is minor, and most the reach
has deep rooting vegetation. Along this
upper portion of R3, the reach is classified as
Rosgen ‘C5b’. The lower portion of R3 is
experiencing an active headcut and the
channel condition worsens as observed by
downcutting and stream bank erosion. The
conditions will likely continue to degrade
further if not addressed during the restoration design. R3 is classified as Rosgen ‘G5’ stream type along
its lower reach.
R4: R4 begins as a small headwater tributary
that originates from a stormwater BMP pipe
outlet. The channel below the pipe outlet was
classified as ephemeral, however the historic
base flow has been redirected from the
natural stream valley to R5 through a
stormwater outfall pipe. R4 has a drainage
area of approximately 30 acres and the valley
slope is 3.1 percent. This reach has
experienced historic manipulation and has
been excavated to accommodate a drainage
pipe outlet. Based on a review of historic
aerials, the headwaters of R4 originated at a
farm pond prior to being converted as a
stormwater BMP to treat runoff from Corinth
Holders High School.
The reach is slightly-to-moderately incised in the upper portion and is classified as a Rosgen ‘G5c/C5’
stream type. The channel condition improves towards the downstream end as the valley widens and
flattens before its confluence with MS-R1. The reach has mature trees interspersed along the stream
Looking upstream at stable bed form and bank
conditions along R3 (upper).
Looking at R4 below an existing stormwater BMP.
Note the stable channel conditions, but dry conditions
and absence of base flow.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 15
DMS Project #100042

banks and floodplain; any trees of
significance will be saved and incorporated
as part of the restoration design.
R5: Similar to R4, R5 begins as a small
headwater tributary that originates from a
stormwater BMP pipe outlet. R5 has a
drainage area of approximately 19 acres and
the valley slope is 2.5 percent. The channel
below the stormwater outfall was classified
as perennial, however it appears the
increased flows coming from the stormwater
outfall have led to channel degradation
throughout the reach. The upper reach of R5
is classified as an incised Rosgen ‘E5’ stream
type.
The lower portion of R5 is experiencing an active headcut, and the channel condition worsens as observed
by downcutting and stream bank erosion. The conditions will likely continue to degrade further if not
addressed during the restoration design. The existing buffer contains mature trees interspersed along the
stream banks and floodplain; any trees of significance will be saved and incorporated as part of the
restoration design. The lower reach of R5 is the reach is classified as a Rosgen ‘G5c’ stream type.
R6: R6 is a small headwater tributary that is currently experiencing backwater effects from a man-made
farm pond dam. Upstream of R6 is a new housing development under construction. R6 has a small
drainage area of 25 acres. Prior to the farm pond construction, the natural valley slope in the upper
catchment was approximately 2.2 percent. The pond depth at the upstream base of the dam was
measured at approximately 3 feet deep. The entire pond perimeter is subject to active water quality
stressors, mainly resulting from nutrient inputs from adjacent farm fields and residential and school
development.
The pond excavation has degraded the in-
stream habitat, and poor definition was
observed below the pond in upper R6. Lower
R6 is slightly-to-moderately incised and is
classified as a Rosgen ‘B5a’ stream type. The
channel condition improves towards the
downstream end as the valley widens and
flattens before its confluence with MS-R2.
The reach has mature trees interspersed
along the stream banks and floodplain; any
trees of significance will be saved and
incorporated as part of the restoration
design.

Photo illustrates active bank erosion and degraded
wetland area along lower R5.
Looking downstream below pond at poor channel
definition and stream bank erosion along R6.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 16
DMS Project #100042

3.4.2 Channel Morphology and Stability Assessment
WLS conducted geomorphic and ecological assessments for Project reaches to assess the current stream
channel condition and overall lateral and vertical stability. Data collection included seven representative
riffle cross-sections, longitudinal profiles, and sediment samples. The existing channel morphology is
summarized in Table 8 and detailed geomorphic assessment data is included in Appendix 2. Consistent
geomorphic indicators of the bankfull stage were difficult to identify in the field given the modified flow
regime and degraded channel conditions. Therefore, bankfull cross-sectional areas were initially
compared with the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999). The surveyed
cross-sectional areas were slightly below the regional curve prediction (See Appendix 2 for comparison
plots).
Bank Height Ratios (BHR) were measured in the field to assess the degree of channel incision. BHRs ranged
from 1.0 (upper R3) to 3.7 (lower R3). BHR values greater than 1.5 typically indicate the stream channel is
disconnected from its floodplain and system wide self-recovery is considered unlikely to occur within a
desired timeframe (Rosgen, 2001). Entrenchment Ratios (ER) were measured to determine the degree of
vertical confinement. ERs ranged from 1.2 (lower R3) to greater than 5.2 (MS-R2) throughout the project
area indicating reach segments are slightly-to-moderately entrenched.
Table 8. Existing Channel Morphology Summary
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)1
Entrenchment
Ratio
(ER)
Width/Dep
th Ratio
(W/D)
Bank
Height
Ratio
(BHR)
Sinuosity
(K)
Channel Slope
(S, ft/ft)
D50
(mm)
MS-R1 442 1.3, 5.0 5.3, 8.4 2.3, 1.8 1.36 0.0058 13.0
MS-R2 543 5.2 6.4 1.6 1.26 0.0045 3.4
R3 (upper) 21.4 3.5 9.5 1.0 1.14 0.0372 N/A6
R3 (lower) 24.1 1.2 9.2 3.7 2.62 0.0417 N/A6
R44 29.9 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4 N/A4 0.0325 N/A6
R5 (lower) 18.8 1.8 3.8 1.8 1.14 0.0275 N/A6
R6 25.1 2.2 6.5 1.3 1.1 0.0566 N/A6
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and compared
with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.
Note 2: Cross-section locations are shown on Figure 6, Current Conditions Map.
Note 3: Geomorphic parameters for project reaches are based on best professional judgment and rapid field
measurements. No survey data is provided for upper R6 due to the ponded conditions.
Note 4: R4 cross-section was not measured due to lack of flow and consistent channel form.
Note 5: Additional values and dimensionless ratios for meander geometry and facet slopes are provided in
Appendix 2. The existing degraded channel parameters are compared to stable stream systems in the Piedmont
Physiographic Region.
Note 6. No sediment data was collected from R3, R4, R5, and R6. Reach wide sediment was coarse sand.

WLS also compared historic aerial photographs with BANCS model estimates (Rosgen, 2006) described in
Section 3.1.5 to identify areas susceptible to lateral bank erosion or accelerated meander migration.
BEHI/NBS rating forms are in Appendix 2. Based on this comparison, most of the laterally unstable reach
segments have occurred after riparian buffers where removed over the past few decades. As described in
the reach condition summaries, the average valley slopes range from 0.57 to 6.4 percent and channel

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 17
DMS Project #100042

sinuosities range from 1.13 to 2.62. Most of the vertical grade control along the project reaches appears
to be provided by infrequent vegetation root mass, bedrock outcrops, and culvert crossings. The surveyed
longitudinal profile indicates reaches R4 and R5 have headcuts near the upper segments and have been
heavily manipulated.
Many of the reach segments have poor bedform diversity and minimal habitat features with shallow pools
and longer/flatter riffles with higher pool-to-pool spacing. Reach MS-R1 and MS-R2 is laterally unstable
throughout the reach with heavy bank erosion. Reach R3 is vertically unstable towards the lower part of
the reach, but very stable on the upper reach. Reach R4 is laterally vertically unstable through the upper
part of the reach and then loses channel definition on the lower portion. Throughout R5 the channel goes
through sections of very stable and vertically unstable section. The unstable sections are due to headcuts.
The upper part of R6 is within an existing pond. The lower part of R6 is vertically unstable with areas or
bank erosion.
NC SAM: WLS completed stream evaluations of the Project reaches using the NC Stream Assessment
Method (NC SAM, Version 2.1, 2015) developed by the NC Stream Functional Assessment Team (SFAT).
The purpose of NC SAM is to provide the public and private sectors with an accurate, consistent, rapid,
observational, and science-based field method to determine the level of function of streams within North
Carolina. NC SAM can be used as a tool for the consideration of project restoration design and planning,
allowing for impacts to be avoided and/or minimized, and to provide information concerning assessed
stream characteristics and functions for the regulatory review process.
WLS evaluated the NC SAM metrics relevant to the project assessment reaches, as shown in Appendix 8.
The metrics were documented to evaluate various stream functions. The Project reach scores ranged from
‘low’ to ‘high’. Project reaches R3 (lower) and R6 scored ‘low’ due to unstable channel and bank
conditions, buffer and water quality stressors from development, and altered stream morphology.
Reaches R5 (upper and lower) and R6 upper scored ‘medium’ because of improved aquatic habitat,
substrate and marginal buffer widths. Reaches MS-R1, MS-R2, and R3 (upper) scored ‘high’ because of the
adjacent mature riparian corridor, improved aquatic habitat, and substrate. These channel stability and
ecological assessments incorporated qualitative and quantitative observations using historic aerials, field
evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data collected across the site. The conclusions from the NC
SAM assessments help describe the current stream stability, ecological conditions and functional ratings,
however, these methods are not intended to be used for determining mitigation success on constructed
stream and wetland sites.
3.4.3 Channel Evolution
The modified Simon Channel Evolution Model (CEM) describes a predictable sequence of change in a
disturbed channel system (Simon, 1989). Channel evolution typically occurs when a stream system begins
to change its morphologic condition, which can be a negative or positive trend towards stability. The
channel evolution processes and stage vary across the Project site and have been greatly affected by
human-induced disturbances. After reviewing the channel dimension, plan form, and longitudinal profile
information, WLS concluded that upper part of R3 currently exhibits positive trends towards stability or
quasi-equilibrium. Project reaches MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (lower), and segments of R5 vary between Class ‘III’
and ‘IV’ of the CEM as evidenced by migrating headcuts and will likely continue to degrade and widen. R4

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 18
DMS Project #100042

is transitioning from Class ‘IV’ to Class ‘V’ as evidenced by channel widening and sediment aggradation.
The proposed stream restoration approaches described in Section 6.1 are supported by these
observations.
3.4.4 Sediment Supply, Delivery and Storage
Visual inspections of the channel substrate materials were conducted for each of the Project stream
reaches. Representative bed materials were bulk sampled from reaches MS-R1 and MS-R2. Project
reaches R3, R4, R5, and R6 were not sampled due to channel material being mostly coarse sand. MS-R1
and MS-R2 consist of predominantly medium to coarse gravel, with some small cobble materials (D50
ranging from 13.0 mm on MS-R1 and 3.4 mm on MS-R2). Subpavement sampling indicating D50 ranging
from 3.3 mm on MS-R2 to 5.2 mm on MS-R1. Due to past downcutting associated with headcut migration,
most grade control along the project reaches appears to be provided by exposed bedrock knickpoints and
existing culverted stream crossings. Much of the parent material, which contains fine/medium gravel
particle sizes, are mostly buried and still evident in some of the bank profiles. Field investigations suggest
that the fine sediment supply is being recruited predominantly from streambank erosion along the project
stream reaches and upland development. The streambank erosion along the project stream reaches
appears to be limited during episodic storm flows due to stormwater BMPs at the high school and
influences from herbaceous vegetation and rotational crop cover.
3.4.5 Jurisdictional WOTUS
WLS investigated on-site jurisdictional waters of the US (WOTUS) using the US Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) Routine On-Site Determination Method. This method is defined in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement
(USACE, 1987). Determination methods included stream classification utilizing the NCDWQ Stream
Identification Form and the USACE Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet. Potential jurisdictional (JD)
wetland areas as well as upland areas were classified using the USACE Wetland Determination Data Form.
Determination methods for stream classification utilized the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form (v4.11).
The results of the on-site field investigations conducted by WLS indicate that the Project reaches were
determined to be jurisdictional stream channels. In addition, three jurisdictional wetland areas (totaling
0.074 acres) were delineated within the Project area (Figure 6 and Appendix 9). WLS submitted a
preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) application package to the USACE in July 2018 and an email
concurrence was sent August 2018. It was later discovered that the PJD submitted was incorrect and
showed only the hydric soils instead of the delineated wetlands. An updated PJD package was sent to the
USACE in August 2019. Christopher Hopper with USACE sent an email concurrence on April 3, 2020. The
final PJD will be provided in the final mitigation plan if available and issued with the NWP 27.
Currently, some of the existing wetland areas located in the floodplain are drained. After restoration
activities, these areas will experience a more natural hydrology and flooding regime. The restoration
design approach will likely enhance any areas of adjacent fringe or marginal wetlands. Existing stream
profiles will be elevated along various reach sections of MS-R1 and MS-R2 which will improve local water
table conditions adjacent to the channels and encourage more frequent flooding of riparian wetland
areas. The proposed stream and wetland impacts are considered temporary and will be included with the
401/404 permit application.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 19
DMS Project #100042

3.5 Potential Site Constraints
3.5.1 Existing Easements and Right-Of-Ways on the Site
No existing easement exists within the project site. MS-R1 and MS-R2 are split by an access road right-of-
way with an existing concrete pipe culvert. The ROW is owned and maintained by Johnston County.
Additionally, the lower portion of MS-R2 is impacted by a 50’ right-of-way (Heart Pine Drive) connecting
a future development parcel east of MS-R2 with an existing development property to the west of MS-R2.
3.5.2 Utility Corridors within the Site
There are no existing utility easements within the Project boundaries. As mentioned above in Section
3.5.1, MS-R1 and MS-R2 are split by an access road right-of-way that contains both water and sanitary
sewer lines owned and maintained by Johnston County. WLS does not anticipate construction issues
associated with these utility lines, however, we will coordinate with the Johnston County officials as
needed if site access is required.
3.5.3 Mineral or Water Rights Assurance
There are no mineral or water rights issues within or adjacent to the Project properties.
3.5.4 Hydrologic Trespass
None of the Project reaches are located within a FEMA regulated floodplain. While it is not anticipated
that there will be issues associated with FEMA permitting or documentation, WLS will coordinate with the
local floodplain administrator as needed and prepare the required documentation to obtain approval for
any FEMA regulated impacts. In addition, the Project will be designed so that any increase in flooding will
be contained within the Project boundary and will not impact adjacent landowners; therefore, hydrologic
trespass will not be a concern.
3.5.5 Invasive Species Vegetation
Chinese privet and multiflora rose were observed within the existing riparian buffer areas. These areas
will be monitored by WLS, and any invasive plants found within the Project boundary will be treated to
prevent expansion and establishment of a substantial invasive community.
3.6 Existing Wetland Conditions
Detailed soil mapping, conducted by a licensed soil scientist (Wyatt Brown, LLS with Brown’s
Environmental Group), determined that hydric soils are present within the stream valleys and adjacent
floodplain. On-site streams were manipulated and/or deepened, and groundwater elevations were
altered such that many of the historic riparian wetlands along the floodplain have been drained and lost.
These areas have been utilized for silviculture production over the past few decades and have lost their
historic wetland function. The stream valleys were mapped as containing Type ‘A’ hydric soils and have a
presence of sand and loam. It was observed throughout the Project that there are buried hydric soils and
few degraded riparian wetlands in the floodplain. As a result of past ditching activities and subsequent
groundwater and hydrology impacts, these areas are not currently considered to be existing jurisdictional

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 20
DMS Project #100042

wetlands. Some areas within the Project site where stream sections are not modified maintain the
presence of small jurisdictional wetlands. Based on assessment of the on-site water features, there are
three existing wetland systems identified within the Project site boundaries. On-site wetlands have been
delineated (flagged) and the PJD was submitted in August 2019.
NC WAM: WLS completed wetland evaluations of the Project wetlands using the NC Wetland Assessment
Method (NC WAM, Version 5, 2016) developed by the NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team (WFAT).
The purpose of NC WAM is to provide the public and private sectors with an accurate, consistent, rapid,
observational, and science-based field method to determine the level of function of wetlands within North
Carolina. NC WAM can be used as a tool for the consideration of project restoration design and planning,
allowing for impacts to be avoided and/or minimized, and to provide information concerning assessed
wetland characteristics and functions for the regulatory review process.
WLS evaluated the NC WAM metrics relevant to the project wetlands, as shown in Appendix 8. The metrics
were documented to evaluate various wetland functions. The Project wetland scores ranged from ‘low’
to ‘high’. WB and WD scored ‘low’ due to altered hydrologic connectivity, water quality, and habitat. WC
scored ‘high’ since it is mostly undisturbed. These ecological assessments incorporated qualitative and
quantitative observations using historic aerials, field evaluations, and detailed topographic survey data
collected across the site. The conclusions from these assessments help describe the current wetland
ecological conditions and functional ratings, however, these methods are not intended to be used for
determining mitigation success on constructed stream and wetland sites.
4 Functional Uplift Potential
Harman et al. (2012) provides a framework for conducting function-based assessments to develop project
goals and objectives based on a site’s restoration potential and functional uplift. The framework is based
on the Stream Functions Pyramid (SFP) which is a conceptual model that can be used to better define
project goals and objectives by linking them to stream functions. Stream functions are separated into a
hierarchy of functions and structural measures, ranging from Level 1 to Level 5 and include the following
functional categories: Hydrology (Level 1), Hydraulic (Level 2), Geomorphic (Level 3), Physiochemical
(Level 4), and Biological (Level 5). Chapter 4 of A Function-Based Framework (Harman et al., 2012) provides
a more detailed description of the SFP and is illustrated in Appendix 2. The SFP framework is applied below
to further describe the functional lift potential based on the existing conditions assessment and proposed
restoration design elements.
4.1.1 Function-Based Parameters and Measurement Methods
Function-based parameters and measurement methods were evaluated using the NC Stream Functional
Lift Quantification Tool (SQT, v3.0) to help assess the existing stream conditions, determine restoration
potential and identify risks associated with the project site. The SQT is a qualitative and quantitative
resource used to describe the function-based condition of each project reach, as well as evaluate
functional capacity and predict the overall proposed lift (Harman and Jones, 2016). WLS applied the SQT
to help further define goals and objectives based on the restoration potential. The results of this
assessment helped determine the highest level of restoration that may be achieved based on-site
constraints and existing conditions. Table 9 shows the function-based condition assessment parameters

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 21
DMS Project #100042

and measurement methods selected to help quantify and describe each functional category. The
complete SQT functional assessment worksheets and summaries are provided in Appendix 2.
Table 9. Existing and Proposed Functional Condition Assessment Summary
Functional Category (Level) Function-Based Parameters Measurement Method
Hydrology (Level 1) Catchment Hydrology Catchment Assessment/ Curve Number
Runoff Curve Number
Hydraulics (Level 2) Floodplain Connectivity Bank Height Ratio
Entrenchment Ratio
Geomorphology (Level 3)
Bank Migration/Lateral Stability Meander Width Ratio
Percent Streambank Erosion
Riparian Vegetation Left Buffer Width (ft)
Right Buffer Width (ft)
Bed Form Diversity Pool Depth and Spacing Ratio
Percent Riffle and Pool
Sinuosity Planform
Channel Evolution Simon Channel Evolution Model
Note 1: Table adapted from Harman et al. (2012).
Note 2: Level 4 and Level 5 Parameters were not evaluated.
4.1.2 Performance Standards and Functional Capacity
The Pyramid Framework includes performance standards associated with the function-based assessments
and measurement methods described above. The performance standards are used to determine the
functional capacity and are stratified into three types: Functioning (F), Functioning-at-Risk (FAR), and Not
Functioning (NF). The detailed definitions and index value ranges for each type are described further in
the SQT (Harman and Jones, 2016). Table 10 summarizes the overall reach scoring and functional lift
summary for each project reach.
Table 10. Functional Lift Scoring Summary
Project Reach
Designation
Functional Lift Score
(PCS-ECS) Functional Lift (%) Overall Existing vs.
Proposed Condition
MS-R1 0.21 84 NF / FAR
MS-R2 0.17 43 FAR / FAR
R3 (upper) 0.06 15 F / F
R3 (lower) 0.24 74 NF / FAR
R4 0.06 172 FAR / FAR
R5 (upper) 0.07 23 FAR / FAR
R5 (lower) 0.18 69 NF / FAR
R6 0.11 33 FAR / FAR
Note 1: R4 is classified as ephemeral due to altered flow regime from BMP drainage network.
Note 2: Upper R6 was not scored due to ponded headwater conditions.
4.1.3 Restoration Potential
After completing the function-based assessment, the restoration potential was determined to better
define the Project design goals and objectives. It is common for restoration projects to occur at a reach

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 22
DMS Project #100042

scale that provide minimum functional lift of Level 2 and 3 parameters. However, to achieve goals in Levels
4 and 5, a combination of reach scale restoration and upstream watershed health must be measurable
and sustainable. The overall restoration potential was determined at Level 3 (Geomorphology) since the
watershed assessment scored ‘Fair’ and may not fully support biological reference conditions in some of
the project reaches given the sediment and nutrient inputs, smaller drainages, intermittent flows, and
urbanizing watershed conditions. However, it is expected that the implementation of this project will
reduce pollutant loads, including sediment and nutrients, improving overall aquatic functions.
The SQT manual recommends that practitioners, stakeholders and regulators collaborate when selecting
appropriate parameters for determining whether project goals and objectives are being met or if any
performance standards need to be adjusted based on local site conditions. Not all functional categories
and parameters and performance standards listed in the SQT will be compared or required to determine
project success and stream mitigation credit and debit scenarios. However, selecting applicable monitoring
and evaluation methods will help develop a more function-based assessment and improve our project
implementation process, thereby advancing the practice of ecosystem restoration.
5 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
WLS set mitigation project goals and objectives to provide compensatory mitigation credits to DMS based
on the existing condition, functional capacity and restoration potential to improve and protect diverse
aquatic resources comparable to stable stream and wetland systems within the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. The Project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Buffalo Creek
Watershed, which drains to the Little River, which eventually drains to the Neuse River. While many of
these benefits are focused on the project area, others, such as nutrient removal, sediment reduction, and
improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching effects extending downstream to the
Neuse River. The project will meet the general restoration and protection goals outlined in the 2010
(amended 2018) Neuse River Basin Restoration Priority Plan (RBRP). More specifically, three out of the
four functional goals and objectives outlined in the Wake-Johnston Collaborative Local Watershed Plan
(LWP) as well as the Neuse 01 RWP will be met by:
• Reducing sediment and nutrient inputs to the Buffalo Creek Watershed.
• Restoring, preserving and protecting wetlands, streams, riparian buffers and aquatic habitat.
• Implementing agricultural BMPs and stream restoration in rural catchments together as “project
clusters”.
To accomplish these project-specific goals, the following objectives will be measured to document overall
project success:
• Restore stream, wetland and floodplain hydrology by reconnecting historic flow paths and
promoting geomorphically stable conditions and more natural flood processes;
• Improve and protect water quality by reducing streambank erosion, nutrient and sediment inputs;
• Restore and protect riparian buffer functions and habitat connectivity in perpetuity by recording
a permanent conservation easement; and
• Incorporate water quality improvement features to reduce nonpoint source inputs to receiving
waters.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 23
DMS Project #100042

Function-based goals and objectives were considered that relate restoration activities to the appropriate
parameters from the SFP framework, which are based on existing conditions, site constraints and overall
restoration potential. When developing realistic function-based project goals and design objectives, it is
imperative to know why the functions or resources need to be restored (Goal) and what specific
restoration activities and measurement methods will be used to validate the predicted results (Objective).
To accomplish these site-specific goals, the following function objectives will be measured to document
overall project success as described in Table 11 below.

Table 11. Function-Based Goals and Design Objectives Summary
Functional Category
(Level) Functional Goal / Parameter Functional Design Objective
Hydrology (Level 1) Improve Base Flow
Improve existing stream crossings and restore
a more natural flow regime and aquatic
passage.
Hydraulics (Level 2) Reconnect Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area Widths
BHRs to not exceed 1.2 and increase ERs no
less than 2.2 for Rosgen ‘C’ and ‘E’ stream
types and 1.4 for ‘B’ stream types.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform Diversity Increase riffle/pool percentage and pool-to-
pool spacing ratios.
Increase Lateral Stability
Reduce BEHI/NBS streambank erosion rates
comparable to downstream reference
condition and stable cross-section values.
Establish Riparian Buffer Vegetation
Plant and protect native species vegetation a
minimum 50’ wide from the top of the
streambanks with a composition/density
comparable to reference condition.
Physicochemical
(Level 4) Improve Water Quality Treat adjacent stormwater and agricultural
runoff.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Macroinvertebrate
Community and Aquatic Species
Health
Incorporate native woody debris into channel.

As described in Section 4, the function-based assessment suggests that the proposed mitigation activities
will result in a higher functioning aquatic ecosystem. The project goals and objectives address water
quality stressors by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs through stream restoration, riparian wetland
restoration and incorporating water quality improvement features. Hydrologic functions will be improved
by raising the local water table. A more natural flow regime will be restored to riparian wetlands and
floodplain areas by implementing a Priority Level I Restoration. The biologic and habitat functions will be
improved by extending wildlife corridors that connect with wooded areas near the upstream and
downstream extents of the project reaches. Additionally, site protection through a conservation
easement in excess of 50 feet from the top of banks, will protect all stream reaches and aquatic resources
in perpetuity. These mitigation efforts will provide a significant ecological benefit with minimal impacts
and constraints during a recovery period that would not otherwise occur through natural processes.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 24
DMS Project #100042

5.1.1 Project Benefits Summary
The project will provide numerous water quality and ecological benefits within the Buffalo Creek
Watershed. While many of these benefits will focus on the project area, others, such as nutrient removal,
sediment reduction, and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, others have more far-reaching effects
that extend downstream. The expected project benefits and ecological improvements are summarized
below in Table 12.
Table 12. Project Benefits Summary
Benefits Related to Hydrology
Rainfall/Runoff
Improving existing stream crossings and properly sizing pipe culverts and water quality
treatment features will reestablish more natural flow conditions and water transport during
various storm events.
Benefits Related to Hydraulics
Floodplain
Connectivity
The restored streams will be raised and reconnected to their active or relic floodplains to
spread higher flow energies onto the floodplain thereby increasing retention time and
floodplain roughness. Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands.
Surface
Storage and
Retention
Incorporation of vernal pools, depressional areas, and other constructed floodplain features
will improve flow dynamics by reducing runoff velocities and provide additional surface
storage and habitat diversity.
Groundwater
Recharge/
Hyporheic
exchange
Benefits will be achieved through restoring wetland hydrology, protecting vegetated buffers,
which increases groundwater infiltration, surface water interaction, and recharge rates.
Benefits Related to Geomorphology
Proper
Channel Form
Restoring an appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile will efficiently transport and deposit
sediment (point bars and floodplain sinks) relative to the stream’s power and load that is
supplied from banks and uplands. Stream channels that are appropriately sized to convey
higher frequency storm flows will greatly improve channel stability by reducing active bank
erosion (lateral stability) and bed degradation (vertical stability; i.e. headcuts, downcutting,
incision).
Sediment
Transport
Boundary conditions, climate, and geologic controls influence stream channel formation and
how sediment is transported through its watershed. Adequate channel capacity will ensure
sediment supply is distributed such that excessive degradation and aggradation does not
occur.
Riparian Buffer
Vegetation
Protecting buffer vegetation will improve thermal regulation (stream shading) along the
riparian corridor, as well as increase woody root mass and density thereby decreasing bank
erosion and sedimentation and increasing organic matter and woody debris.
Bioengineering
Treatments
Bioengineering practices such as live staking, brush layering, and vegetated soil lifts will help
encourage lateral bank stability and prevent further bank erosion and sedimentation.
Benefits Related to Physicochemical (Water Quality)
Nutrient
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through water quality treatment features, filtration and nutrient
uptake within the restored wetlands, floodplain, and vegetated buffers.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 25
DMS Project #100042

Benefits Related to Physicochemical (Water Quality) Continued…
Sediment
Reduction
Benefit will be achieved through stabilization of eroding banks; installation of vegetation
buffers; and by dissipating stream energy with increased overbank flows during storm events.
DO, NO3-, DOC
Concentration
Benefits will be achieved through the restoration of more natural stream forms including riffle
and pool sequences, which will increase dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations. In addition,
protecting riparian buffers will increase shade and reduce water temperatures and
groundwater nitrates (NO3-) as well as increase dissolved organic carbon (DOC) (King et al,
2016).
Benefits Related to Biology
Terrestrial and
Aquatic
Habitat
Benefits will be achieved through the incorporation of physical structure, removal of invasive
species vegetation and returning native vegetation to the restored/enhance buffer areas.
Benefits to aquatic organisms will be achieved through the installation of appropriate in-
stream structures. Adequately transporting and depositing fine-grain sediment onto the
floodplain will prevent embeddedness and create interstitial habitat, organic food resources
and in-stream cover.
Landscape
Connectivity
Benefits to landscape connectivity will be achieved by restoring a healthy riparian corridor,
promoting aquatic and terrestrial species migration and protecting their shared resources in
perpetuity.
6 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
The project includes the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of eight
stream reaches (MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (upper), R3 (lower), R4, R5 (upper), (R5 lower), and R6) totaling
approximately 5,063.000 linear feet of jurisdictional steam channels and six riparian wetland areas (W1,
W2, W3, WB, WC, and WD,) totaling 3.874 acres (See Figure 9). The design approach will utilize a variety
of stream and wetland mitigation practices and appropriately addresses all the impaired aquatic resources
at the project site. As a design consideration, WLS coordinated with the landowners to extend the
easement boundary to capture additional wetland areas and natural drainage features within the Project
corridor. Increasing the Project footprint provides wider riparian buffers and allows the implementation
of agricultural best management practices, which ultimately improves floodplain functions and pollutant
removal effectiveness. The mitigation components and proposed credit structure is outlined in Table 13
and the design approach and mitigation work plan are described in the following subsections.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 26
DMS Project #100042

Table 13. Mitigation Components and Proposed Stream Credit Summary

6.1 Stream Design Approach
As described above in Sections 4 and 5, WLS used function-based assessment methods and data analyses
to determine overall restoration potential and functional uplift. The stream design approach generally
followed the techniques and methods outlined in the NRCS Stream Restoration Design–National
Engineering Handbook (NRCS, 2007) and Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects (USACE, 2001).
In addition, the natural stable channel design (NCD) procedures outlined in the Natural Channel Design
Review Checklist (Harman and Starr, 2011) were applied to address specific stream functions lost across
the site, while also minimizing disturbances to existing wooded areas and higher functioning resources.
WLS first compiled and assessed watershed information such as drainage areas, historical land use,
geologic setting, soil types, sediment inputs and existing plant communities. WithersRavenel then
performed detailed existing conditions topographic and planimetric surveying of the project site and
produced a 1-foot contour map, based on survey data, to create base mapping and plan sheets (See
Appendix 1). Detailed geomorphic surveys were also conducted along the channel and floodplain to
Existing Mitigation
Footage Plan As-Built
or Footage or Mitigation Restoration Priority Mitigation Footage or
Project Segment Acreage Acreage Category Level Level Ratio (X:1)Acreage Comments
MS-R1 1,803 1,577.000 Warm R PI 1.00000
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Permanent
Conservation Easement
MS-R2 1,475 1,351.000 Warm R PI 1.00000
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Permanent
Conservation Easement
R3 (upper)565 565.000 Warm P -10.00000 Permanent Conservation Easement
R3 (lower)136 116.000 Warm R PI/PII 1.00000
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Permanent
Conservation Easement
R4 469 459.000 Warm EI -1.50000
Supplemental Planting of Buffer, Bank Stabilization,
Permanent Conservation Easement
R5 (upper)594 585.000 Warm EI -1.50000
Supplemental Planting of Buffer, Bank Stabilization,
Permanent Conservation Easement
R5 (lower)172 158.000 Warm R PI 1.00000
Full Channel Restoration, Planted Buffer, Permanent
Conservation Easement
R6 208 252.000 Warm EI -1.50000
Supplemental Planting of Buffer, Bank Stabilization,
Permanent Conservation Easement
W1 0.000 2.080 RR RE 1.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
W2 0.000 1.080 RR RE 1.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
W3 0.000 0.640 RR RE 1.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
WD 0.040 0.040 RR E 2.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
WC 0.004 0.004 RR E 2.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
WB 0.030 0.030 RR E 2.00000 Planted Buffer, Permanent Conservation Easement
Project Credits
Non-Rip Coastal
Warm Cool Cold Riverine Non-Riv Wetland Marsh
Restoration 3202.000
Re-establishment 3.800
Rehabilitation
Enhancement 0.037
Enhancement I 864.000
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation 56.500
Totals 4122.500 3.837 0.000 0.000
Restoration Level
Stream Riparian Wetland

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 27
DMS Project #100042

determine valley slopes/widths, channel dimensions, longitudinal profile elevations, and to validate the
signatures shown on the LiDAR imagery (See Figure 5).
Project stream design criteria was developed using a combination of industry sources and applied
approaches, including a review of applicable reference reach data (analog), evaluation of published
regression equations and hydraulic geometry relationships (regional curves), monitoring results from
stable past projects (empirical), and building a hydraulic model using process-based equations (HEC-RAS)
to test design channel geometry and bed stability (analytical). It should be mentioned, while analog and
empirical form-based approaches have been proven effective in designing stable stream systems, their
application assumes quasi-equilibrium conditions and similar watershed and boundary conditions (i.e.
dominant discharge, flow regime, channel roughness, controlling vegetation). Using a static design
template that accounts for natural channel variability can be limited by the regional data sets and overlook
other local controlling factors such as flow impoundments, bedrock geology, woody debris/abundance,
and sediment supply (Skidmore, 2001).
Conversely, analytical or process-based approaches rely heavily upon precise data inputs and a more
robust level of effort may not be practical or even necessary to replicate channel geometry given the
model sensitivity and desired outcome. Designing dynamic natural channels is an iterative process that
requires a detailed assessment of sediment continuity and predicted channel response for a range of
smaller flows. Although it is difficult to definitively predict long term hydrologic conditions in the
watershed, designing an appropriate stream channel for the valley characteristics (i.e. slope, width, and
confinement) is always the preferred design rationale. Therefore, best professional judgment must be
used when selecting appropriate design criteria for lifting the desired ecological functions.
6.1.1 Proposed Design Parameters
The proposed design parameters were developed so that plan view layout, cross-section dimensions, and
longitudinal profiles could be described for developing construction documents. The design philosophy
considers these parameters as conservative guidelines that allow for more natural variability in stream
dimension, facet slopes, and bed features to form over long periods of time under the processes of
flooding, re-colonization of vegetation, and other watershed influences (Harman, Starr, 2011).
Evaluating reference reach information and empirical data from monitoring stable rural Piedmont stream
restoration projects provided pertinent background information and rationale to determine the
appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and restoration potential. The proposed
stream design parameters also considered the USACE Stream Mitigation Guidelines issued in April 2003
(rev. October 2005) and the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 28
DMS Project #100042

Table 14. Proposed Design Parameters
Parameter MS-R1 MS-R2 R3 (lower) R4 R5 (lower) R6
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi) 0.750 0.840 0.038 0.047 0.029 0.039
Stream Type (Rosgen) C4 C4 B4 B4 B4 B4
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area,
Abkf (sq ft) 16.50 18.00 2.13 2.34 1.69 2.20
Bankfull Mean Velocity,
Vbkf (ft/sec) 4.24 4.17 5.65 4.28 4.15 5.45
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf
(ft) 14.0 14.5 5.5 5.5 5.0 6.0
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth,
Dbkf (ft) 1.18 1.24 0.39 0.43 0.34 0.37
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D
(ft/ft) 11.9 11.7 14.2 12.9 14.8 16.4
Width Floodprone Area,
Wfpa (ft) 65 – 80 60 - 90 20 – 25 10 – 15 10 – 25 25 – 30
Entrenchment Ratio,
Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 4.6 – 5.7 4.1 – 6.2 3.6 – 4.6 1.8 – 2.7 2.0 – 5.0 4.1 – 5.0
Riffle Max Depth Ratio,
Dmax/Dbkf 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.5
Bank Height Ratio,
Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Meander Length Ratio,
Lm/Wbkf 7.0 – 12.0 7.0 – 12.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Radius of Curvature Ratio,
Rc/Wbkf 2.0 – 3.0 2.0 – 3.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Meander Width Ratio,
Wblt/Wbkf 3.5 – 8.0 3.5 – 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Channel Sinuosity, K ~1.2 ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.1 ~1.1
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0065 0.0057 0.0368 0.0380 0.0287 0.0574
Riffle Slope Ratio,
Sriff/Schan 1.5 – 2.0 1.5 – 2.0 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 – 1.8 1.1 - 1.8 1.1 – 1.8
Pool Slope Ratio,
Spool/Schan 0.0 – 0.2 0.0 – 0.2 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4 0.0 – 0.4
Pool Width Ratio,
Wpool/Wbkf 1.3 – 1.7 1.3 – 1.7 1.1 – 1.5 1.1 – 1.5 1.1 - 1.5 1.1 - 1.5
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio,
Lps/Wbkf 4.0 – 7.0 4.0 – 7.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0 1.5 – 5.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio,
Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5 2.0 – 3.5

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 29
DMS Project #100042

6.1.2 Design Reach Summary
For design purposes, the stream segments were divided into eight reaches labeled MS-R1, MS-R2, R3
(upper), R3 (lower) R4, R5 (upper), R5 (lower) and R6, as shown in Figure 9. The restoration design
approach will provide a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved
ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated that the design
width/depth ratios for the restored channels will be similar to stable streams in this geologic setting. In-
stream structures, such as constructed riffles, log and rock step-pools, log vanes, log weirs and grade
control log j-hooks will be used to dissipate flow energy, protect streambanks, prevent future incision,
provide aquatic habitat, and increase bedform diversity. Restored streambanks will be graded to stable
side slopes and the floodplain will be reconnected to further promote stability and hydrological function.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks.
Riparian buffers in excess of 50 feet will be improved and/or protected along all the project reaches. Any
mature trees or significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
Bioengineering techniques, such as geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes, will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth along the streambanks. The existing
unstable channels will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain, or an excavated floodplain will be constructed, using suitable fill material from the newly
restored channel and remnant spoil piles. Any exotic species vegetation will be removed, and native
riparian species vegetation will be replanted in the resulting disturbed areas. These proposed restoration
activities will provide the maximum possible functional uplift. The following narrative summarizes the
proposed design approach, rationale and justification for each of stream reaches.
Restoration: MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (lower), R5 (lower)
MS-R1 and MS-R2
The mainstem tributary (MS-R1) begins at an existing bedrock outcrop immediately downstream of a
pond. MS-R2 begins just downstream of MS-R1 at an existing culverted road crossing. The mainstem
reaches are moderately to severely incised with BHRs often exceeding 1.5. The reaches currently exhibit
lateral instability as evidenced by active bank erosion and irregular meander geometry. This systemic
degradation is causing excess stream bank erosion and will likely continue, if restoration is not
implemented, since the existing channel has vertical banks that are devoid of deep rooting vegetation,
which have resulted from historic land use practices and recent development within the watershed. Work
along these reaches will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting
the degraded stream with its geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the mainstem reaches will be relocated
through the low point of the valley and will tie vertically into project terminus downstream. This design
approach will promote more frequent over bank flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating
favorable conditions for wetland restoration (re-establishment) and enhancement and improving
hydrologic function.
The reaches will be restored as a Rosgen ‘C4’ stream type using appropriate riffle-pool morphology with
conservative meander planform geometry that accommodates the valley slope and width. This approach
will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well as improved

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 30
DMS Project #100042

ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is expected that over time,
channel widths will narrow slightly due to fine grain sediment deposition and vegetation growth along the
streambanks. The existing unstable channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new
bankfull channel to its historic floodplain or an excavated floodplain using suitable fill material from the
newly restored channel and remnant spoil piles.
R3 (lower)
R3 (lower) begins at an active headcut towards the downstream extent of R3 (upper). Work along Lower
R3 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with
its geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the channel will be restored in its current location with minor
adjustments to channel planform to tie into MS-R1. This approach will promote more frequent over bank
flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable hydrologic conditions for wetland
restoration (re-establishment) across the reconnected floodplain.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen ‘B4’ stream type using appropriate step-pool morphology with a
minimal meander planform geometry in the lower portion that accommodates the valley slope and width.
This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity, as well
as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. The existing unstable
channel will be filled to an elevation sufficient to connect the new bankfull channel to its historic
floodplain, or an excavated floodplain will be constructed, using suitable fill material from the newly
restored channel and remnant spoil piles.
R5 (lower)
R5 (lower) begins at an active headcut towards the downstream extent of R5 (upper). Work along Lower
R5 will involve a Priority Level I Restoration by raising the bed elevation and reconnecting the stream with
its geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the channel will be restored in its current location with minor
adjustments to channel planform to tie into MS-R1. This approach will promote more frequent over bank
flooding in areas with hydric soils, thereby creating favorable hydrologic conditions for wetland
restoration (re-establishment) across the floodplain.
The reach will be restored as a Rosgen ‘B4’ stream type using appropriate step-pool morphology with a
minimal meander planform geometry in the lower 200 feet that accommodates the valley slope and
width. This approach will allow restoration of a stable channel form with appropriate bedform diversity,
as well as improved ecological function through increased aquatic and terrestrial habitats. It is anticipated
that the design width/depth ratio for the channel will be similar to stable headwater streams in this
geologic setting.
Enhancement Level I: R4, R5 (upper), R6
R4
R4 is small ephemeral headwater tributary that begins at an abandoned stormwater outfall pipe within
the upper catchment. Currently the existing channel has limited bank erosion and channel incision;
however, the base flow is being detained by a stormwater BMP and has been redirected through a pipe
culvert that discharges into the R5 catchment. Consequently, WLS proposes to modify the outlet of the

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 31
DMS Project #100042

described BMP by replacing the abandoned outfall pipe to reroute base flow back into the natural stream
valley. In-stream structures will be added to prevent future scour and increase bedform diversity. These
proposed enhancement activities will improve the natural flow regime and provide functional uplift.
R5 (upper)
Upper R5 begins at another existing stormwater outfall pipe. Due to the past manipulation and degraded
conditions of upper R5, an Enhancement Level I approach is proposed for the reach to improve stream
functions and water quality. The upstream portion of the reach is actively degrading and exhibits slight
lateral and vertical instability, as shown by localized bank erosion. Enhancement activities along upper R5
will involve slightly raising the bed elevation and removing any spoil/levees thus providing an active
floodplain. In-stream structures, such as log weirs and woody riffles will be used to dissipate flow energy,
protect streambanks, and eliminate potential for future incision. Eroding channel banks will be graded to
stable side slopes and bioengineering techniques such as geolifts and live stakes will also be used to
protect streambanks and promote woody vegetation growth. This reach has experienced historic
floodplain and flow alterations but has mature woody buffer vegetation. Healthy mature trees or
significant native vegetation will be protected and incorporated into the design.
R6
R6 begins at the downstream extent of an existing pond. The pond will remain to capture stormwater and
sediment from the residential development. Work along R6 will involve stabilizing the outlet and
stabilizing the stream within its geomorphic floodplain. A majority of the channel will remain in its current
location with minor adjustments to channel planform to tie into MS-R2. Enhancement activities along
lower R6 will involve slightly raising the bed elevation and removing any spoil/levees thus providing an
active floodplain. This approach will promote more frequent over bank flooding in the lower section with
hydric soils, thereby creating favorable hydrologic conditions for wetland restoration (re-establishment)
across the floodplain. The reach will be enhanced using appropriate step-pool morphology with a minimal
meander planform geometry that accommodates the steeper valley slope and narrow width.
Preservation: R3 (upper)
R3 (upper)
The upstream portion of R3 is an intermittent stream that is currently classified as a Rosgen ‘C5b’ stream
type. Preservation is being proposed along this reach since the existing headwater stream and wetland
system is mostly stable with a mature riparian buffer due to minimal historic impacts. The preservation
area will be protected in perpetuity through a permanent conservation easement. Riparian buffers in
excess of 50 feet will be protected along the entire length of R3. This approach will extend the wildlife
corridor from the main stem floodplain boundary throughout a majority of the headwater valley, while
providing a natural hydrologic connection and critical habitat linkage within the catchment area.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 32
DMS Project #100042

6.2 Reference Sites
6.2.1 Reference Streams
The morphologic data obtained from reference reach surveys can be a valuable tool for comparison and
used as a template for analog design of a stable stream in a similar valley type with similar bed material.
To extract the morphological relationships observed in a stable system, dimensionless ratios are
developed from the surveyed reference reach. These ratios can be applied to a stream design to allow the
designer to ‘mimic’ the natural, stable form of the target channel type. While reference reach data can be
a useful aid in analog design, they are not always necessary and can have limitations in smaller stream
systems (Hey, 2006). The flow patterns and channel formation for many reference reach quality streams
are often controlled by slope, bed material, drainage areas and larger trees and/or other deep-rooted
vegetation. Some meander geometry parameters, such as radius of curvature, are particularly affected by
vegetation control. Pattern ratios observed in reference reaches may not be applicable or are often
adjusted in the design criteria to create more conservative designs that are less likely to erode after
construction, before the permanent vegetation is established. Often the best reference data is from
adjacent stable stream reaches or reaches within the same watershed.
For comparison purposes, WLS selected local reference reaches in nearby watersheds and compared
them with composite reference data. The reference reach data set represents small “Rural Piedmont
Streams,” with similar valley morphology and slopes that fall within the same climatic, hydrophysiographic
and ecological region as the project site. The data shown on Table 15 helped to determine how the stream
system may respond to changes within the watershed. Figure 11 shows the reference site locations as
compared to the project site.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 33
DMS Project #100042

Table 15. Reference Reach Data Comparison
Parameter Local Reference Data Composite Reference Data
LW – R4 PD – R5 EJ – R1
Stream Type (Rosgen) E5 E5 C5 E4 C4
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s) 3.8 5.7 6.5 4.0 - 6.0 3.5 - 5.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft) 6.2 7.4 14.2 10.0 - 12.0 10.0 - 14.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft) 7.1 8.4 7.3 >2.2 >2.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf 1.8 1.2 1.5 1.1 - 1.3 1.1 - 1.4
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft) 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.0 - 1.1 1.0 - 1.1
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf 9.3 8.4 6.2 5.0 - 12.0 7.0 - 14.0
Radius of Curvature Ratio, Rc/Wbkf 2.5 1.7 1.6 1.2 - 2.5 2.0 - 3.0
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf 3.9 4.5 4.0 2.0 - 10.0 3.0 - 8.0
Sinuosity, K 1.22 1.17 1.18 1.3 - 1.6 1.2 - 1.5
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft) 0.0142 0.0011 0.0145 0.002 - 0.006 0.002 - 0.010
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft) 0.0123 0.0084 0.0118 --- ---
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf 2.6 2.5 2.9 1.2 - 2.5 1.2 - 2.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf 1.5 1.2 1.7 0.7 - 1.5 1.0 - 1.7
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf 3.1 3.7 5.0 2.5 - 5.0 3.0 - 7.0
Note 1: Composite reference reach values and ratios were compared using stable stream restoration projects
surveyed and monitored in NC as illustrated in the Natural Channel Design Checklist (Harman, 2011).
Note 2: On-site reference reach data was collected at the preservation reaches of Lake Wendell (Reach R4), Pen
Dell (Reach R5), and Edwards-Johnson (Reach R1) DMS full-delivery sites respectively.
6.2.2 Reference Wetlands
A reference wetland that is representative of the riparian wetland system to be restored at the Project
site was identified near the project area at the Lake Wendell Mitigation Project, Pen Dell Mitigation Project
and Edwards-Johnson Mitigation (collectively named ‘Edwards Projects’). The reference wetlands are part
of recently completed DMS full-delivery mitigation sites situated adjacent to stream preservation reaches
containing mature native species vegetation. The riparian wetland is an example of a Bottomland
Hardwood Forest (NC WAM, 2016). Bottomland Hardwood Forests exist in geomorphic floodplains along
second-order and larger streams. These wetlands are generally intermittently to seasonally inundated and
overbank flooding is the source of groundwater and surface runoff. The existing channel is stable and
lightly incised within the wetland area, however the hydrology has higher groundwater table and
overbank flooding was observed during the existing conditions assessment and monitoring period (MY2).
The soils are described as Wehadkee loam (Wt). A groundwater monitoring well will be installed to
document hydrology during the growing season prior to restoration activities and compared with the well
data at the Edwards projects.
6.3 Flow Regime
Extensive research demonstrates that a wide range of flows are essential to maintain stable and high
functioning habitat across ecological systems. The flow regime has been identified as the primary factor
in sustaining the ecological integrity of riparian systems (Poff et al. 1997) and is a key variable in
determining the abundance, distribution, and evolution of aquatic and riparian species (Schlosser 1985,

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 34
DMS Project #100042

Resh et al. 1988, Power et al. 1995, Doyle et al. 2005). The ecological significance of variable stream flows
is more relative to flow duration, not necessarily just the flow recurrence interval. Seasonal flow variations
correlate to biological relationships and habitat response. The flow conditions can generally be
categorized as low flow, channel-forming flow, or flood flows, each with specific ecological significance
(Postel and Richter, 2003).
A majority of stream miles (>80 percent) in North Carolina are classified as headwater streams (drainage
area <3.9 mi2), however, less than 10 percent of the 284 USGS stream gages in North Carolina are located
on headwater streams (EFSAB, 2013). WLS recognizes the importance of these stream flow variables and
the ecological role they play in supporting high functioning headwater steam and wetland systems. As
such, flow monitoring will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored headwater stream systems
exhibit seasonal base flow during a year with normal rainfall conditions. The stream surface flow
documentation methods are further described in Section 8.2. Table 16 summarizes the basic flow levels
and ecological roles the restoration design will provide after project implementation.
Table 16. Flow Level and Ecological Role
Low Flow (Base Flow):
occurs most
frequently/seasonally
-Provide year-round habitat for aquatic organisms (drying/inundation pattern)
-Maintain suitable conditions for water temperature and dissolved oxygen
-Provide water source for riparian plants and animals
-Enable movement through stream corridor and refuge from predators
-Support hyporheic functions and aquatic organisms

Channel-forming Flow:
infrequent, flow duration of
a few days per year
-Shape and maintain physical stream channel form
-Create and maintain pools, in-stream and refuge habitat
-Redistribute and sort fine and coarse sediments
-Reduce encroachment of vegetation in channel and establishment of exotic
species
-Maintain water quality by flushing pollutants
-Maintain hyporheic connection by mobilizing bed and fine material
-Create in-channel bars for seed colonization of native riparian plants

Flood Flow: very infrequent,
flow duration of a few days
per decade or century
-Deposition of fine sediment and nutrients on floodplain
-Maintain diversity, function, and health of riparian floodplain vegetation
-Create streamside habitat, new channels, sloughs, and off-channel rearing
habitat through lateral channel migration and avulsion
-Recharge floodplain and storage processes
-Recruitment of native wood and organic material into channel
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage and Discharge
Bankfull stage and its corresponding discharge are the primary variables used to develop a natural stable
channel design. However, the correct identification of the bankfull stage in the field was difficult and can
also be subjective (Williams, 1978; Knighton, 1988; and Johnson and Heil, 1996). Numerous definitions
exist of bankfull stage and methods for its identification in the field (Wolman and Leopold, 1957; Nixon,
1959; Schumm, 1960; Kilpatrick and Barnes, 1964; and Williams, 1978). The identification of bankfull stage
in the humid Southeast can be especially challenging because of dense understory vegetation and
extensive channel modification and subsequent adjustment in channel morphology.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 35
DMS Project #100042

It is generally understood that bankfull stage corresponds with the discharge that fills a channel to the
elevation of the active floodplain and represents a breakpoint between processes of channel formation
and floodplain development. The bankfull discharge, which also corresponds with the dominant discharge
or effective discharge, is the flow that moves the most sediment over time in stable alluvial channels.
Field indicators include the back of point bars, significant breaks in slope, changes in vegetation, the
highest scour line, or the top of the streambank (Leopold, 1994). The most consistent bankfull indicators
for streams in the Piedmont of North Carolina are the backs of point bars, breaks in slope at the front of
flat bankfull benches, or the top of the streambanks (Harman et al., 1999).
Upon completion of the field survey and geomorphic assessment, accurate identification of bankfull stage
could not be made in all reach sections throughout the site due to incised and impaired channel
conditions. Although some field indicators were apparent in segments with lower streambank heights and
discernible scour features, the reliability of the indicators was inconsistent due to the altered condition of
the stream channels. For this reason, the bankfull stage and discharge were estimated using published
regional curve information.
6.3.2 Regional Curve Comparison
Regional curves developed by Dunne and Leopold (1978) relate bankfull channel dimensions to drainage
area and are based on the channel forming discharge theory, which states that one unique flow can yield
the same channel morphology as the full range of flows. A primary purpose for developing regional curves
is to aid in identifying bankfull stage and dimension in un-gaged watersheds, as well as to help predict the
bankfull dimension and discharge for natural channel designs (Rosgen, 1994). Gage station analyses
throughout the United States have shown that the bankfull discharge has an average return interval of
1.5 years or 66.7% annual exceedance probability on the maximum annual series (Dunne and Leopold,
1978; Leopold, 1994).
Hydraulic geometry relationships are empirically derived and can be developed for a specific river or
extrapolated to a watershed in the same physiographic region with similar rainfall/runoff relationships
(FISRWG, 1998). Published and unpublished watershed specific bankfull regional curves are available for
a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et
al., 1999) and unpublished NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS, Walker, private communication, 2015) were used for comparison when
estimating bankfull discharge. The NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and bankfull hydraulic geometry
equations are shown in Table 17.
Table 17. North Carolina Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional
Curve (NRCS, 2015)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Published Harman et al., 1999)
Qbkf = 55.31 Aw 0.79 R2=0.97 Qbkf = 89.04 Aw 0.72 R2=0.91
Abkf = 19.23 Aw 0.65 R2=0.97 Abkf = 21.43 Aw 0.68 R2=0.95
Wbkf = 17.41 Aw 0.37 R2=0.79 Wbkf = 11.89 Aw 0.43 R2=0.81
Dbkf = 1.09 Aw 0.29 R2=0.80 Dbkf = 1.50 Aw 0.32 R2=0.88

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 36
DMS Project #100042

It’s important to note Project reaches R3, R4, R5 and R6 are classified as first order streams with upstream
impoundments and generally these smaller headwater streams can be poorly represented on the regional
curves. Based on our experience, the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations can slightly
overestimate discharge and channel dimensions for smaller ungaged streams, such as those present at
this site. Furthermore, estimating bankfull parameters subjectively rather than using deterministic values
may encourage designers to make decisions on a range of values and beliefs that the bankfull depths must
inherently be within that range (Johnson and Heil, 1996).
WLS has implemented numerous projects in ungauged drainages in the Piedmont hydrophysiographic
province of North Carolina, including nearby projects in Johnston and surrounding counties, and has
developed “mini-curves” specific to these projects. The data set on these small stream curves help reduce
uncertainty by providing additional reference points and supporting evidence for the selection of bankfull
indicators that produce slightly smaller dimensions and flow rates than the published regional curve data
set. Channel slope, valley setting, channel geometry, and sediment supply, as well as information from
the USGS regression and Manning’s equations were all considered during examination of the field data.
The estimated bankfull discharges and surveyed cross-sectional areas at the top of bank were plotted on
the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and illustrated in Appendix 2.
6.3.3 Channel Forming Discharge
A hydrologic analysis was completed to estimate and validate the design discharge and channel geometry
required to provide more frequent overbank flows and floodplain inundation. WLS used multiple methods
for evaluating the bankfull stage and dominant discharge for the project reaches. Cross-sections were
identified and surveyed to represent reach-wide conditions. Additional bankfull estimation methods, such
as the commonly accepted Manning’s equation, were compared to help interpret and adjust field
observations to select the appropriate design criteria and justification for the design approach.
The bankfull flows in gaged watersheds within the NC Rural Piedmont study documented return intervals
(RI) that ranges from 1.1 to 1.8, with a mean of 1.4 years (Harman et al, 1999). WLS also compared the 2-
year flow frequency using the published USGS regression equation for small rural streams (DA ≤3 mi2)
within the Piedmont hydrologic area of North Carolina (USGS, 2014). As expected, these values fall slightly
above the published bankfull discharge, but were extrapolated to represent a wider range of flows. WLS
then compared lower flow frequencies in the 1.0-yr, 1.2-yr, and 1.5-yr RI range versus survey data and
field observations (See Appendix 2). It should be noted that this best fit approach does not always match
the dataset, since it falls at the low end of the curve. Therefore, caution should be used when comparing
these lower RIs with additional data sets. Using the rationale described above, Table 18 provides the
bankfull discharge analyses and comparisons based on the rural piedmont regional curves, the Manning’s
equation discharges calculated from the representative cross-section geometry for existing reaches, USGS
regional regression equations, and the design discharge estimated based on the proposed design cross-
sections for all project reaches.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 37
DMS Project #100042

Table 18. Design Discharge Analysis Summary
Project
Reach
Designation
Watershed
Drainage
Area (Ac)
Published
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve
(cfs) 1
Unpublished
NC Rural
Piedmont
Regional
Curve (cfs) 2
Manning’s
Equation
(cfs) 3
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 2-year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 4
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 1.5-
year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 5
USGS
Regression
Equation
for 1.2-
year
Recurrence
Interval
(cfs) 5
Design
Discharge
Estimate
(cfs)
MS-R1 442 74.7 44.5 70.1 137.4 94.9 68.5 70.0
MS-R2 543 81.1 48.8 66.7 148.9 101.6 72.6 75.0
R3 (lower) 24 9.2 4.0 29.3 16.5 14.2 12.1 12.0
R5 (lower) 19 7.8 3.3 1.3 13.8 12.1 10.4 7.0
R6 25 9.5 4.2 19.7 17.0 12.1 10.4 12.0
Note 1: Published NC Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
Note 2: Unpublished Revised NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (NRCS, A. Walker personal communication, 2015).
Note 3: Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning’s Equation for the representative riffle cross-sections.
Bankfull stage roughness estimates (n-values) ranged from approximately 0.047 to 0.059 based on channel slopes, depth,
bed material size, and vegetation influence.
Note 4: USGS rural regression equation for 2-year flood recurrence interval, Q2
=163(DA)^0.7089*10^(0.0133*(IMPNLCD06)) for small rural streams (USGS, 2011)
Note 5: NC USGS rural regression equation extrapolated for 1.2- and 1.5-year flood recurrence interval (USGS, 2011)

After considering these estimation methods and results (geometry measurements, regional curves, flow
frequency and USGS regional regression equations), WLS estimated the design discharge using values
between the published NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve and Manning’s equation to select the
appropriate design dimensions and flows rates that best correspond to the design channel that will convey
the 1.2-yr to 1.5-yr RI.
6.3.4 Channel Stability and Sediment Transport Analysis
The sediment transport capacity and competency (entrainment) was analyzed to help predict stable
channel design conditions and discharges for the project reaches. Sediment samples were collected to
obtain a sediment size distribution, determine dimensionless critical shear stress, and calculate/predict
corresponding slope and depth required to move the largest particle class size (D100). The sample locations
are shown on Figure 6. The sieve data indicate that the dominant bed material in the stream reaches is
medium gravel under current conditions, with a few localized sections of coarser cobble material and
exposed bedrock. Table 19 illustrates boundary shear stress and stream power values under proposed
design conditions for the project reaches. See Appendix 2 for sediment particle size distribution for the
project reaches.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 38
DMS Project #100042

Table 19. Boundary Shear Stress and Stream Power
Parameter MS-R1 MS-R2
Channel Bottom Width (ft) 8.0 8.0
Channel Energy Slope (feet/ foot) 0.0065 0.005
Median Particle Size, D50 (mm) 21.0 4.3
Bankfull XSC Area (square feet) 16.5 18.0
Composite Mannings ‘n’ Value 0.028 0.032
Bankfull Width, W (feet) 14.0 14.5
Bankfull Depth, D (feet) 1.18 1.24
Hydraulic Radius, R (feet) 1.01 1.06
Bankfull Velocity, V (cfs) 4.2 4.2
Bankfull Discharge, Q (cfs) 70.0 75.0
Boundary Shear Stress, τ (lbs/ft2) 0.41 0.33
Stream Power (W/m2) 25.3 20.1
Note 1: No subpavement samples were collected from reaches R3, R4, R5, and R6 due to the small steam size
and lack of substrate larger than coarse sand (D50 <2mm).

As a design consideration, portions of the bed material may contain particle sizes larger than the D84 to
achieve vertical stability in steeper sections immediately after construction. The proposed channel slopes
throughout the project reaches range from approximately 1.0% to over 5.0%. In general, sections with
steeper slopes will be addressed by installing a combination of grade control structures such as log/rock
riffles and log/boulders step pools in straighter segments. Incorporating these structures will prevent
further channel degradation and embeddedness, promote natural scour and sediment storage, and
increase bed/bank stability since shear stress and sediment entrainment are directly affected by factors
such flow energy distribution and channel resistance. While it is predicted that the restoration and
enhancement efforts will reduce stream bed and bank erosion, the channels must still adequately
transport finer bedload material while maintaining vertical and lateral stability.
It should be noted that sediment competency was not calculated and Wolman pebble counts are not
appropriate for sand-bed systems; therefore, visual inspection was utilized to characterize the bed
material in reaches R3, R4, R5, and R6. Most of the site reaches contain coarse (D50 = 0.5-1.0 mm), with a
limited fine gravel bottom due to the parent soil material and the material from the eroding streambanks.
A site-specific sediment rating curve and budget was not developed given the limited sediment supply
and headwater position in the watershed. This detailed effort requires using on-site monitoring data from
documented flow events within the project watershed. However, empirical relationships from stable
sand-bed streams were compared to published values and reference streams that have similar
characteristics and boundary conditions such as slope, controlling vegetation and bedform morphology.
Comparing the design shear stress and stream power values for the project reaches useful to determine
if the values predicted are within an acceptable range to those found in other stable sand-bed systems.
Based on field observations within the project watershed, the streams receive mostly fine-grained
materials directly from streambank erosion with some contributions from the upper catchment area.
Further field investigations confirmed that the sediment supply to the project reaches is transported
mostly during larger storm events due to small headwater drainage sand influences from dense vegetation

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 39
DMS Project #100042

cover and stormwater BMPs. The stream channels along reaches R2, R3 (upper), and R4 have lost
floodplain connectivity and continue to deepen/widen which increases stream power and helps to
transport the fine sediment load.
6.4 Wetland Design Approach
Small degraded riparian wetlands were documented within the project boundary as well as mapped hydric
soils. These areas contain hydric soils indicators and total approximately 5.14 acres of hydric soils and
0.074 acres of degraded jurisdictional wetlands. Figure 6 illustrates areas where conditions are favorable
for improving wetland conditions. The predominant native wetland vegetation communities are largely
devoid or not considered reference quality in areas proposed for restoration. On-site investigations of the
soils within the project area were conducted in 2017 by licensed soil scientist (LSS), Wyatt Brown, LSS,
with Brown’s Environmental Group (BEG). The findings were based on hand-turned auger borings and
indicate the presence of hydric soils along the floodplains of R3 (lower), MS-R1, the lower end of R4, MS-
R2, R5 (lower), and the lower end of R6. The hydric soils status is based upon the “Hydric Soils of the
United States – A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils” (Version 7.0, 2010). The soils within
the project area were categorized as “Hydric”, “Non-Hydric over Hydric”, and “Non-Hydric” in the hydric
soils investigation. The presence of hydric soil indicators and hydric inclusions within 12 inches of the soil
surface was verified and a hydric soil boundary was identified as containing potential jurisdictional
hydrology. BEG noted that areas of existing hydric soils have been manipulated by a combination of
agricultural use silvicultural land uses. Throughout these floodplain areas, existing hydric soils have a
disturbed surface underlain with a dark gray sandy clay loam with redoximorphic concentration. See
Hydric Soils Investigation in the Appendix 2.
Based on the existing conditions and BEG recommendations, combining the proposed stream
modifications to incised channels presents a favorable opportunity for meeting riparian wetland
restoration criteria and functional uplift potential. It is anticipated that as a direct result of implementing
Priority Level I stream restoration, limited overburden soil removal and surface roughening, and
revegetation, lost wetland hydrology will be restored and allow the wetlands to regain their
natural/historic functions. It should be noted that the areas proposed for wetland restoration (re-
establishment) and enhancement (Figure 9) are slightly different from the original proposal based on the
detailed topographic survey, F results and conservation easement boundary.

WLS has compared monitoring data from successful stream and wetland restoration projects in adjacent
valleys with the same soil types and expects these areas will likely experience seasonal wetness for
prolonged periods and conditions are favorable to support appropriate wetland hydrology. Based on the
2016 NCIRT guidance and detailed hydric soils study, the suggested wetland saturation and hydroperiod
range for the Wehadkee loam (Wt) soil series is 12-16%, which exceeds the 5% minimum performance
criteria.
Riparian Wetland Re-establishment: W1, W2, and W3
Areas of hydric soils were also documented along portions of the project floodplains areas. These hydric
soils will be restored with high functioning riparian wetlands as a direct result of implementing a Priority
Level I restoration, limited soil manipulation (less than 1-foot depth), and planting native vegetation. The

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 40
DMS Project #100042

groundwater hydrology will be restored and allow the wetland areas to regain their natural or historic
functions.
Riparian Wetland Enhancement: WB, WC, and WD
As described above, the proposed restoration activities will provide significant functional uplift across the
project area. The proposed activities will also improve and enhance the hyporheic zone interaction and
hydrology to existing wetland areas. Wetland enhancement areas will be planted with native wet tolerant
species. Restoration of a natural stream and wetland system often requires that the new channel be
relocated to the lowest part of the valley, which may result in a temporary disturbance of existing marginal
or lower functioning wetlands. In some areas, disturbance of the existing wetlands may be unavoidable
to restore a stable and fully functioning wetland and riparian system. However, restoration of the stream
channels will also improve areas of adjacent wetlands through higher water table conditions (elevated
stream profile) and a more frequent over-bank flooding regime.
6.5 Riparian Buffer Design Approach
One of the primary project goals includes restoring riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat. An
objective identified in support of this goal includes planting to re-establish a native species vegetation
riparian buffer corridor along the entire length of the project reaches where the existing riparian corridor
is disturbed. This objective will be met by establishing riparian buffers which extend a minimum of 50 feet
from the top of the streambanks along each of the project stream reaches, as well as permanently
protecting those buffers with a conservation easement. For project stream reaches proposed for
restoration and enhancement where the riparian buffer is the disturbed, the riparian buffers will be
restored through reforestation.

Many of the proposed riparian buffer widths within the conservation easement are greater than 50 feet
along one or both streambanks to provide additional functional uplift potential, such as encompassing
adjacent wetland areas. The riparian buffer zone for the project includes the streambanks, floodplain,
riparian wetland, and upland transitional areas. The proposed planting boundaries are shown on the
revegetation plans in Appendix 1. The conservation easement areas also may include areas outside of the
riparian buffer zone that will be revegetated, including areas that lack vegetation species diversity, or
areas otherwise disturbed or adversely impacted by construction. Proposed plantings will be conducted
using native species bare-root trees and shrubs, live stakes, and seedlings. Proposed plantings will
predominantly consist of bare root vegetation and will generally be planted at a total target density of
680 stems per acre. This planting density has proven successful with the reforestation of past completed
mitigation projects, based on successful regulatory project closeout, and including the current USACE
regulatory guidelines requiring levels of woody stem survival throughout the monitoring period, with a
MY7 final survival rate of 210 stems per acre.

WLS recognizes that riparian buffer conditions at mature reference sites are not reflected at planted or
successional buffer sites until the woody species being to establish and compete with herbaceous
vegetation. To account for this, we will utilize a successful riparian buffer planting strategy that includes
a combination of overstory, or canopy, and understory species. WLS will also consider the supplemental
planting of larger and older planting stock to modify species density and type, based on vegetation

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 41
DMS Project #100042

monitoring results after the first few growing seasons. This consideration will be utilized particularly to
increase the rate of buffer establishment and buffer species variety, as well as to decrease the vegetation
maintenance costs. An example might include selective supplemental planting of older mast producing
species as potted stock in later years for increased survivability.

The site planting strategy also includes early successional, as well as climax species. The vegetation
selections will be mixed throughout the project planting areas so that the early successional species will
give way to climax species as they mature over time. The early successional species which have proven
successful include river birch and American sycamore. The climax species that have proven successful
include oaks (Quercus spp.) and tulip-tree (Liriodendron tulipifera). The understory and shrub layer species
are all considered to be climax species in the riparian buffer community.
6.5.1 Proposed Vegetation Planting
The proposed plant selection will help to establish a natural vegetation community that will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on an appropriate
reference community. Schafale’s (2012) guidance on vegetation communities for Piedmont Bottomland
Forest (mixed riparian community) and Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest (Piedmont Subtype), the USACE
Wetland Research Program (WRP) Technical Note VN-RS-4.1 (1997), as well as existing mature species
identified throughout the project area, were referenced during the development of riparian buffer and
adjacent riparian wetland plants for the site. The proposed natural vegetation community will include
appropriate strata (canopy, understory, shrub, and herbaceous species) based on the appropriate
reference community. Within each of the four strata, a variety of species will be planted to ensure an
appropriate and diverse plant community.
Tree species selected for restoration and enhancement areas will be weak to tolerant of flooding. Weakly
tolerant species can survive and grow in areas where the soil is saturated or flooded for relatively short
periods of time. Moderately tolerant species can survive in soils that are saturated or flooded for several
months during the growing season. Flood tolerant species can survive on sites in which the soil is saturated
or flooded for extended periods during the growing season (WRP, 1997). Species proposed for
revegetation planting are presented in Table 20.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 42
DMS Project #100042

Table 20. Proposed Riparian Buffer Bare Root and Live Stake Plantings
Scientific Name Common Name % Proposed for Planting
by Species
Wetland Tolerance
Bare Root Plantings – Overstory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Betula nigra River birch 7% FACW
Tilia americana Basswood 7% FACU
Platanus occidentalis American sycamore 7% FACW
Nyssa sylvatica Black gum 6% FAC
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip-poplar 7% FACU
Quercus alba White oak 6% FACU
Quercus rubra Northern red oak 3% FACU
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green ash 3% FACW
Bare Root Plantings – Understory
(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)
Diospyros virginiana Persimmon 7% FAC
Amelanchier arborea Common serviceberry 5% FAC
Magnolia tripetala Umbrella magnolia 6% FACU
Carpinus caroliniana American hornbeam 6% FAC
Hamamelis virginiana Witch-hazel 6% FACU
Asimina triloba Pawpaw 6% FAC
Lindera benzoin Spicebush 6% FACW
Alnus serrulata Hazel alder 6% OBL
Corylus americana Hazelnut 6% FACU
Riparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings – Streambanks
(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’- 8’ Spacing @ Riffle Sections)
Sambucus canadensis Elderberry 20% FACW
Salix sericea Silky Willow 30% OBL
Salix nigra Black Willow 10% OBL
Cornus amomum Silky Dogwood 40% FACW
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of plant stock.
6.5.2 Planting Materials and Methods
Planting will be conducted during the dormant season, with all trees installed between Mid-November
and early March if possible. However, trees must be installed by the end of May to have the first year of
monitoring in that year. Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative
wetness of areas to be planted as compared to the revegetation plan. The final planting zone limits may
be modified based on these observations and comparisons, and the final selection of the location of the
planted species will be matched according the species wetness tolerance and the anticipated wetness of
the planting area. It should be noted that smaller tree species planted in the understory, such as Ironwood,
will unlikely meet the height targets for tree species after seven years.
Plant stock delivery, handling, and installation procedures will be coordinated and scheduled to ensure
that woody vegetation can be planted within two days of being delivered to the project site. Soils at the
site areas proposed for planting will be prepared by sufficiently loosening prior to planting. Bare root

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 43
DMS Project #100042

seedlings will be manually planted using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other approved method.
Planting holes prepared for the bare root seedlings will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread
outward and downward without “J-rooting.” Soil will be loosely re-compacted around each planting, as
the last step, to prevent roots from drying out.
Live Staking and Live Branch Cuttings: Where live staking is proposed, live stakes will typically be installed
at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and the stakes will be spaced approximately two to three
feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections, using a triangular spacing
pattern along the streambanks, between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. When
bioengineering is proposed, live branch cutting bundles comprised of similar live stake species, shall be
installed at five linear feet per bundle approximately two to three branches thick. The basal ends of the
live branch cuttings, or whips, shall contact the back of the excavated slope and shall extend six inches
from the slope face.
Permanent Seeding: Permanent seed mixtures of native species herbaceous vegetation and temporary
herbaceous vegetation seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. The
individual species were specifically selected due to their native occurrence in Johnston County, NC.
Temporary and permanent seeding will be conducted simultaneously at all disturbed areas of the site
during construction and will conducted with mechanical broadcast spreaders. Simultaneous permanent
and temporary seeding activities helps to ensure rapid growth and establishment of herbaceous ground
cover and promotes soil stability and riparian habitat uplift.

Table 21 lists the proposed species, mixtures, and application rates for permanent seeding. The vegetation
species proposed for permanent seeding are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along
restored stream channels, providing long-term stability. The vegetation species proposed for temporary
seeding germinate quickly to swiftly establish vegetative ground cover and thus, short term stability. The
permanent seed mixture proposed is suitable for streambank, floodplain, and adjacent riparian wetland
areas, and the upland transitional areas in the riparian buffer. Beyond the riparian buffer areas, temporary
seeding will also be applied to all other disturbed areas of the site that are susceptible to erosion. These
areas include constructed streambanks, access roads, side slopes, and spoil piles. If temporary seeding is
applied from November through April, rye grain will be used and applied at a rate of 130 pounds per acre.
If applied from May through October, temporary seeding will consist of browntop millet, applied at a rate
of 40 pounds per acre.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 44
DMS Project #100042

Table 21. Proposed Riparian Buffer Permanent Seeding
Scientific Name Common Name % Proposed for
Planting by
Species
Seeding Rate
(lb/acre)
Wetland
Tolerance
Andropogon gerardii Big blue stem 10% 1.50 FAC
Dichanthelium clandestinum Deer Tongue 15% 1.50 FACW
Carex crinata Fringed sedge 10% 2.25 FACW+
Chasmanthium latifolium River oats 5% 1.50 FACU
Elymus virginicus Virginia wild rye 15% 1.50 FAC
Juncus effusus Soft rush 5% 2.25 FACW+
Panicum virgatum Switchgrass 10% 1.50 FAC+
Eutrochium fistulosum Joe-pye-weed 5% 0.75 FACW
Schizachyrium scoparium Little blue stem 10% 0.75 FACU
Tripsacum dactyloides Eastern gamagrass 5% 0.75 FAC+
Sorghastrum nutans Indiangrass 10% 0.75 FACU
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. Species
substitutions will be coordinated between WLS and planting contractor prior to the procurement of seeding
stock.

Invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet and multiflora rose will be treated to allow native
plants to become established within the conservation easement. Larger native tree species will be
preserved and harvested woody material will be utilized to provide bank stabilization cover and/or nesting
habitat. Hardwood species will be planted to provide the appropriate vegetation for the restored riparian
buffer areas. During the project implementation, invasive species exotic vegetation will be treated both
to control its presence and reduce its spread within the conservation easement areas. These efforts will
aid in the establishment of native riparian vegetation species within the restored riparian buffer areas.
6.6 Water Quality Treatment Features
Water quality treatment features in the form of small basins or impoundments designed to treat runoff
from the surrounding landscape are proposed along middle reach MS-R1 and upper R6 adjacent to the
restored riparian buffer corridor. The small basins will capture overland flow, increase infiltration and
groundwater recharge, diffuse flow energies, and allow nutrient uptake within the extended riparian
buffer area. The water quality treatment feature will be located within the conservation easement. The
feature is sized to treat storage volumes, which have been calculated by comparing the SCS Curve Number
Method and Simple Method. The feature is intended to function most similar to a stormwater wetland to
temporarily store surface runoff in shallow pools that support emergent and native riparian vegetation. It
will be designed and constructed such that it does not require any long-term maintenance and will be
sited inside the conservation easement boundary.

The feature will be excavated along non-jurisdictional flat or depressional areas where ephemeral
drainages intersect with the proposed restored stream corridor. The area will be improved by grading
flatter side slopes (>3H:1V) and planting appropriate wetland vegetation. Over time, as vegetation
becomes established, the areas will function as shallow wetland complexes or depressions. The weir and
outlet channels will be constructed with suitable material and stabilized with permanent vegetation and

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 45
DMS Project #100042

stone that will deliver reduced runoff and prevent headcut migration or erosion into the newly
constructed areas. This strategy will allow the feature to function properly with minimal risk and without
long-term maintenance requirements. See Appendix 1 design plan sheets for details and feature location.
6.7 Site Construction Methods
6.7.1 Site Grading and Construction Elements
Following initial evaluation of the design criteria, detailed refinements were made to the design plans in
the field to accommodate the existing valley characteristics, vegetation influences and channel
morphology. This was done to minimize unnecessary disturbance of the riparian area, and to allow for
some natural channel adjustments following construction. The design plans and construction elements
have been tailored to produce a cost and resource efficient design that is constructible, using a level of
detail that corresponds to the tools of construction. A general construction sequence is included on the
project design plan sheets located in Appendix 1.
Much of the grading across the site will be conducted within the existing riparian corridor. The restored
streams will be excavated within the existing headwater valley. Suitable fill material will be generated
from new channel excavation and adjacent upland areas and hauled to ditch fill/plugs or stockpile
locations as necessary. Portions of the existing, unstable channels will be partially to completely filled in
along their length using compactable material excavated from construction of the restored channels.
Wetland and floodplain grading activities will focus on restoring pre-disturbance valley topography by
removing field crowns, overburden/spoil, surface drains, and legacy pond sediments that were imposed
during conversion of the land for agriculture. In general, floodplain grading activities will be minor, with
the primary goal of soil scarification, creating depressional areas, water quality and habitat features, and
microtopographic crenulations by filling the drainage features on the site back to natural ground
elevations (Scherrer, 1999).
6.7.2 In-stream Structures and Site Improvement Features
A variety of in-stream structures are proposed for the project. Structures including log vanes, constructed
log riffles, constructed stone riffles, grade control log j-hook vanes, rootwads, log weirs, stone and log
step pools, and log step pools. Geolifts with toe wood, various other bioengineering measures, and native
species vegetation transplants will be used to stabilize the newly-restored stream and improve bedform
diversity and habitat functions. All in-stream structures will be constructed from native materials such as
hardwood trees, trunks/logs, brush/branches, and gravel stone materials. Native woody debris will be
harvested on-site during the project construction and incorporated into the stream channel restoration
whenever possible. To ensure sustainability of these structures, WLS will use design and construction
methods that have proven successful on numerous past projects in the same geographic region and
similar site conditions.
Floodplain features such as vernal pools and tree throws are commonly found in natural riparian systems.
These features will be appropriately added to provide additional habitat and serve as water storage and
sediment sinks throughout the restoration corridor. When appropriate, these depressional features will
be added adjacent to abandoned channel sections and/or strategic locations throughout the floodplain
to provide habitat and serve as water storage and sediment sinks throughout the corridor (Metcalf, 2004).

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 46
DMS Project #100042

6.7.3 Construction Feasibility
WLS has field verified that the project site has adequate, viable construction access, staging, and stockpile
areas. Physical constraints or barriers, such as stream crossings or ROWs, account for only a small
percentage of the proposed total stream reach length within the project boundary. Existing site access
points and features may be used for future access after the completion of construction. Any potential
impacts to existing wetland areas will be avoided whenever possible during construction. Only minimal,
temporary impacts will be allowed when necessary for maximized permanent stream, wetland, and
riparian buffer functional uplift.
7 Performance Standards
The applied success criteria for the project will follow the approved performance standards and monitoring
protocols presented in this mitigation plan, which have been developed in compliance with the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template Guidance, adopted June 2017, as well as the USACE
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update issued in October 2016, and
Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources; Final Rule, issued in 2008. In addition, the
monitoring success criteria, practices, and corresponding reporting will follow DMS’s Stream and Wetland
Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines issued April 2015, the As-built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance issued in June 2017, the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data
Requirements, and Content Guidance, issued June 2017, and the NCDMS Closeout Report Template, Version
2.2, adopted January 2016. Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of seven years with the final
duration dependent upon performance trends toward achieving project goals and objectives. Specific
success criteria components and evaluation methods are described below.
7.1 Streams
Stream Hydrology: Four separate bankfull or over bank events must be documented within the seven-year
monitoring period and the stream hydrology monitoring will continue until four bankfull events have been
documented in separate years. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring
period, release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the IRT. Surface flow for restored intermittent
streams will be documented using gauges or automated data loggers.
Stream Profiles, Vertical Stability, and Floodplain Access: Stream profiles, as a measure of vertical stability
and floodplain access will be evaluated by looking at Bank Height Ratios (BHR). In addition, observed
bedforms should be consistent with those observed for channels of the design stream type(s). The BHR
shall not exceed 1.2 along the restored Project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored
reaches of the channel where BHRs were corrected through design and construction. Vertical stability and
floodplain access will both be evaluated by looking at Entrenchment Ratios (ER) which is lateral extent of
flooding during bankfull. The ER shall be no less than 2.2 (≥1.4 for ‘B’ stream types) along the restored
project stream reaches. This standard only applies to restored reaches of the channel where ERs were
corrected through design and construction.
Stream Horizontal Stability: Cross-sections will be used to document stability of stream dimension. There
should be minimal change expected in post-restoration cross-sections. If measurable changes do occur,

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 47
DMS Project #100042

they should be evaluated to determine if the changes represent a movement toward a more unstable
condition (e.g., downcutting, erosion) or a movement towards increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetation
establishment, deposition along the streambanks, decrease in width/depth ratio). Cross-sections shall be
cross-sections should fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream
type. In general, BHR and ER at any measured riffle cross-section should not change by more than 10%
from the baseline condition during any given monitoring interval.
Streambed Material Condition and Stability: After construction, it anticipated that particle size
distributions will migrate to those identified as appropriate for gravel dominated supply as part of the
design process. Some fining of stream bed material may occur during the first few years after construction.
However, long term trends are anticipated to demonstrate minimal change in the particle size distribution
of the streambed materials, over time, given the current watershed conditions and future upstream
sediment supply regime. Since the streams are predominantly gravel-bed systems with minimal sand,
significant changes in particle size distribution are not expected.
Jurisdictional Stream Flow: The restored stream systems classified as intermittent must exhibit base flow
for at least 30 consecutive days of the year during a year under normal rainfall conditions.
7.2 Wetlands
Wetland Hydrology: The performance standard for wetland hydrology will be based on a hydroperiod
greater than 12% using the suggested wetland saturation thresholds for soils taxonomic subgroups
provided by the IRT and on-site wetland reference data. The proposed success criteria for wetland
hydrology will be when the soils are saturated within 12 inches of the soil surface no less than 12% (27
days) of the growing season (March through November) based on WETS data table for Johnston County,
NC. The saturated conditions should occur during a period when antecedent precipitation has been
normal or drier than normal for a minimum frequency of 5 years in 10 (USACE, 2005 and 2010b).
Precipitation data will be obtained from a rain gauge on an adjacent mitigation site approximately 0.5
miles south of the Project and compared with the Clayton (CLAY) Research Weather Station, which is
approximately 9 miles southeast from the Project site. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur
during the first seven years of monitoring, WLS will continue to monitor the Project hydrology until the
Project site has been saturated for the appropriate hydroperiod. If rainfall amounts for any given year
during the monitoring period are abnormally low, reference wetland hydrology data will be compared to
determine if there is a correlation with the weather conditions and site variability.
7.3 Vegetation
Vegetative restoration success for the project during the intermediate monitoring years will be based on
the survival of at least 320, three-year-old planted trees per acre at the end of Year 3 of the monitoring
period (MY3) and at least 260, five-year-old, planted trees per acre at the end of Year 5 of the monitoring
period (MY5). The final vegetative restoration success criteria will be achieving a density of no less than
210, seven-year-old planted stems per acre in Year Seven of monitoring (MY7). In addition, planted trees
in each vegetation plot must average 7 feet in height after MY5 and 10 feet in height at MY7 before
closeout.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 48
DMS Project #100042

8 Monitoring Plan
In accordance with the approved mitigation plan, the baseline monitoring document and as-built report
documenting the mitigation activities will be developed within 60 days of the completion of planting and
monitoring device installation at the restored Project. In addition, a period of at least six months will
separate the as-built baseline measurements and the first-year monitoring measurements. The baseline
monitoring document and as-built monitoring report will include all information required by current DMS
templates and guidance reference above, including planimetric (plan view) and elevation (profile view)
information, photographs, sampling plot locations, a description of initial vegetation species composition
by community type, and location of monitoring stations. The report will include a list of the vegetation
species planted, along with the associated planting densities
WLS will conduct mitigation performance monitoring based on these methods and will submit annual
monitoring reports to DMS by December 31st of each monitoring year during which required monitoring
is conducted. The annual monitoring reports will organize and present the information resulting from the
methods described in detail below. The annual monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology
for DMS to document the project status and trends, for population of DMS’s databases for analyses, for
research purposes, and to assist in decision making regarding project close-out. Project success criteria
must be met by the final monitoring year prior to project closeout, or monitoring will continue until unmet
criteria are successfully met. Table 22 in Section 8.4 summarizes the monitoring methods and linkage
between the goals, parameters, and expected functional lift outcomes. Figure 6 illustrates the pre-
construction and Figure 10 illustrates the post-construction monitoring feature types and location.
8.1 Visual Assessment Monitoring
WLS will conduct visual assessments in support of mitigation performance monitoring. Visual assessments
of all stream reaches will be conducted twice per monitoring year with at least five months in between
each site visit for each of the seven years of monitoring. Photographs will be used to visually document
system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank and bed stability, condition of in-
stream structures, channel migration, active headcuts, live stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant
species or animal browsing, easement boundary encroachments, cattle exclusion fence damage, and the
general condition of pools and riffles. The monitoring activities will be summarized in DMS’s Visual Stream
Morphology Stability Assessment Table and the Vegetation Conditions Assessment Table as well as a
Current Conditions Plan View (CCPV) drawing formatted to DMS digital drawing requirements, which are
used to document and quantify the visual assessment throughout the monitoring period.
A series of photographs over time will be also be compared to subjectively evaluate channel aggradation
(bar formations) or degradation, streambank erosion, successful maturation of riparian vegetation, and
effectiveness of sedimentation and erosion control measures. More specifically, the longitudinal profile
photos should indicate the absence of developing bars within the channel or excessive increase in channel
depth, while lateral photos should not indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the banks.
The photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations
(and view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan
view map. The results of the visual monitoring assessments will be used to support the development of the
annual monitoring document that provides the visual assessment metrics.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 49
DMS Project #100042

8.2 Stream Assessment Monitoring
Based on the stream design approaches, different stream monitoring methods are proposed for the
various project reaches. Hydrologic monitoring will be conducted for all project stream reaches. For
reaches that involve a combination of traditional Restoration (Rosgen Priority Level I and II) and
Enhancement Level I (bed/bank stabilization) approaches, geomorphic monitoring methods that follow
those recommended by the USACE Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update, and NCEEP’s Stream and Wetland Mitigation Monitoring Guidelines, which are described below,
will be employed to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices.
Visual monitoring will be conducted along these reaches as described herein. For project reaches involving
an Enhancement Level II approach, monitoring efforts will focus primarily on visual inspections, photo
documentation, and vegetation assessments, each as described herein. The monitoring of these project
reaches will utilize the methods described under visual monitoring. Each of the proposed stream
monitoring methods are described in detail below.
8.2.1 Hydrologic Monitoring
The occurrence of four required bankfull events (overbank flows) within the monitoring period, along with
floodplain access by flood flows, will be documented using pressure transducers or crest gauges and
photography. The crest gauges or pressure transducers will be installed on the floodplain of and across
the dimension of the restored single thread-channels as needed for monitoring. The gauges will record
the watermark associated with the highest flood stage between monitoring site visits. The gauges will be
used to determine if a bankfull or significant flow event has occurred since the previous gauge check.
Corresponding photographs will be used to document the occurrence of debris lines and sediment
deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits. This hydrologic monitoring will help establish
that the restoration objectives of restoring floodplain functions and promoting more natural flood
processes are being met.
8.2.2 Geomorphic Monitoring
Horizontal Pattern: A planimetric survey will be conducted for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as-built baseline conditions (Monitoring Year 0). The survey
will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, bankfull, and top of banks.
The plan view measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, meander width ratio will be taken on
newly constructed meanders during baseline documentation (Monitoring Year 0) only. The described visual
monitoring will also document any changes or excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the restored
channel. The results of the planimetric survey should show that the restored horizontal geometry is
consistent with intended design stream type. These measurements will demonstrate that the restored
stream channel pattern provides more stable planform and associated features than the old channel, which
provide improved aquatic habitat and geomorphic function, as per the restoration objectives.
Longitudinal Profile: A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of restored channel
immediately after construction to document as-built baseline conditions for the first year of monitoring
only. The survey will be tied to a permanent benchmark and measurements will include thalweg, water
surface, bankfull, and top of low bank. Each of these measurements will be taken at the head of each

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 50
DMS Project #100042

feature (e.g., riffle, pool) and at the maximum pool depth. The longitudinal profile should show that the
bedform features installed are consistent with intended design stream type. The longitudinal profiles will
not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability has been documented
or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary. These measurements will demonstrate that the
restored stream profile provides more bedform diversity than the old channel with multiple facet features
(such as scour pools and riffles) that provide improved aquatic habitat, as per the restoration objectives.
BHRs will be measured along each of the restored reaches using the results of the longitudinal profile.
Horizontal Dimension: Permanent cross-sections will be installed and surveyed at an approximate rate of
one cross-section per twenty (20) bankfull widths or an average distance interval (not to exceed 500 LF) of
restored stream, with approximately seven (7) cross-sections located at riffles, and four (4) located at pools.
Each cross-section will be monumented on both streambanks to establish the exact transect used and to
facilitate repetition each year and easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross-section surveys will
occur in years 0 (as-built), 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7, and will include measurements of bankfull cross-sectional area
(Abkf) at low bank height, Bank Height Ratio (BHR) and Entrenchment Ratio (ER). The monitoring survey
will include points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of streambanks, bankfull, inner berm, edge
of water, and thalweg, if the features are present.
There should be minimal change in as-built cross-sections. Stable cross-sections will establish that the
restoration goal of creating geomorphically stable stream conditions has been met. If changes do take
place, they will be documented in the survey data and evaluated to determine if they represent a
movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g., down-cutting or erosion) or a movement toward
increased stability (e.g., settling, vegetative changes, deposition along the streambanks, or decrease in
width-to-depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification System, all monitored cross-sections should
fall within the quantitative parameters defined for channels of the design stream type. Given the smaller
channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pin arrays will not be installed unless
monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion at cross-sections occurring in meander bends, typically at
pools.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross-section. Lateral photos should not
indicate excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. Photographs will be taken of both
streambanks looking downstream at each cross-section. A survey tape stretched between the permanent
cross-section monuments/pins will be centered in each of the streambank photographs. The water
elevation will be shown in the lower edge of the frame, and as much of the streambank as possible will be
included in each photo. Photographers should attempt to consistently maintain the same area in each
photo over time.
8.2.3 Flow Duration Monitoring
Monitoring of stream flow will be conducted to demonstrate that the restored stream systems classified
as intermittent exhibit surface flow for a minimum of 30 consecutive days throughout some portion of the
year during a year with normal rainfall conditions. To determine if rainfall amounts are normal for the given
year, a rainfall gauge will be installed on the site to compare precipitation amounts using tallied data
obtained from on site and the Clayton WETS station. If a normal year of precipitation does not occur during

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 51
DMS Project #100042

the first seven years of monitoring, monitoring of flow conditions on the site will continue until it
documents that the intermittent streams have been flowing during the appropriate times of the year.
The proposed flow monitoring of the reaches (R4 and R6 respectively) will include the installation of
continuous stream stage recorders within the bottom (toe of slope) of the channel towards the upper one-
third of the reach. In addition, photographic documentation may be used to subjectively evaluate and
document channel flow conditions throughout the year. More specifically, the longitudinal photos should
indicate the presence of flow within the channel to illustrate water levels within the pools and riffles. The
photographs will be taken from a height of approximately five feet to ensure that the same locations (and
view directions) at the site are documented in each monitoring period and will be shown on a plan view
map. Monitoring flow gauges (continuous-read pressure transducers) will be installed towards the upper
one-third of restored intermittent reaches. The devices will be inspected on a quarterly basis to document
surface flow hydrology and provide a basis for evaluating flow response to rainfall events and surface runoff
during various water tables levels throughout the monitoring period (KCI, DMS, 2010).
8.3 Wetland Monitoring
Automated groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to document hydrologic conditions of the
restored wetland areas to determine hydrologic success criteria are achieved. An additional gauge will be
used at a reference wetland area to compare the hydrologic response within the restored wetland area.
Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed to record daily groundwater levels in accordance with the
USACE standard methods described in “Technical Standard for Water Table Monitoring of Potential
Wetland Sites” (ERDC TN-WRAP-05-2, June 2005). The objective for the monitoring well data is to
demonstrate that the Project site exhibits an increased flood frequency as compared to pre-restoration
conditions and on-site reference conditions.
8.4 Vegetation Monitoring
Successful restoration of the vegetation at the project site is dependent upon successful hydrologic
restoration, active establishment and survival of the planted preferred canopy vegetation species, and
volunteer regeneration of the native plant community. To determine if these criteria are successfully
achieved, vegetation-monitoring quadrants or plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-EEP Level I & II Monitoring Protocol (CVS, 2008) and DMS Stream and
Wetland Monitoring Guidelines (DMS, 2014). The vegetation monitoring plots shall be approximately 2%
of the planted portion of the site with a minimum of five (5) plots established randomly within the planted
riparian buffer areas. The sampling may employ quasi-random plot locations which may vary upon
approval from DMS and IRT. Any random plots should comprise no more than 50% of the total required
plots, and the location (GPS coordinates and orientation) will identified in the monitoring reports.
No monitoring quadrants will be established within undisturbed wooded areas, however visual
observations will be documented in the annual monitoring reports to describe any changes to the existing
vegetation community. The size and location of individual quadrants will be 100 square meters (10m X
10m or 5m X 20m) for woody tree species and may be adjusted based on site conditions after construction
activities have been completed.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 52
DMS Project #100042

Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall each required monitoring year, prior to the loss of leaves.
Mortality will be determined from the difference between the previous year's living, planted seedlings
and the current year's living, planted seedlings. Data will be collected at each individual quadrant and will
include specific data for monitored stems on diameter, height, species, date planted, and grid location, as
well as a collective determination of the survival density within that quadrant. Relative values will be
calculated, and importance values will be determined. Individual planted seedlings will be marked at
planting or monitoring baseline setup so that those stems can be found and identified consistently each
successive monitoring year. Volunteer species will be noted and if they are on the approved planting list
and meet success criteria standards, they will be counted towards success criteria. Other species not
included on the list may be considered by the IRT on a case-by-case basis. The presence of invasive species
vegetation within the monitoring quadrants will also be noted, as will any wildlife effects.
At the end of the first full growing season (from baseline/year 0) or after 180 days, species composition,
stem density and survival will be evaluated. The average growing season for the Project is 227 days,
beginning March 21st and ending November 3rd (NRCS Johnston County Soil Survey, Weather Station:
Smithfield, NC). As an alternative to using the March 21 published growing season start date, Water and
Land Solutions may install a soil temperature probe and correlate soil temperature with bud burst to
establish a start date for the growing season. The earliest possible start date used for hydro period
determination will be March 1. For each subsequent year, vegetation plots shall be monitored for seven
years in years 1, 2, 3, 5 and 7, and visual monitoring in years 4 and 6, or until the final success criteria are
achieved.

While measuring species density is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation success
on mitigation projects, species density alone may be inadequate for assessing plant community health.
For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan will incorporate the evaluation of native volunteer species,
and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess overall vegetative success. WLS will provide
required remedial action on a case-by-case basis, such as replanting more wet/drought tolerant species
vegetation, conducting beaver and beaver dam management/removal, and removing
undesirable/invasive species vegetation, and will continue to monitor vegetation performance until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard requirement.
Existing mature woody vegetation will be visually monitored during annual site visits to document any
mortality, due to construction activities or changes to the water table, that negatively impact existing
forest cover or favorable buffer vegetation.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 53
DMS Project #100042

Table 22. Proposed Monitoring Plan Summary
Functional
Category
(Level)
Project Goal /
Parameter
Measurement
Method Performance Standard Potential Functional
Uplift
Hydrology
(Level 1)
Improve Base Flow
Duration and
Overbank Flows (i.e.
channel forming
discharge)
Well device (pressure
transducer), regional
curve, regression
equations, catchment
assessment
Maintain seasonal flow for a
minimum of 30 consecutive
days during normal annual
rainfall.
Create a more natural
and higher functioning
headwater flow regime
and provide aquatic
passage.
Hydraulics
(Level 2)
Reconnect
Floodplain / Increase
Floodprone Area
Widths
Bank Height Ratio,
Entrenchment Ratio,
crest gauge
Maintain average BHRs ≤1.2
and ERs ≥2.2 (1.4 for ‘B’
stream types) and document
out of bank and/or significant
flow events using pressure
transducers or photographs &
crest gauges

Provide temporary
water storage and
reduce erosive forces
(shear stress) in
channel during larger
flow events.
Geomorphology
(Level 3)
Improve Bedform
Diversity
Pool to Pool spacing,
riffle-pool sequence,
pool max depth ratio,
Longitudinal Profile
Increase riffle/pool
percentage and pool-to-pool
spacing ratios compared to
reference reach conditions.
Provide a more natural
stream morphology,
energy dissipation and
aquatic habitat/refugia.
Increase Vertical and
Lateral Stability
BEHI / NBS, Cross-
sections and
Longitudinal Profile
Surveys, visual
assessment
Decrease streambank erosion
rates comparable to
reference condition cross-
section, pattern and vertical
profile values.
Reduce sedimentation,
excessive aggradation,
and embeddedness to
allow for interstitial
flow habitat.
Establish Riparian
Buffer Vegetation
CVS Level I & II
Protocol Tree Veg
Plots (Strata
Composition, Vigor,
and Density), visual
assessment
Within planted portions of
the site, a minimum of 320
stems per acre must be
present at year three; a
minimum of 260 stems per
acre must be present at year
five; and a minimum of 210
stems per acre and average
10-foot tree heights must be
present at year seven.
Increase woody and
herbaceous vegetation
will provide channel
stability and reduce
streambank erosion,
runoff rates and exotic
species vegetation.
Physiochemical
(Level 4)
Improve Water
Quality N/A N/A
Removal of excess
nutrients, FC bacteria,
and organic pollutants
will increase the
hyporheic exchange
and dissolved oxygen
(DO) levels.
Biology
(Level 5)
Improve Benthic
Macroinvertebrate
Communities and
Aquatic Health
DWR Small Stream/
Benthic sampling, IBI N/A
Increase leaf litter and
organic matter critical
to provide in-stream
cover/shade, wood
recruitment, and
carbon sourcing.
Note: Level 4 and 5 project parameters and monitoring activities will not be tied to performance standards nor
required to demonstrate success for credit release.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 54
DMS Project #100042

9 Adaptive Management Plan
In the event the mitigation site or a specific component of the mitigation site fails to achieve the necessary
performance standards as specified in the mitigation plan, the sponsor shall notify the members of the
NCIRT and work with the NCIRT to develop contingency plans and remedial actions.
10 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the NCDEQ Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation
easement holder and long-term steward for the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the site
to ensure that restrictions required in the conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by
the responsible party on a yearly basis until such time and endowments are established. The NCDEQ
Stewardship Program is developing an endowment system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing
Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is
governed by NC General Statue GS 113A-232(d) (3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used
only for stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
WLS does not expect that easement compliance and management will require any additional or
alternative management planning, strategies or efforts beyond those typically prescribed and
followed for DMS full-delivery projects.
11 References
Bain, Daniel J. 2012. Legacy Effects in Material Flux: Structural Catchment Changes Predate Long-Term
Studies. BioScience. Vol. 62 No. 6.
Cooper, A. B.; Smith, C. M.; Smith, M. J. 1995: Effects of riparian set-aside on soil characteristics in an
agricultural landscape: implications for nutrient transport and retention. Agriculture Ecosystems
& Environment 55: 61-67.
Copeland, R.R, D.N. McComas, C.R. Thorne, P.J. Soar, M.M. Jones, and J.B. Fripp. 2001. United States Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE). Hydraulic Design of Stream Restoration Projects. Washington, DC.
Division of Mitigation Services. 2016. Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and
Riparian Buffer Establishment for Stream Restoration.
Doyle, M.W. Stanley, E.H. Strayer, D.L. Jacobson, R.B. & Schmidt, J.C. 2005. Effective discharge analysis of
ecological processes in streams. Water Resources Research, 41, W11411, doi:
10.1029/2005WR004222.
Dunne, T. & Leopold, L.B. (1978): Water in Environmental Planning W.HG. Freeman Co., San Francisco,
818 pp.
Ecological Flows Science Advisory Board (EFSAB). 2013. Recommendations for Estimating Flows to
Maintain Ecological Integrity in Streams and Rivers in North Carolina.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 55
DMS Project #100042

Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998. Stream corridor restoration:
Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service. Springfield, VA.
Harman, W.A., G.D. Jennings, J.M. Patterson, D.R. Clinton, L.O. Slate, A.G. Jessup, J.R. Everhart, and R.E.
Smith. 1999. Bankfull hydraulic geometry relationships for North Carolina streams. Wildland
Hydrology. AWRA Symposium Proceedings. D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy, eds. American Water
Resources Association. June 30-July 2, 1999. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W.A. and C.J. Jones. 2016. Functional Lift Quantification Tool for Stream Restoration Projects in
North Carolina: Spreadsheet User Manual. Environmental Defense Fund, Raleigh, NC.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A function based
framework for developing stream assessments, restoration goals, performance standards and
standard operating procedures. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, D.C.
Harman, W., R. Starr. 2011. Natural Channel Design Review Checklist. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Chesapeake Bay Field Office, Annapolis, MD and US Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Wetlands Division. Washington D.C. EPS 843-B-12-005.
Hey, R.D. 2006. Fluvial Geomorphological Methodology for Natural Stable Channel Design. Journal of
American Water Resources Association. April 2006. Vol. 42, No. 2. pp. 357-374. AWRA Paper No.
02094.
Hess, Hydrology and Earth System Sciences. 2014. Flow pathways and nutrient transport mechanisms
drive hydrochemical sensitivity to climate change across catchments with different geology and
topography. V 18, 5125–5148.
Jacobson, R.B. and Coleman, D.J., 1986. Stratigraphy and recent evolution of Maryland Piedmont Flood
Plains. American Journal of Science 286:617-637.
Johnson, P.A., and T.M. Heil, 1996. Uncertainty in Estimating Bankfull Conditions. Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 32(6): 1283-1292.
KCI Associates of NC, DMS. 2010. Using Pressure Transducers for Stream Restoration Design and
Monitoring.
Knighton, D. 1998. Fluvial Forms and Processes – A New Perspective. Arnold Publishers. London.
Kilpatrick, F.A. and H.H. Barnes, Jr. 1964. Channel Geometry of Piedmont Streams as Related to Frequency
of Floods. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 422-E. U.S. Government Printing Office.
Washington, D.C. 10 pp.
King, S. E., Osmond, D.L., Smith, J., Burchell, Dukes, M., Evans, M., Knies, M., Kunickis, S. 2016. Effects of
Riparian Buffer Vegetation and Width: A 12-Year Longitudinal Study. Journal of Environmental
Quality.
Leopold, Luna B., 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, Mass.
Metcalf, C. 2004. Regional Channel Characteristics for Maintaining Natural Fluvial Geomorphology in
Florida Streams. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Panama City Fisheries Resource Office. Panama

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 56
DMS Project #100042

City, FL. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/researchcenter/Completed_Proj/Summary_EMO/FDOT_
BD470_final.pdf
Montgomery D.R. and S. M. Bolton 2003. Hydrogeomorphic variability and river restoration, 39–80. ©
2003 by the American Fisheries Society.
Nixon, M.A. 1959. A study of the bankfull discharges of rivers in England and Wales. Institute of Civil
Engineers Proceedings Paper No. 6322, pp. 157-174.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, Water Sciences
Section, Biological Assessment Branch. 2016. Standard Operating Procedures for the Collection
and Analysis of Benthic Macroinvertebrates, v. 5.0.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, Periann Russell. 2008. Mapping Headwater Streams:
Intermittent and Perennial Headwater Stream Model Development and Spatial Application.
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins. Version 4.11, September 2010.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1998. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. Cited from http://www.geology.enr.state.nc.us/usgs/geomap.htm on
July 17, 2016.
North Carolina Stream Functional Assessment Team, 2015. “NC Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM)
User Manual”. Version 2.1, August 2015.
Omernik, J.M. and G.E. Griffith. 2014. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States: evolution of a
hierarchical spatial framework. Environmental Management 54(6):1249-1266.
Poff, N. L., J. D. Allan, M. B. Bain, J. R. Karr, K. L. Prestegaard, B. D. Richter, R. E. Sparks, and J. C. Stromberg.
1997. The natural flow regime. BioScience 47:769-784.
Postel, S. and B. D. Richter. 2003. Rivers for Life: Managing Water for People and Nature. Washington,
D.C.: Island Press.
Power, M. E., R. J. Stout, C. E. Cushing, P. P. Harper, F. R. Hauer, W. J. Mathews, P. B. Moyle, B. Statzner,
AND I. R. Wais De Badgen. 1988. Biotic and abiotic controls in river and stream communities.
Journal of the North American Benthological Society 7:456-479.
(RBRP) Division of Mitigation Services, 2010, amended 2018. Neuse River Basin Watershed Restoration
Priorities (RBRP). August 2018.
Resh, V. H., A. V. Brown, A. P. Covich, M. E. Gurtz, H. W. Li, G. W. Minshall, S. R. Reice, A. L. Sheldon, J. B.
Wallace, and R. C. Wissmar. 1988. The role of disturbance in stream ecology. Journal of the North
American Benthological Society 7:433–455.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
Rosgen, D.L., 2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply. Wildland Hydrology
Books, Pagosa Springs, CO.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Page 57
DMS Project #100042

Schafale, M.P. 2012. Guide to the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth Approximation. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Scherrer, E. 1999. Using Microtopography to Restore Wetland Plant Communities in Eastern North
Carolina. http://www4.ncsu.edu/unity/users/s/shear/public/restore/scherrer.htm
Schlosser, I. J. 1985. Flow regime, juvenile abundance, and the assemblage structure of stream fishes.
Ecology 66: 1484- 1490.
Schumm, S.A., 1960. The Shape of Alluvial Channels in Relation to Sediment Type. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper 352-B. U.S. Geological Survey. Washington, DC.
Simon, Andrew. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes
and Landforms. Volume 14, Issue 1, pg 11–26.
Skidmore, P.B, Shields, F., Doyle, M., and Miller, D. (2001). A Categorization of Approaches to Natural
Channel Design. Wetlands Engineering & River Restoration: pg 1-12.
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Vicksburg, MS.
___. 1997. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Research Program. Technical Note VN-RS-4.1. Environmental
Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS.
___. 2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
___. 2008. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2008, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2009. Stream Visual
Assessment Protocol, Version 2. NBH, Part 614.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division.
1994. Soil Survey, Johnson County, NC.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey Division. A.
Walker, Personal communication, 2015. NC BEHI/NBS rating curve.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Stream
Restoration Design Part 654, National Engineering Handbook.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. National Climate
Dataset.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), Michigan Department of Environmental Quality,
1999. Region 5 Model for Estimating Load Reductions. v4.3.
United States Geological Survey. 1998.
Williams, G.P., 1978. Bank-Full Discharge of Rivers. Water Resources Research 14(6):1141-1154, doi:
10.1029/WR014i006 p01141.
Wolman, M. G., and Leopold, L. B., 1957, River flood plains; some observations on their formation: U.S.
Geol. Survey Prof. Paper 282-C, pg 22.

Figures

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Figure 1 – Vicinity Map
Figure 2 – Existing Geology Map
Figure 3 – USGS Topographic Map
Figure 4 – NRCS Soils Map
Figure 5 – LiDAR Map
Figure 6 – Current Conditions Map
Figure 7a – 1965 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7b – 1999 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7c – 2004 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7d – 2008 Aerial Photograph
Figure 7e – 2019 Aerial Photograph
Figure 8 – FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9 – Proposed Mitigation Features Map
Figure 10 – Proposed Monitoring Features Map
Figure 11 – Reference Site Location Map

WENDELLL A K E W E N D E L L
OLD JOHNSONSALEM CHURCH±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE1Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Project Location
^_
Wake County
Johnston County
Nash County
Legend
^_Project Location
Conservation Easement
Existing Streams
TLW: 03020201180050
TLWs
LWPs
HUC-8 (Neuse 01)
HUC-12
Johnston County
NC Counties
Local-Roads
0 4 8
Miles050100Miles
Project is located in
TLW HUC-14: 03020201180050
LAKE WENDELL
SALEM CHURCHOL
D

J
OH
N
S
ON
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Geology
Coastal Plain, Raleigh Belt, Intrusive Rocks, PPmg
Raleigh Belt, Tertiary, Sedimentary Rocks, Tt
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE2Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS
Geologic Map
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
Legend
Conservation Easement
Catchment 1: 543 acres
±0 1,000 2,000
Feet
FIGURE3Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS
Topographic
Map
Flow ers Quadrangle
North Carolina - Johnston Co.
Catchment Ar ea: 543 acres
Impervious Cover: 13%
Dominant Land Use: Agriculture (20% pasture/crops),
Forest (48% deci duous/evergreen/mixed), Grassland (9% herbaceous/grass)
SALEM CHURCHOL
D
J
OHNS
ONSALEM CHURCHO
L
D
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
WoB
Wt
GeD
GeB
WoD
UcB
GeB
WoD
UcC
NoB
CoB
Ly
VrB
WoD
MaB
WoD
UcC
DoA
WoD
W
DoA
GeB
DoA
Wt
WoB
MaB
WoB
W
UcB
Ra
Wt
WoD
NoB
MaB
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE4Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
NRCS
Soils Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Stream
Soil Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil Survey)
CoB: Cowarts loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
DoA: Dorian fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, rarely
flooded
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GeD: Gilead sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes (Hydric B)
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
UcB: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 2-6% slopes
UcC: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12% slopes
W: Water
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded
(Hydric A)
MS-R1
R3 (upper)
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)
R3 (lower)
R5 (lower)
R6
±0 500 1,000
Fee t
FIGURE5Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
LiDAR Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
NC Floodplain Mapping Program LiDAR
Window Size: 12.000
Elevat ion
360.962 - 1741.29
344.802 - 360.962
335.194 - 344.802
329.422 - 335.194
325.756 - 329.422
322.6 - 325.756
319.525 - 322.6
316.912 - 319.525
314.467 - 316.912
312.181 - 314.467
309.9 - 312.181
307.414 - 309.9
304.409 - 307.414
301.304 - 304.409
298.222 - 301.304
295.125 - 298.222
292.214 - 295.125
289.334 - 292.214
286.707 - 289.334
283.856 - 286.707
280.863 - 283.856
277.916 - 280.863
274.602 - 277.916
270.894 - 274.602
266.974 - 270.894
263.08 - 266.974
258.956 - 263.08
254.304 - 258.956
248.872 - 254.304
241.359 - 248.872
230.694 - 241.359
206.85 - 230.694
SALEM CHURCHOL
D
J
OH
N
S
ON
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE6Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Current
Conditions
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Stream
Existing Wetland
Existing Pond
Hydric Soils 5.1 acres (LSS Determined)
Sediment Sample Locations
D Cross Sections
!(Existing Groundwater Gauges MS-R1
R3 (upper)
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)
R3 (lower)
R5 (lower)
R6
WB
WD
WC
SALEM CHURCHO
L
D J
O
H
N
S
O
N±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE7aBuffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1965 Aerial
Photograph
Legend
Conservation Easement
Source: Johnston County
Soil & Water Conservation
SALEM CHURCHO
L
D J
O
H
N
S
O
N
LAKE WENDELL
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE7bBuffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
1999 Aerial
Photograph
Legend
Conservation Easement
Source: Google Earth Pro
SALEM CHURCHOL
D
J
OH
NS
ON
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE7cBuffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2004 Aerial
Photograph
Legend
Conservation Easement
Source: Google Earth Pro
SALEM CHURCHOL
D

J
OH
N
S
ON
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE7dBuffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2008 Aerial
Photograph
Legend
Conservation Easement
Source: Google Earth Pro
SALEM CHURCHOL
D
J
OH
N
S
ON
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE7eBuffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
2019 Aerial
Photograph
Legend
Conservation Easement
Source: Google Earth Pro
SALEM CHURCHOL
D

J
OH
N
S
ON302304300298296306294
292
2
9
0
288
286
308
3102822802782
7
6 2842742722
7
0 2682662642622
6
0
312
314
258316
2562
5
4
252318320322324
2
5
0
2
4
8
3 2 6
3
2
8
2
4
63262
5
6
2
6
8324
298322292
322
306284
3 2 4
3 2 6
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE8Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Floodplain
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Stream
2ft Contours
Major
Minor
Project reaches are not within any
FEMA mapped floodplains or
regulated streams.
MS-R1
R3 (upper)
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)
R3 (lower)
R5 (lower)
R6
SALEM CHURCHOL
D

J
OHNS
ONSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE9Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Proposed
Mitigation Features
Legend
Conservation Easement
Water Quality Improvement Features
Stream Mitigation Types
Restoration
Enhancement I
Preservation
Wetland Mitigation Types
Enhancement
Re-establishment
MS-R1
R3 (upper)
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)
W1
W2
W3
R3 (lower)
R5 (lower)
R6
WD
WC
WB
!>
!>
!(
!(
!(
!(
!.SALEM CHURCHSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE10Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Proposed
Monitoring Features
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)R5 (lower)
R6
MS-R1
R3 (upper)
R3 (lower)
Legend
Conservation Easement
Proposed Stream
Proposed Wetlands
Water Quality Improvement Features
Vegetation Plots
Cross Sections
Pool
Riffle
Monitoring Gauges
!(Groundwater Gauge
!>Flow Gauge
!.Crest Gauge
Pen Dell Mitigation Project
WENDELLLAKE WENDELL
SALEM CHURCHOLD JOHNSONSource: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/AirbusDS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community±0 1,0 00 2,0 00Fee t
FIGURE11Buffalo Creek TributariesMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
ReferenceSite Location Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
^_Refe rence Site Locations
Lake Wendell Mitigation Project
Edwa r ds-Johnson Mitigation Project
Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 1 – Plan Sheets
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY - DIVISION OF MITIGATION SERVICES
BUFFALO CREEK TRIBUTARIES MITIGATION PROJECT
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
PROJECT o
o
LOCATION
END L
LAK
Q
OPg
�J
�ru�P��`SO OHO w
OS1S w
a
0
NCDEQ-DMS CONTRACT ADMINISTRATOR:
KRISTIE CORSON
1652 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH, NC 27699-1652
PH: 919-707-8935
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NCDEQ — DMS PROJECT ID # 100042
NCDEQ — DMS CONTRACT #7422 UNDER RFP 16-007279
NEUSE RIVER BASIN (CU 03020201)
USACE ACTION ID # SAW-2018-00425
TYPE OF WORK: STREAM AND WETLAND MITIGATION
PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Reach
Designation
Type of Mitigation
Proposed
Stream Length
(LF)
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1)
Stream
Mitigation
Credits (SMCs)
MS-R1
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,577
1:1
1,577
MS-R2
Stream Restoration (PI)
1,351
1:1
1,351
R3 (upper)
Stream Preservation
565
101
57
R3(Im er)
Stream Restoration(P�
116
1:1
116
R4
Stream Enhancement Level l
459
1.5:1
306
R5 (upper)
Stream Enhancement Level I
585
1.51
390
R5(Im er)
Stream Restoration(P�
158
1:1
158
R6
Stream Enhancement Level l
252
1.5:1
168
Total 5,063 4,123
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
Project Wetland
Area
Type of Mitigation
Proposed
wetland Area
(ACI
Mitigation
Ratio (X:t)
Riparian Wetland
Mitigation
Credit (WMCs)
W1
Wetland Re-establishment
2.08
1:1
2.08
W2
Wetland Re-establishment
1.08
1:1
1.08
W3
Wetland Re-establishment
0.64
1:1
0.64
WD
Wetland Enhancement
0.04
21
0.02
W'C
Wetland Enhancement
0.004
2:1
0.002
WB
Wetland Enhancement
0.03
2:1
0.015
Total 3.87 3.84
Note 1: No mitigation credits were calculated outside the conservation easement boundaries.
SHEET INDEX
1
COVER SHEET
2
LEGEND/CONSTRUCTION
SEQUENCE /GENERAL
NOTES
3
TYPICAL SECTIONS
4-7
DETAILS
8-16
PLAN AND PROFILE
17-19
REVEGETATION PLAN
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■�■■■■■■■■-r■■■■�
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3 ■
■ STATION 10+00 ■
■ / APPROXIMATE PROJECT CENTER ■ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5
5.722751 ° N,-78.3428490 W STATION 10+00 ■
■ �� " �` ■
■ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4 , ■
■ STATION 10+00 r 1 ■
■ _ 1 E
END CONSTRUCTION R3 _ BEGIN G
` STATION 16+81 r 1 \• 1 ■ STATION
I 1 � ■
3a � 1
END CONSTRUCTION R5 ■ `
■ I � �`1 1 m STATION 17+43 /
c
`� w�, III ��/�♦ .� m .001
■
■ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4 �I L �■ \ , . y /1 ■
STATION 14+59
■ ■ / a' / END CONSTRUCTION R6 ■
END CONSTRUCTION MS-R7 STATION 14+04
■ STATION 25+77 BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R2 ■
■ STATION 26+45 ■ / ■
■ BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R6
■ STATION 11+52 ■
1
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com I
PROJECT ENGINEER
`���CAR �O
ice•`�, �•��cV:
ER
�O ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFTMITPLAN 1-17-2020
8 DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN 3-28-2020
NO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY. NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.
18-002
FILENAME
01_BUFFALO CREEK TRIBS_COVER.DWG
DESIGNED BY
KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY
APL
DATE
3/28/2020
HORIZ. SCALE
1" = 400'
VERT.SCALE
N/A
NORTH
200 100 0 200 a00
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
COVER
SHEET
SHEET NUMBER
1

LEGEND
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
GENERAL NOTES
GRADING NOTES
D
WATER LAND
�S:
' ROOTWAD
THE ENGINEER WILL PROVIDE CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF
1. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY TWENTY SIX MILES
1. NO GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL OCCUR BEYOND THE
SOLUTION S
14
THIS PROJECT. THE FOLLOWING CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE SHALL BE USED DURING PROJECT
SOUTHEASTOF RALEIGH IN JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC (35.724007°,-78.342960°)AS
PROJECT LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE (LOD)AS SHOWN ON
CONSTRUCTION IMPLEMENTATION. PRIOR TO BEGINNING ANY LAND DISTURBING ACTIVITIES,
SHOWN ON THE COVER SHEET VICINITY MAP. TO ACCESS THE SITE FROM
THE DESIGN PLANS.
LOG VANE
NOTIFICATION OF AND RECEIPT OF THE CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL MUST BE RECEIVED FROM NCDEQ -
RALEIGH, TAKE US 401 SOUTH FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES TO 1-440. TAKE
LAND QUALITY SECTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL NC DEQ LQS AT 919-791-4200 TO SCHEDULE A
PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING AT LEAST 72 HOURS PRIOR TO PROJECT ACTIVATION. THE
I-440/1-40 EASTBOUND FOR APPROXIMATELY MILES. CONTINUE FOR
2. ONCE DESIGN GRADES ARE ACHIEVED AS SHOWN ON
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
- LOG WEIR
CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PERMIT AND
APPROXIMATELY 6 MILES ON 1-87. TAKE EXIT 9 FOR SMITHFIELD ROAD. TRAVEL
THE PLAN AND PLAN AND PROFILE, THE HEADWATER
Raleigh, NC 27615
CORRESPONDING PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC CONSTRUCTION
ON SMITHFIELD ROAD FOR APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES. TURN LEFT ONTO LAKE
VALLEY, STREAM AND WETLAND, AND FLOODPLAIN
SEQUENCING ITEMS AND SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOLLOWING THE APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT
WENDELL RD AND CONTINUE APPROXIMATELY 3 MILES. TURN RIGHT ONTO
AREAS SHALL BE ROUGHENED USING TECHNIQUES
(919) 614-51 11
°oopp0 STONE/LOG STEP -POOL
0 0 oe o 0
CONDITIONS.
BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION BEGINS.
(1-SHOWN
1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY (SE
SALEM CHURCH ROAD. TRAVEL ON SALEM CHURCH ROAD FOR 0.3 MILES AND
ARRIVE AT THE SITE ENTRANCE ON THE LEFT.
DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
waterandsoutions.com
61
EN ON T
ANY UTILITIES AND RESPECTIVE EASEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS ARE CONSIDERED
APPROXIMATE AND THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES.
2. THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES ARE SHOWN ON THE DESIGN PLANS AS THE
3. ALL SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL REQUIRED TO FILL
AND/OR PLUG EXISTING DITCHES AND/OR STREAM
PROJECT ENGINEER
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR LOCATING ALL UTILITIES AND ADJOINING EASEMENTS
AND SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE ANY DAMAGED UTILITIES AT HISMER OWN EXPENSE.
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PERFORM
ALL RELATED WORK ACTIVITIES WITHIN THE PROJECT SITE BOUNDARIES
CHANNEL SHALL BE GENERATED ON -SITE AS
DESCRIBED IN THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
Cam)
0 o
CCESSEDITHROUGHTHE TS OF THE PROJECT SITE
ANY EXCESS SPOIL MATERIAL SHALL 8E STOCKPILED IN
���1'1��I
CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES, HAUL ROADS
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PREPARE AND SHALL MOBILIZE EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, PREPARE STAGING AREA(S) AND STOCKPILE
HE DESIGNABANCE TED ACCLOD).
BE ACD ESS SS POINTS SHOWN ON THESHALL
EAS AND OR HAULED OFF -SITE AS
DESIGNATED THE
17 AR
AREA(S) AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. HAUL ROADS SHALL BE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AT ALL
PLANS. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PERMITTED
APPROVED BY ENGINEER.
♦♦♦♦,t,�
♦\ �\
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCTION.
ACCESS THROUGHOUT ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.
•OC ��
3. CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE RESTRICTED TO THE AREA DENOTED AS LIMITS OF
3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY PRECAUTIONS AND
,♦♦ \O
�S'
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
DISTURBANCE OR HAUL ROADS AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
MEASURES TO PROTECT ALL PROPERTIES FROM DAMAGE. THE CONTRACTOR
j: ••Q
4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY ROCK DAMS AT LOCATIONS INDICATED ON THE
SHALL REPAIR ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY HIS/HER OPERATIONS TO ALL PUBLIC
PLANS.
AND PRIVATE PROPERTY AND LEAVE THE PROPERTY IN GOOD CONDITION
AND/OR AT LEAST EQUIVALENT TO THE PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONDITIONS.
i 6
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL TEMPORARY SILT FENCE AROUND THE STAGING AREA(S).
TEMPORARY SILT FENCING WILL ALSO BE PLACED AROUND THE TEMPORARY STOCKPILE
UPON COMPLETION OF ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE AREA IS TO BE
` V
C>
AREAS AS MATERIAL IS STOCKPILED THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO
GEOLIFT W/ TOEWOOD
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT STREAM CROSSINGS AS
CONSTRUCTION.Cj
I NE�.��
1V
SHOWN ON THE PLANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE APPROVED SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION
L PERMIT. EXISTING CHANNEL DITCHES ON SITE WILL
4. THE TOPOGRAPHIC BASE MAP WAS DEVELOPED USING SURVEY DATA
�Q,♦♦♦
E R ��P�����
INTAIN SDIERING
STAGES OF CONSTRUCTION TO ALTHE
THE INITCONTRTIIAL LOW FOR DRAINAGE AND TO MAD
COLLECTED BY WITHERSRAVENEL, INC. (WR) IN THE SUMMER OF 2018. THE
��
ACCESSIBILITY.
HORIZONTAL DATUM WAS TIED TO NAD83 NC STATE PLANE COORDINATE
SYSTEM, US SURVEY FEET AND NAVD88 VERTICAL DATUM USING VRS
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK
7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSTRUCT ONLY THE PORTION OF CHANNEL THAT CAN BE
COMPLETED AND STABILIZED WITHIN THE SAME DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY
NETWORK AND NCGS MONUMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE THAT EXISTING ELEVATIONS
AND SITE CONDTIONS MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE ORIGINAL SURVEY WAS
O ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
AND RH SEED AREAS AT THE END OF'S
TO ALL FTEMPORARY
COMPLETED. IT IS THE CONTRACTORRBED RESPONSIBILITY TO CONFIRM
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
EACH WORK DAY,, WITTEMPORARY
THE REQUIREMMANENT
ENT NT OF ESTABLISHING STABLIS NGH AND PERMANENT
GROUND COVER THROUGH VEGETATION ESTABLISHMENT.
EXISTING GRADES AND ADJUST QUANTITIES, EARTHWORK, AND WORK
EFFORTS AS NECESSARY.
REVISIONS
PROPOSED OUTLET CHANNEL
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEAR AND GRUB AN AREA ADEQUATE TO CONSTRUCT THE STREAM
CHANNEL AND GRADING OPERATIONS AFTER ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION MEASURES
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE AND THOROUGHLY
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
HAVE BEEN INSTALLED AND APPROVED. IN GENERAL, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL WORK FROM
FAMILIARIZE HIM/HERSELF WITH ALL EXISTING CONDITIONS. PRIOR TO
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
- FP FP 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
UPSTREAM TO DOWNSTREAM AND IN -STREAM STRUCTURES AND CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL
SHALL BE INSTALLED USING A PUMP -AROUND OR FLOW DIVERSION MEASURE AS SHOWN ON
BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY THE
THE PLANS.
ACCURACY AND COMPLETENESS OF THE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS
AND DESIGN PLANS REGARDING THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF THE WORK
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL BEGIN CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION UPSTREAM AND PROCEED IN A
DESCRIBED.
OHPL EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION. THE DESIGN CHANNEL SHOULD BE
CONSTRUCTED OFFLINE AND/OR IN THE DRY WHENEVER POSSIBLE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
EXCAVATE AND CONSTRUCT THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGN GRADES AND
6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING ANY DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE
i- -i
TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING
SHALL NOT EXTEND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES ANY CLOSER THAN WITHIN 10 FEET
CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND/OR FIELD CONDITIONS TO
_-
(HORIZONTALLY) OF THE TOP OF EXISTING STREAM BANKS IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE
THE ATTENTION OF THE SPONSORS ENGINEER BEFORE CONSTRUCTION
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
INTEGRITY OF THE EXISTING STREAM CHANNEL UNTIL ABANDONMENT.
BEGINS.
PROJECT NAME
J
10. THE CONTRACTOR WILL CONTINUE CONSTRUCTION BY EXCAVATING CHANNEL FILL MATERIAL.
7. THERE SHALL BE NO CLEARING OR REMOVAL OF ANY NATIVE SPECIES
PERMANENT STREAM CROSSING
r�
THE CONTRACTOR MAY FILL NON JURISDITRIONAL DITCHES WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN ANY
WATER DURING THE GRADING OPERATIONS. ALONG STREAM REACHES EXCAVATED MATERIAL
VEGETATION OR TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE, OTHER THAN THOSE INDICATED ON
BUFFALO CREEK
SHOULD BE STOCKPILED IN AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. IN ANY AREAS WHERE EXCAVATION
THE PLANS OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
- CE CE PROPOSED CONSERVATION
DEPTHS WILL EXCEED 10 INCHES, TOPSOIL SHALL BE HARVESTED, STOCKPILED AND PLACED
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL EXERCISE CARE DURING GRADING ACTIVITIES IN
EASEMENT BOUNDARY
BACK OVER THESE AREAS TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 8 INCHES TO ACHIEVE DESIGN GRADES
THE VICINITY OF NATIVE VEGETATION AND TREES OF SIGNIFICANCE AT THE
AND CREATE A SOIL BASE FOR VEGETATION PLANTING ACCORDING TO THE DESIGN PLANS AND
CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALL GRADING IN THE VICINITY OF TREES NOT
TRIBUTARIES
- -100- - - - EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS.
IDENTIFIED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE MADE IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT
11. AFTER EXCAVATING AND CONSTRUCTING THE PROPOSED CHANNEL TO PROPOSED DESIGN
DISTURB THE ROOT SYSTEM WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE.
MITIGATION
-- EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
GRADES, INSTALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES, BIOENGINEERING MEASURES, PERMANENT AND
TEMPORARY SEEDING AND ALL REQUIRED AMENDMENTS, MULCHING, VEGETATION
9. WORK ACTIVITIES ARE BEING PERFORMED AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL
100 PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
TRANSPLANTS, TO COMPLETE CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION AND READY THE CHANNEL TO ACCEPT
RESTORATION PLAN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE ALL REASONABLE
PROJECT
FLOW PER APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER.
EFFORTS TO REDUCE SEDIMENT LOSS, PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, AND
101 PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
12. STREAM FLOW WILL BE DIVERTED BACK INTO THE CONSTRUCTED CHANNEL ONCE THE
MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE WHILE PERFORMING THE CONSTRUCTION
RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL AND ASSOCIATED RIPARIAN AREA HAS BEEN STABILIZED, AS
WORK. ALL AREAS SHALL BE KEPT NEAT, CLEAN, AND FREE OF ALL TRASH
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER AND IN COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PERMIT REQUIREMENTS.
AND DEBRIS, AND ALL REASONABLE PRECAUTIONS SHALL BE TAKEN TO AVOID
- LID LID - LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
ONCE STREAM FLOW IS RETURNED TO A RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL REACH, THE
DAMAGE TO EXISTING ROADS, VEGETATION, TURF, STRUCTURES, AND PRIVATE
CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY BEGIN PLUGGING, FILLING, AND GRADING THE ASSOCIATED
PROPERTY.
- CIF CIF - CUT/FILL LIMITS
ABANDONED REACH OF STREAM CHANNEL, AS INDICATED ON PLANS, MOVING IN A
DOWNSTREAM DIRECTION TO ALLOW FOR POSITIVE AND ADEQUATE DRAINAGE OF THE
DRAWING INFORMATION
ABANDONED CHANNEL REACH. STREAM FLOW SHALL NOT BE DIVERTED INTO ANY SECTION OF
10. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF
PROJECT NO. 18-002
-WLB WLB - EXISTING WETLAND BOUNDARY
RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT
MATERIALS, INCLUDING AGGREGATES, EROSION CONTROL MATTING, WOOD
REACH OF PROPOSED CHANNEL, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO FINAL GRADING,
AND NATIVE PLANTING MATERIAL TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW AND
FILENAME
B?_BUFFALO CREERTRIBS-GENERAL NOTES DWG
STABILIZATION WITH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEEDING AND ALL REQUIRED
APPROVAL. NO WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED UNTIL THE SOURCE OF
DESIGNED BY
KMV/CAT
- .. - .. - .. - .. - HYDRIC SOILS
AMENDMENTS, MULCHING, VEGETATION TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTREAM STRUCTURE
INSTALLATION, BIOENGINEERING INSTALLATION, AND COIR FIBER MATTING INSTALLATION.
MATERIAL IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER.
DRAWN BY
APL
EXISTING WOODLINE
13. THE RESTORED CHANNEL SECTIONS SHALL REMAIN OPEN AT THEIR DOWNSTREAM END TO
11. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY
DATE
3/28/2020
ALLOW FOR DRAINAGE DURING RAIN EVENTS.
NECESSARY COORDINATION BETWEEN THE VARIOUS COUNTY, STATE OR
PROPOSED TOP OF STREAM BANK
14. ALL GRADING ACTIVITIES ADJACENT TO THE STREAM CHANNEL AND RIPARIAN AREAS SHALL BE
FEDERAL AGENCIES, UTILITY COMPANIES, HIS/HER SUB -CONTRACTORS, AND
HORIZ. SCALE
N.T.S.
COMPLETED PRIOR TO DIVERTING STREAM FLOW INTO THE RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL
THE ENGINEER FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT.
VERT. SCALE
N.T.S.
REACHES. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED ON A REACH OF PROPOSED STREAM
- - - - - EXISTING PROPERTY BOUNDARY
CHANNEL, ADDITIONAL GRADING ACTIVITIES SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED WITHIN 10 FEET
12. PRIOR TO START OF WORK, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMITTHEIR DETAILED
(HORIZONTALLY) OF THE NEWLY RESTORED STREAM CHANNEL BANKS. THE CONTRACTOR
PLANTING SCHEDULE TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW. NO WORK SHALL BE
EXISTING FENCE
SHALL NOT FINALIZE GRADE OR ROUGHEN AREAS WHERE REQUIRED EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES
PERFORMED UNTIL THIS SCHEDULE IS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. THE
HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLETED.
DETAILED PLANTING SCHEDULE SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLANTING
15-00
PROPOSED CENTERLINE (THALWEG)
15. ONCE CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETE WITHIN A PUMP -AROUND WORK AREA OR CONSTRUCTION
REVEGETATION PLAN AND SHALL INCLUDE A SPECIES LIST AND TIMING
- -
WORK PHASE LIMIT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL APPLY TEMPORARY SEEDING TO ANY AREAS
SEQUENCE.
PROPOSED FIELD FENCE
DISTURBED DURING CONSTRUCTION WITHIN HOURS. ALL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE
x x
STABILIZED WITH GROUND COVER AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE WITHIN 7 CALENDAR DAYS. ALL
13. THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO INSTALL IN -STREAM STRUCTURES AND
TP TP PROPOSED TREE PROTECTION FENCE
OTHER DISTURBED AREAS AND SLOPES FLATTER THAN 3:1 SHALL BE STABILIZED WITHIN 14
CALENDAR DAYS FROM THE LAST LAND -DISTURBING ACTIVITY.
CULVERT PIPES USING A BACKHOE/EXCAVATOR WITH A HYDRAULIC THUMB OF
SUFFICIENT SIZE TO PLACE STRUCTURES AND MATERIALS INCLUDING LOGS,
- - -
16. PERMANENT GROUND COVER SHALL BE ESTABLISHED FOR ALL DISTURBED AREAS WITHIN 15
STONE, AND TEMPORARY WOOD MAT STREAM CROSSINGS.
EXISTING FARM PATH
WORKING DAYS OR 90 CALENDAR DAYS (WHICHEVER IS SHORTER) FOLLOWING COMPLETION
OF CONSTRUCTION. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHOULD HAVE ESTABLISHED GROUND COVER
PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION. REMOVE ANY TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSINGS AND TEMPORARY
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES. HAUL ROADS TO BE RESTORED TO A CONDITION EQUAL TO OR
BETTER THAN FOUND PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.
PROPOSED FARM PATH
17. ALL REMAINING DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED BY TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT
SHEET NAME
SEEDING AND MULCHING BEFORE CONSTRUCTION CLOSEOUT IS REQUESTED AND
DEMOBILIZATION CAN OCCUR. ALL WASTE MATERIAL MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE PROJECT
L I EXISTING TREE
LEGEND/
18. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TREAT AREAS OF INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION THROUGHOUT THE
PROPOSEDWATER
TREATFEATURE QUALITY
PROJECT AREA ACCORDING TO THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE
APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION.
CONSTRUCTION
19. THE CONTRACTOR COMPLETE ALL REMAINING PLANTING ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING SHRUB AND
BLOCK
®
TREE PLANTING, REMAINING TRANSPLANT INSTALLATION, INSTALLATION OF REMAINING
CHANNEL
BIOENGINEERING MEASURES, AND LIVE STAKE INSTALLATION, ACCORDING TO THE
SEQUENCE/
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS AND
CHANNEL FILL
O
TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE RE -FORESTATION
PHASE OF THE PROJECT AND CONDUCT REMAINING PERMANENT SEEDING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE APPROVED PERMIT, PLANS
GENERAL NOTES
AND TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS.
PROPOSED GATE
20. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENSURE THAT THE SITE IS FREE OF TRASH AND LEFTOVER
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION FROM THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR
J EXISTING STRUCTURE
SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OFF -SITE REMOVAL OF ALL TRASH, EXCESS BACKFILL, AND ANY
SHEET NUMBER
OTHER INCIDENTAL MATERIALS PRIOR TO DEMOBILIZATION OF EQUIPMENT FROM THE SITE.
THE DISPOSAL AND STOCKPILE LOCATIONS SELECTED MUST BE APPROVED TO THE ENGINEER
AND ANY FEES SHALL BE PAID FOR BY THE CONTRACTOR.

EXISTING
GROUND
EXIS'
GRO
GROUND .. Wb
RIFFLE
N.T.S
r 1--
GROUND
POOL
N.T.S
EXISTING
GROUND
EXISTING
GROUND
GROUND�v i W�
RIFFLE WITH BANKFULL BENCH
N.T.S
GROUND
POOL WITH BANKFULL BENCH
N.T.S
SINGLE -THREAD CHANNEL
EXISTING Wbkf
GROUND
D-max
PROPOSED
GROUND "Wb
STEP POOL CHANNEL
N.T.S
Reach Name
MS-R1
MS-R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Feature
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Riffle
Pool
Outlet
Channel
Width of Bankfull, Wbkf (ft)
14.0
20.0
14.5
22.0
5.5
8.5
5.5
7.5
5.0
6.0
6.0
8.0
3.0 (MIN.)
Average Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.2
1.6
1.2
1.7
0.4
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.6
1 N/A
Maximum Depth, D-Max (ft)
1.5
2.5
1.6
2.8
0.5
1.0
0.6
0.9
0.5
0.6
6.0
1.0
0.5
Width to Depth Ratio, bkf
W/D
11.9
12.8
11.7
12.8
14.2
13.8
12.9
13.2
14.8
16.0
16.4
13.5
N/A
Bankfull Area, Abkf (sq ft)
16.5
31.3
18.0
37.8
2.1
5.3
2.3
4.3
1.7
2.3
2.2
4.8
N/A
Bottom Width, Wb (ft)
8.0
5.0
8.0
1 5.0
3.0
2.0
3.0
2.0
2.5
1.5
2.0
1.5
N/A
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
��1CAR �` C, `1
OENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 1-17-2020
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO. 18-002
FILENAME 03BUFFALOCREEK TWBSTYPICAL-SEC➢ONSAWG
DESIGNED BY KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY APL
DATE 1/17/2020
HORIZ. SCALE N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
TYPICAL
SECTIONS
SHEET NUMBER
3

TOP OF
STREAMBANK
f
1
I SCOUR
l POOL
PLAN VIEW
COVER LOG
------------
ROOTWAD(TYP.)
TRANSPLANTS
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
RESTORED
BERM (0.5' MAX. HT.) BERM(S) TOP OF
NOT TO EXTEND BEYOND STREAMBANK
STREAMBANK
LIMITS OF ROOTWADS.
BANKFULLSTAGE
> 112 OF ROOT MASS
IS BELOW BASE FLOW - 3
ROOTWAD
ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK IS COVER LOG
BELOW STREAMBED. (OPTIONAL)
SECTION A -A
ROOTWADS WITHOUT TRANSPLANTS
TRANSPLANTS
RESTORED
STREAMBANK
> 112 OF ROOT MASS
IS BELOW BASE FLOW
ENTIRE ROOTWAD TRUNK
BELOW STREAMBED.
NOTES:
1. THE TRENCHING METHOD REQUIRES THAT A TRENCH BE EXCAVATED FOR
THE LOG PORTION OF THE ROOTWAD. A COVER LOG SHOULD BE INSTALLED
UNDERNEATH THE ROOTWAD IN A TRENCH EXCAVATED PERPENDICULAR
TO THE BANK AND BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED. ONE-THIRD OF THE
ROOTWAD SHOULD REMAIN BELOW NORMAL BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
—COVERLOG
(OPTIONAL)
SECTION A -A
ROOTWADS WITH TRANSPLANTS
ROOTWADS
NOT TO SCALE
113
113
BOTTOM
BOTTOM
WIDTH OF
WIDTH OF
INVERT/ GRADE POINT
w
y CHANNEL
CHANNEL
STONE BACKFILL
HEADER
��
STONE
LOG
ARM AN
BACKFILL
Y
/in
20° TO
/
NON -WOVEN
¢
/ w
O
HEADER
GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
m
GEOTEXTILE
w
_
BOULDER
FOOTER LOG
(OPTIONAL)
5' MINIMUM
FABRIC /
0
SECTION A -A
LOGS BURI DIN
STREAMBANK
y
/ SCOUR\
I POOL
N
A7T 5'
s.
\
o
2/3 BANKFULL STAGE
;p
(
FLOW P1 M10 OpE .
RESTORED STREAMBED ELEVATION
ROOTWAD
(OPTIONAL)
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE 12" TO 18" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD, HEADER HEADER
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED. LOG BOULDER
2. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS
AT LEAST 5 FEET.
3. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS. FOOTER LOG
4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC BEGINNING AT THE TOP OF THE HEADER LOG AND (OPTIONAL) PROFILE B-B
EXTEND DOWNWARD TO THE DEPTH OF THE BOTTOM FOOTER LOG AND THEN
UPSTREAM TO A MINIMUM OF FIVE FEET. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE
LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
5. EXCAVATE A TRENCH BELOW THE BED FOR FOOTER LOG AND PLACE FILL ON
UPSTREAM SIDE OF VANE ARM, BETWEEN THE ARM AND STREAMBANK.
6. START AT BANK AND PLACE FOOTER BOULDERS FIRST AND THEN HEADER BOULDERS.
7. CONTINUE WITH STRUCTURE, FOLLOWING ANGLE AND SLOPE SPECIFICATIONS.
8. AN OPTIONAL COVER LOG CAN BE PLACED IN SCOUR POOL FOR HABITAT IMPROVEMENT
AT DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
9. USE HAND PLACED STONE TO FILL GAPS ON UPSTREAM SIDE OF HEADER AND FOOTER
BOULDERS.
10. AFTER ALL STONE BACKFILL HAS BEEN PLACED, FILL IN THE UPSTREAM SIDE OF THE
STRUCTURE WITH ON -SITE ALLUVIUM TO THE ELEVATION OF THE TOP OF THE HEADER
BOULDER AND LOG.
11. VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
GRADE CONTROL LOG J-HOOK VANE
NOT TO SCALE
BOULDER - \
(OPTIONAL)
INVERT/ / NON -WOVEN
GRADE POINT �GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
/ ARM ANGLE \
' 20' TO 30'
ISCOUR \ -
POOL /\\>
TOP OF STREAM BANK
BURY LOGS INTO
BANK AT LEAST 5'
TOP OF STREAM BANK
INVERT — FLOW
ELEVATION
SCOUR STREAMBED
POOL STONE BACKFILL
HEADER NON -WOVEN
LOG GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
FOOTER LOG 5' MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
y 213 BANKFULL STAGE
FLOW A*10 OpE
SV
STREAMBED ELEVATION
/ BOULDER-
\ 4\-ROOT WAD (OPTIONAL)
�J•.� (OPTIONAL)
HEADER -
LOG
PLAN VIEW FOOTER LOG
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 10" IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD,
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. SOIL SHOULD BE COMPACTED WELL AROUND BURIED PORTIONS OF LOGS.
3. ROOTWADS SHOULD BE PLACED BENEATH THE HEADER LOG AND PLACED SO THAT
IT LOCKS THE HEADER LOG INTO THE BANK. SEE ROOTWAD DETAIL.
4. BOULDERS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE CAN PLACED ON TOP OF HEADER LOG FOR ANCHORING,
PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. LOGS SHOULD BE BURIED INTO THE STREAM BED AND BANKS AT LEAST 5 FEET.
6. GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
7. TRANSPLANTS CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF ROOTWADS, PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
. - I..,
NOT TO SCALE
fflamp-
PROFILE B-B
TOP OF STREAM BANK
(
TOP OF STREAM BANK
JSET
INVERT ELEVATION
TRANSPLANTS
w
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE
OR LIVE STAKES
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING p
BANKFULLSTAGE
?
SEFLOW 1.
BPL
O
ro
a
-1.3X CHCH= NEL WIDTH
-
"
SCOUR
BURYINTO
HEADER
POOL
BANK&
LOG
MINIMUM SECTION A -A
(TYP.)TYP.)
FOOTER
LOG
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
,'11\IC`I I�IIII C�) 0
♦ �. �oFESs��
GINE�5
WAD L
�p ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 1-17-2020
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO. 18-002
FILENAME D97 BUFFALO CREEK IRIBS_DETAIL SHEDS,DMG
DESIGNED BY KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY APL
DATE 1/17/2020
HORIZ. SCALE N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE N.T.S.
L J
BURYINTO
BANK 5'
MINIMUM TOP OF STREAM BANK
(NP') INVERT —FLOW
10 ELEVATION
INVERT STREAMBED
ELEVATION SCOUR
PLAN VIEW POOL STONE BACKFILL
NON -WOVEN SHEET NAME
HEADER LOG GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT FOOTER LOG 5' MINIMUM
HARDWOOD AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS>24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN
ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND DETAILS
LOG, AT THE DIRECTION OF THE ENGINEER.
3. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER PROFILE B-B
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
4. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30 % OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
5. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
6. INSTALL VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAM BANK TO TOP
OF STREAM BANK.
7. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS. LOG WEIR SHEET NUMBER
NOT TO SCALE
4

SECONDARYLOGS
AND WOODY DEBRIS
BEGIN INVERT
ELEVATION
SET INVERT ELEVATION BASED
ON DESIGN PROFILE
TRANSPLANTS
OR LIVE STAKES EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
p BANKFULL STAGE
...:-��—
p BASEFLOW
5' MINIMUM
5' MINIMUM
BURIED INTO
BURIED INTO
BANK
BANK
SPACE
EVERY '-12'
EVERY 8'-12'
TOE OF STREAM BANK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
HEADER
LOG
BACKFILL WITH SOFA 6'
FLOI,y`
ON -SITE ALLUVIUM
NON WOVEN
® H <03,
LEND INVERT GEOTEXTILE FABRIC
ELEVATION (TYPICAL)
PLAN VIEW
5' MINIMUM FOOTER
LOGS
TOP OF STREAM BANK
LOG
FOO
LOG
AND WOODY DEBRIS
17 BASEFLOW 1 _
—j1- HEADER
LOG
Q
H s 0.3'
LOG T:.1
NOTES:
1. PRIMARY LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 12" OR MORE IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT, HARDWOOD BACKFILL WITH pq MINIMUM DEF
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED AND EXTENDING INTO THE BANK 5' ON EACH SIDE. SUITABLE OWSITE
2. SECONDARY LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 4" IN DIAMETER AND NO LARGER THAN 10" AND EXTEND INTO ALLUVIUM
THE BANK TON EACH SIDE. WOODY DEBRIS MATERIAL SHALL BE VARYING DIAMETER TO ALLOW PROFILE B-B
MATERIAL TO BE COMPACTED.
3. NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC SHOULD BE NAILED TO THE HEADER LOG BELOW THE BACKFILL.
4. ROOT WADS AND EROSION CONTROL MATTING CAN BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSPLANTS OR LIVE
STAKES PER DIRECTION OF ENGINEER.
5. AFTER TRENCH HAS BEEN EXCAVATED A LAYER OF SECONDARY LOGS AND WOODY DEBRIS SHOULD BE
PLACED WITH MINIMAL GAPS. A LAYER OF ON -SITE ALLUVIUM SHOULD BE APPLIED TO FILL VOIDS
BETWEEN SECONDARY LOGS BEFORE ADDITIONAL LAYERS ARE PLACED.
6. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
CONSTRUCTED LOG RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
GRADE SIDE SLOPES NO STEEPER THAN 3H:1 V
INFLOW
"1 SHALLOW I �" �" �" W 7
POOL SHALLOW W
POOL
W WWWWWWW
PLAN VIEW
18" POOL DEPTH
INFLOW
STORAGE VOLUME ELEVATION ,o
� NISHED GRADE
PROPOSED
OUTLET CHANNEL
(WIDTH VARIES)
N WIDE EMBANKMENT WITH
STONE COVER (OPTIONAL AS
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER)
8"THICK STONE SPILLWAY
(OPTIONAL AS DIRECTED
BY ENGINEER)
PROPOSED BOTTOM
OUTLET CHANNEL
NOTES: EXISTING GRADE-
1 I
. CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH COMPACTED SOIL AND L CONSTRUCT EMBANKMENT WITH
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS. COMPACTED SOIL AND SUITABLE
2. WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE VARIES IN SIZE AND SECTION A - A BACKFILL MATERIAL (TYP.)
SHAPE AS SHOWN ON PLANS.
3. PLANT APPROPRIATE WETLAND SPECIES VEGETATION
AS SPECIFIED IN THE PLANTING PLAN.
WATER QUALITY TREATMENT FEATURE
NOT TO SCALE
MINIMUM
1 FT
HICK (TYP.)
NOTES:
1. CONSTRUCT STREAM CROSSING DURING LOW OR BASE FLOW CONDITIONS.
2. HAVE ALL NECESSARY MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT ON -SITE BEFORE WORK BEGINS.
3. MINIMIZE CLEARING AND EXCAVATION OF STREAM BANKS. DO NOT EXCAVATE CHANNEL
BOTTOM. COMPLETE ONE SIDE BEFORE STARTING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
4. INSTALL STREAM CROSSING PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW.
5. GRADE SLOPES TO A 4:1 SLOPE. TRANSPLANT SOD OR VEGETATION FROM ORIGINAL
STREAM BANK ONTO SIDE SLOPES.
6. MAINTAIN CROSSING SO THAT RUNOFF FROM THE CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROAD DOES
NOT ENTER EXISTING CHANNEL.
7. A STABILIZED PAD OF 6 INCHES THICK CLASS B STONE LINED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR
DRAINAGE SHALL BE USED OVER THE BERM AND ACCESS SLOPES. ABC STONE
APPROXIMATELY 4 INCHES THICK SHALL BE ADDED TO TOP LAYER.
B. WIDTH OF THE CROSSING SHALL BE SUFFICIENT TO ACCOMMODATE THE EQUIPMENT
CROSSING THE CHANNEL OR A MINIMUM 12 FEET.
9. CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE AN APPROPRIATE RAMP ANGLE ACCORDING TO
EQUIPMENT UTILIZED.
PERMANENT FORD STREAM CROSSING
NOT TO SCALE
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
AR
Cam) 0
ER
OENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 1-17-2020
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO. 18-002
FILENAME D4-07 BUFFALO CREEK IRIBS_OETAIL SHEDS,DWG
DESIGNED BY KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY APL
DATE 1/17/2020
HORIZ. SCALE N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
5

EXTEND WOOD'
TO 1
TOP OF RESTORED STREAM
STAKE TOP LAYER OF
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING IN 6" TRENCH
(SEE COIR FIBER MATTING
DETAIL)
BACKFILL 1.5' LIFT OF COMPACTED
ON -SITE SOIL (TYP.)
PLACE THICK LAYER
OF 1,- 6' DIAMETER
WOODY DEBRIS
COVER LOGS AND/OR ROOT WADS
INSTALLED IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND PER RESPECTIVE DETAILS
OF RESTORED STREAM BANK
BANKFULL STAGE
-HORIZONTAL SETBACK FOR LIFT IS
APPROX.'I FT_
SECTION A - A
3EINSTALLED
WEEN 15-25'
POINT BAR
(SEE TYPICAL SECTIONS)
RESTORED STREAMBED
INSTALL FOUNDATION LOGS
SUCH THAT AT LEAST HALF OF
THE LOG DIAMETER IS BELOW
THE RESTORED STREAMBED
ELEVATION.
GEOLIFT W/ TOE WOOD
NOT TO SCALE
I FO
TOE OF STREAM BANK
TOP OF STREAM BANK
`Z BANKFULL STAGE_
HEAD OF RIFFLE
RIFFLE Dmax = MAX DEPTH
INVERT ELEVATION
-
TOE OF STREAMBANK
EROSION CONTROL
16" MIN. THICKNESS
MATTING SHOULD BE
STONE BACKFILL
PLACED BENEATH STONE
BACKFILL
TOP OF STREAM BANK
SECTION A -A
16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
BAN
a �FU_L
TAIL OF RIFFLE
STAGE
INVERT ELEVATION
FLOW
TAIL OF RIFFLE
G�\DE
INVERT ELEVATION
B
RIFF E \
\ p BASEFLOW
�v'Y
HEAD OF RIFFLE
INVERT ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW
POOL
PROFILE B-B
16" MIN. THICKNESS
STONE BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. DIG A TRENCH BELOW THE RESTORED STREAMBED
FOR THE STONE BACKFILL.
2. FILL TRENCH WITH CLASS 'A" AND'B" STONE BACKFILL.
CONSTRUCTED STONE RIFFLE
NOT TO SCALE
PLACE UNCOMPACTED FILL 1.5'
ABOVE FINISHED GRADE
NEW STREAMBANK
SHALL BE TREATED AS
SPECIFIED IN PLANS
2
OPTIONAL ROOT WAD PLACEMENT
OR BANK PROTECTION AS
\
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER
�VA
CHANNEL BOTTOM/
INVERT ELEVATION
NOTES:
1. COMPACT DITCH PLUG MATERIAL FOR BACKFILL
USING HEAVY EQUIPMENT IN 10 INCH LIFTS.
2. CONSTRUCT DITCH PLUG WITH COMPACTED SOIL USING
SUITABLE MATERIAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TECHNICAL
SPECIFICATIONS.
3. PLACE FILL MATERIAL IN LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR AS
DIRECTED BY ENGINEER TO ALLOW FOR SETTLING.
CHANNEL TO BE
RELOCATED
TOP OF STREAMBANK
NEW FLOW DIRECTION
CHANNEL BLOCK
OHO
<0k' VERNAL POOL PER LOCATIONS
� SHOWN ON PLANS.
\ \ VERNAL POOL DEPTHS
SHALL NOT EXCEED B"-14' AS
\ LESCRIBEIN THE
ECHNICALL SPECIFICATIONS.
SECTION A -A
CHANNEL BLOCK
NOT TO SCALE
BACKFILL
CHANNEL FILL
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGIN
't 1HC CART
ER
OENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 1-17-2020
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY. INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.
1 B-002
FILENAME
D97 BUFFALO CREEK TRIBS-DETAIL SHEDS,DWG
DESIGNED BY
KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY
APL
DATE
1/17/2020
HORIZ. SCALE
N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE
N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
6

SCOUR
PO
Pic
POOL WIDTH-
FROO-7-f-m
• •
®,STREAM
BANK
OE
STREAM BANK
NOTCH (SEE
NOTE 13)
LARGE
STONE
BACKFILL
ALONG TOE
SCOUR
POOL
END STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
SET INVERT ELEVATION
BASED ON DESIGN PROFILE
LEROSION CONTROL
MATTING
TRANSPLANTS -
OR LIVE STAKES
TOP OF STREAM BANK I
p BANKFULLSTAGE
___BASEFLOW T
1%-2%CROSS SLOPE NOTCH (SEE
BURY INTO NOTE 13)
LOG
FOO
LOG
BANK5
MINIMUM
SECTION A -A
(TVP.)
pp
711ANKFULL STAGp9TEPINVERT
LEVATION
FLOW-
NOTCH (SEE POOL TO POOL SPACING
NOTE 13) VARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOL
-
I SPACING REQUIREMENTS. I
NOTES: rLr11N VIr-VV
1. LOGS SHOULD BE AT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD AND
RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER FABRIC
SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE BANKS U ON EACH
SIDE.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH BUCKET OF
TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION B INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL LARGE STONE
BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION CONTROL
MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL LARGE STONE BACKFILL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE ELEVATION
OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE EDGES.
9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY ENGINEER
BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL. RIFFLE STEP -POOLS
OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING SLOPES EXCEED 10%AS
DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
7-STEP BASEFLOW
NON -WOVEN
GEOTEXTILE
FABRIC PROFILE B-B
STREAMBED
BACKFILL
10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER
LOG AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
OTHERWISE.
13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND END
STATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
15. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
STREAMBANK.
17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
STONE AND LOG STEP POOL
NOT TO SCALE
TRENCH LIMITS I--(/1�7j 24• MAX. TYP (TRENCH ONLY)
® I �� ® ® TOP OF STREAM BANK
TT
D fag -D I I
® ® EROSION CONTROL
MATTING TO BE
EXTENDED TO TOE
•0 6a D D D D R D D Ala OF SLOPE
_0411/ 36"MAX.TVP I
TYPICAL LARGE MATTING STAKE
SMALL MATTING STAKES-
A L-LARGE MATTING STAKESTHICKNESS
1.51N 3.81 CM
1.5 IN 3.81 CM
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
INSTALL EDGE OF EROSION CONTROL MATTING IN 12 INCH DEEP
AND SECURE BY STAKING, BACKFILLING, AND COMPACTING
SOIL TO FINISHED GRADE.
[TRENCH,
TOP OF STREAM BANK
p BANKFULLSTAGE
TYPICAL SMALL MATTING STAKE
SMALL MATTING STAKES (TYPJ
11.00 27.94 CM
IN
1.25 N 3.18 CM
0.40 IN 1.02 CM
\ \ \ \ TOE OF STREAM BANK
0.60 IN 1.52 C TAPE ED TO POINT
LEG THICKNESS I0.40 IN 1.02 CM
yITOTALLENGTH
12.00 IN 30.48 CM
RATTING STAKES (TYPJ / p BASEFLOW_
NOTES:
1. RESTORED STREAM BANKS MUST BE SEEDED AND
RESTORED STREAMBED
MULCHED PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF EROSION CONTROL
\
MATTING.
2. SEE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR MATTING STAKE
SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
SECURE EROSION CONTROL
3. PLACE LARGE STAKES ALONG ALL MATTING SEAMS, IN
MATTING AT TOE OF SLOPE
THE CENTER OF STREAM BANK, AND TOE OF SLOPE.
SECTION A - A WITH LARGE MATTING STAKES.
EROSION CONTROL MATTING
NOT TO SCALE
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,
WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOIL
MATERIAL
TOP OF STREAM BANK
TOE OF STREAM BANK
RESTORED STREAMBED
LO
PLAN VIEW OF STREAM BANK
TRANSPLANTED VEGETATION,
WITH ROOTMASS, AND SOIL
MATERIAL
0
STONE BACKFILL
OR SUITABLE
SOIL MATERIAL
mIr
\
POOL WIDTH 1
(-1.3X BA LL
WIDTH)
TOP OF STREAM BANK
Z BANKFULLSTAGE
TOE OF STREAM BANK
`__ BASE FLOW _
SECTION A -A
NOTES:
1. EXCAVATE A HOLE IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK THAT WILL
ACCOMMODATE THE SIZE OF TRANSPLANT TO BE PLANTED.
BEGIN EXCAVATION AT TOE OF THE STREAM BANK.
2. EXCAVATE THE ENTIRE TRANSPLANT ROOT MASS AND AS
MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE. IF ENTIRE
ROOT MASS CAN NOT BE EXCAVATED AT ONCE, THE
TRANSPLANT IS TOO LARGE AND ANOTHER SHOULD BE
SELECTED.
3. PLANT TRANSPLANT IN THE RESTORED STREAM BANK SO THAT
VEGETATION IS ORIENTATED VERTICALLY.
4. FILL IN ANY HOLES OR VOIDS AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND
COMPACT.
5. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE REMOVED.
6. WHEN POSSIBLE, PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE
TOGETHER SUCH THAT THEIR ROOT MASSES CONTACT.
VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS
BEGIN STEP INVERT
ELEVATION
NOT TO SCALE
BURYINTO 1%-2% CROSS SLOPE
BANK 5'
MINIMUM SECTION A -A
(TYP.)
SCOUR STONE
POOL gACKFILL FLOW- -
NUN-WUVtN
GEOTEXTILE
TOP OF FABRIC
STREAMBANK 144
TOE OF \ 1
STREAMBANK END STEP INVERT 5' MINIMUM
L� ELEVATION
PLAN VIEW
NOTES:
1. LOGS SHOULD BEAT LEAST 12 INCHES IN DIAMETER, RELATIVELY STRAIGHT HARDWOOD
AND RECENTLY HARVESTED.
2. LOGS >24 INCHES IN DIAMETER MAY BE USED ALONE WITHOUT AN ADDITIONAL LOG FILTER
FABRIC SHOULD STILL BE USED TO SEAL AROUND LOG. LOGS SHOULD EXTEND INTO THE
BANKS VON EACH SIDE.
3. SOIL SHALL BE WELL COMPACTED AROUND BURIED PORTION OF FOOTER LOGS WITH
BUCKET OF TRACK HOE.
4. INSTALL NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC UNDERNEATH LOGS.
5. UNDERCUT POOL BED ELEVATION 8 INCHES TO ALLOW FOR LAYER OF STONE. INSTALL
STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE ALLUVIUM ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
6. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ALONG COMPLETED BANKS SUCH THAT THE EROSION
CONTROL MATTING AT THE TOE OF THE BANK EXTENDS DOWN TO THE UNDERCUT
ELEVATION.
7. INSTALL STONE BACKFILL OR SUITABLE SOIL MATERIAL ALONG SIDE SLOPES.
8. FINAL CHANNEL BED SHAPE SHOULD BE ROUNDED, COMPACTED, AND CONCAVE, WITH THE
ELEVATION OF THE BED APPROXIMATELY 0.5 FT DEEPER IN THE CENTER THAN AT THE
EDGES.
9. AVERAGE POOL TO POOL SPACING SHALL BE SHOWN ON THE PROFILE OR SPECIFIED BY
ENGINEER BASED ON EXISTING CONDITIONS SUCH AS SLOPE AND SUITABLE FILL MATERIAL.
RIFFLE STEP POOLS OR CASCADE POOLS MAY BE SUBSTITUTED IN AREAS WHERE EXISTING
SLOPES EXCEED 10%AS DETERMINED BY THE ENGINEER.
-STEPINVERT
ELEVATION RESTORED POOL TO POOL SPACING
STREAMBED VARIES. SEE NOTE #9 FOR POOL
SPACING REQUIREMENTS.
1 H - STEP _
7 HEIGHT V_BASEFLOW
��%Y/��\✓i\l/�\�/i\l/ / �.� POOL ,,y1
PROFILE B-B
10. INTERIOR LOGS SHOULD BE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE (-70 DEGREES) FROM THE
STREAMBANK AND CROSS SLOPES SHOULD BE 1-2%.
11. PLACE FOOTER LOGS FIRST AND THEN HEADER (TOP) LOG. SET HEADER LOG
AT A MAXIMUM OF 3 INCHES ABOVE THE INVERT ELEVATION.
12. AVERAGE STEP HEIGHTS/DROPS SHALL NOT EXCEED 0.5 UNLESS SHOWN
OTHERWISE.
13. CUT A NOTCH IN THE HEADER LOG APPROXIMATELY 30% OF THE CHANNEL
BOTTOM WIDTH AND EXTENDING DOWN TO THE INVERT ELEVATION. NOTCH
SHALL BE USED TO CENTER FLOW AND NOT EXCEED 3 INCHES IN DEPTH.
14. THE NUMBER OF STEPS MAY VARY BETWEEN BEGINNING AND END
STATIONING. SEE LONGITUDINAL PROFILE FOR STATION AND ELEVATION.
15. USE GEOTEXTILE FABRIC FOR DRAINAGE TO SEAL GAPS BETWEEN LOGS.
16. PLACE VEGETATION TRANSPLANTS FROM TOE OF STREAMBANK TO TOP OF
STREAMBANK.
17. SEE TYPICAL SECTION FOR CHANNEL DIMENSIONS.
LOG STEP POOL
NOT TO SCALE
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
(919)614-51 11
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
11 ISO
R
0 ' ...
ER
r, G I NE
OENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A DRAFT MIT PLAN 1-17-2020
JO. DESCRIPTION DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, NC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO. 18-002
FILENAME D97 BUFFALO CREEK IRIBS_DETAIL SHEDS,DWG
DESIGNED BY KMV/CAT
DRAWN BY APL
DATE 1/17/2020
HORIZ. SCALE N.T.S.
VERT. SCALE N.T.S.
SHEET NAME
DETAILS
SHEET NUMBER
7

EASEMENT (TYP.)
30
WATER & LAND
30
—\
TREAT ENTEROUREWI
OUTLET CHANNEL TREATMENT FEATURE WITH
TYPICAL
o > I I "IC SOILS (TYP.) �J
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
30
SECTION AND DETAIL)
30
SOLUTIONS
SOLUTIONS
1 1\
l ) `
I 1
F``3
Ow
J END CONSTRUCTION R3
STATION 16+g1
STONE RIFFLE (� TYP.)
oo
�ag
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
\ `
I I \
\ 1
— — •
INSTALL LOG
VANE TYP.
(TYP.)
C
919 614 51 11
1
1
° i�'�
6:
C F
I F
F
�
iG
J
waterlandsolutions.com
/ 1
I � � �• \ I \ \ �
IN TALL STONE AN LOG
�l STEP POOL TYP.)
\�
�
I ' yO
C
/ � 7�
o M LOW
°o0 0 000
o 00
�`I""`"...r'
� °
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
O LOG RIFFLE (TYP.)
,R
� �j
GZ�\ OO
PROJECT ENGINEER
„,I
, �� G A D `O
,� �, `� 'T
�`��°X' ESQ.
oo °
° 0000Doo
°°o01�o
�
\
�P��x
9�PlG�G��
�F �� �
I
J BEGI CONSTRUCTION
STATION 10+00
MS-R1 0o
i
d
`D
_►,
/ /JAI i —►
i o�oo
—
:C,
—I
11+00
_
�I
00 o
0 a 0 a D
0 0 0
D o
Do 0
� IN 0
Cm
—
CHANNEL FILL (TYP.)
BIOVERNAL POOL (TYP.)
yi
CAA
ENGINEERNG SERVICES BY
EXISTING BEDROCK
OUTCROP TO REMAIN
CHANNEL BL( &QZYP.)
��
CE
�O I
WLS ENGNEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
CE
OF \
REVISIONS
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
INSTALL GEOLIFT
' y/o
0 0
00oo00
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
W/ TOEWOOD (TYP.)
N/F
'
0 0
0 00 o 000
GE
ANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSON
REVOCABLETRUST
'
D.B. 04094, PG. 0770
P.I.N.: 179100-59-0695
'
+
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
265
265
TRIBUTARIES
W
MITIGATION
.I
PROJECT
-
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
N
w
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.
18-002
N
FILENAME
B&iB BUFFALO CREERIRIBS PLAN AND PROFILES.DWG
DESIGNED 8Y
KMV/CAT
N
+
e
275
H
275
DRAWN BY
APL
a
DATE
3/28/2020
PRO
-OSI
D
HORIZ. SCALE
VERT. SCALE
1" = 6'
BA
KFU
L
w
N
w
I
°
II
II
N
W
W
(�
W
W
W
IN,
j
IL
II
II
II
Q
^
N
+
r
W
W
a
�
r
r
�
<
II
I
v
I
v
w
NORTH
II
it
4
it
a
a
<
y
v
�-
II
F^
I
II
I
30 15 0 30 60
265
a@
a
a
i'o
-+.0
%
a
¢
F
,I
~
265
GRAPHIC SCALE
I
. a
.oh%
a
a
SHEET NAME
�
J
MS—R 1
DE
HALI
IGN-1
VEG
GROUND
PLAN AND
PROFILE
255
FFI
-
-
-----
255
SHEET NUMBER
10+00 11+00
12+00
13+00
14+00
15+00
16+00
17+00
8

_
,,. � 11
7
WATER & LAND
1.1•• 1 1
• • � ���'W'�" !"dam
, ••SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone]
1
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT
■ ♦ •CREEK
.
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
■!!■■i■■■■I■■I■■■!1■�I■■■■■!!■■i■■■I■■■I■■■■■■■I■■■■■■■■■■■'�!■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
:11
■!1■■i■■■�1■�■■I■■■!'1■■I■■I■■■!'1■■i■■■I■■■I■■I■■'■■■I■■■■■■I■■■■��■I■■7■■!�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�
.: . : . PLAN D PROFILES.M
.
■�!■■�■■■�1■I■■I■■■!1■■I■■I■■■!1■■'�■■CI■■■I■■'I■■■■FI■■■■■■�■■■I■■■I■I■■a■■■�■■■■■■■■!!■■■■!�■■■■■■■
.
i�iiiii■■�:■I■��•.I■■J�!■■I■■I■■■!1■■�■■�I■■■I■■I■■■■�I■■■■■■�■■�I■■■i■I■��■■■�■■�I■■■■■■■■!■■�■■�I■■■�'!
�
:11
■!1■��!■■�G■I■�I■��ii!■■I►►�ilii■!�■1�.�■■■I=■�I■■I■■■■■I■■�■■■I■■■I■■��■I■■�■■■�■■�I■�■■■E■■I■■!■■�I■■I■�!
.,
�
i��■■■■1�lii\I■iiii■■\fil■■■■■II!■■!■■iilii■I■�L1■■1.�.�Ji■'■■■■■■�■■■I■■■;■I■■�■■■�■■�I■■■■■■'■■I■■■■■I■■I■�!
■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■\ii/■■■■■■i■I�'"■■■!■■'I■■■I■■ii■■.■■■I■■■IC■l■;■!■■�■■■■'�■■�I_■■■■■■■■i■■a■■■I■■I■�!
■■■■■■N■■■■■■■■■■■■■■O■■\'■■■■■■\■I■��I�!�\■■■■■I■■il■■■■■1�1ii■■C�■�I■■■■■G�'■■I■!��■N■I■■I■�!
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ii■■■It■\'�\■Iaii■■'-■■■i■■INN■I■■�I■i■N■■■■IC■■C■I■■I■�!
NORTH
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
GRAPHIC SCALE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEETNAME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PLANAND
PROFILE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

.:.
..
..•.. ..
WATER :LAND
SOLUTIONS
•I
••
• •
• •
�'I
•
• -• • •
., 111111♦
�1�1�11111♦ ��
♦ 11111♦111i
• I ,�1��111_1111•
- •
♦ . I .. 1�.1.11:1�1�1..
I .
. ' • f •
111 �111 11111�1.1♦
ii ♦ 1�1i •v.,
p00 100
.11 1� � 111 .�1♦1i
r
�'' • '!; L4 �♦1i 1i1i
• • . I 11i♦ ♦ODi
.... 1` ♦:11i0i1111
♦
a
•
PROJECT
.•.,
CREEKBUFFALO
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
■■■II■1■■il■�I■■■■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
DRAWING ...
■■■II■11■■F1�1■I■■NI■■■■■■■■■■■■LI■I�I�ii■■■■■■■ii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
: „
■■I■II■�1■■i'IIIFI■■i'I■1!■■■i■i■■■■II■IYliiil■iiili■■■■■■■��ii7■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�
OPHUFFACCREEKTHBS. D PROFILE&M
.,
el■I■�i■11■■i1Fi■I■■iI■���■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■■■�1■■■�■■■■�■■i�l�■■�I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
.•
L�!�I■1�1■�1■■ill■I■■FI■li!■■■�■�■■■i■I■�1■7■■1'1■■i■i!■i�■■li�l■�■il■■■■I■■■■■I■■11■■■■■i■■li■■■■■li■
�
: , ,
,
lilll■i�iiEliiill■I■■i'■li!■■■i■iiNil■11■i■■1■■'■i�N■■IIEI■■il■■■L�I■■li■I■■11■■■I■■il■■�i■■li■■Ai■
ii\�I■!!iNili�I■:
it■li!■■■ILA■i■■■■■I■11■a■■11■■i
■i■i■■11I■■il■■■■I■■li■■I■■11■■■I■■il■ili■■i■■i■
■■\!!I■■hlr�ll
N�■I■�iii■�iN►i•'■■■■■I■�1■�i■■11■■ii■il■il■■11�1■�■111■■■■i�T1■�ii■i■■11■■[I■■il■■�i■■�i■■li■
■■N■■■■■■ii■■�
\li'�!!iN■li■ii■!!111h!i■11■■i■il■il■■illy'lid■IIDI■■■■I■■li■■I■■11■■■I■■il■■�i■\'��ii■�i■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■ii'iNli■■I■�1■yi■■11�1ii,��iilalii7l�i���!'�'
!!i■■I■■��■■I■■11■■■I■■il■■�i■■�i■■III■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■NiiNII■iiiN�.aiil■il■■�■iIJAI■■■I■■■I■■li■■I■iliNiiiNliiliiliiiiii�ii
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■\�:=;%■■■■■\iii�■i�i\IhNiiiiN■liii'ii���\■il■■N!iili■■li■■l�liNORTH
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II
■■■■i■■■■■■\'i
/i■■Iil■iN'i%■■■■iN��ii■N
GRAPHIC SCALE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ii■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEETNAME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PLANAND
PROFILE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEETNUMBER

.: .
k WATER & D
SOLUTIONS
Suite
7721 Six Forks •. 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
•e 14-5111
_..!gye
se
- e
:
� µ� q
Y,
•• `'•., ;•,ram •;, • •• I
�
PROJECT
CREEKBUFFALO
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
DRAWING INFORMATION
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■I■�II�.
■■■■■■■■
:„
OPHUFFALOCREEK70 PLAN AND PROFILES.M
■li■■�i■■�■■�■■■F■■■�I■■■�1■■■■"■■■1'1■■■AI■■■■■!■■■■■■■■■■■■■G�®■1�■■li■■Ii■■■'i■■N■■■■■■■■■
..
.,
■�i■■�i■■�■■■�■■■�■■■■'I■il■�'1■■■■�■■I■�1■■■�1■■!i■■I■■■I■■■■I■■■il■■�1■■li■!!II■■■1��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■�i■■li■■�■■■I■■■■■■!'I■il■�1■■■■'■■I■�1■■■�1■■�i■■I■■■I■■I■■I■■■i1■■11■■li■il■■■r�l■■!!I■■■■■■■■■■■
■��i■■li■■�■■■�■■■�■■■■I■il■��■■■■■■I■��■■e�'�■■li■■I■■■I■■I■�I■■■il■■11■■��■F�1■.:.��■!■■I■■■@I■■■■!!1■■
■�i■■�u■■I■■■I■■■�■■e■mil■��■■■■I■®I■�1J■■■�l1■■�i■■I■■■I■■�■■I■■■il■■��■■��■i'I■■■■��■�■FBI■�I■�'1■■■■il■■
iiiil�i■■!■■I!■■■■■■I■i1l��■■■■I■■!■1■■■1■■i■I■■EI■��I■■■il■■ill■■it■il■■■■III■�■I■II■1■■■■il■I
■li■■!�■■I■■■I■■■I■■■■I�il■�1■■■■ii■IiFi■ii�:'■■�:S■L�r■'�.■■�!■I■!�■�1:�■�1■■il■1�1■■■■��■'�■
I0�1■�1■■■■i'1■■'INORTH
■��i■■N■■i\I■■■r■iii\il■iii■■■■!!■I■�!!■■11■■li■■I■■■I■■I■■I■■■il■■11■i■iii�l■■■■�1■�■■I■�I■�1■■■■il■®I
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■r■■■■■■\►!I■■■■■■■I�■%i1■■■\I■■'i:■`■:■■■■it■■il■f�l■'lillll■1■■■■1■ll
,
GRAPHIC SCALE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II
■■■\�i■■■■■■■■■■■r■i�i:■■■I■I■iiliiNi:■■!
SHEET NAME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■II■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■i■I
PLANAND
PROFILE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEET NUMBER

N/F
SAM'S BRANCH II, LLC
D.B. 05160, PG. 0208
CONSERVATION
EASEMENT (FYP.
�? N— �- CE
P.I.N.:179100-58-1377
CE
CE
�i HYDRI�S(TYP.) � � �C J
WATER &LAN D
-
V', lv (- l �,
SOLUTIONS
114
L 1p a
44
J CJ I� J
Q4
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
G� L%
[phone]
END CONSTRUCTION R
waterlandsolutions.com
INS-MLL NS/�^VICTELy/ ATION 40+47 ✓ -'7
LOG RIFF (NP.) ( ( /
PROJECT ENGINEER
,,�111111I jr
O
AR
INSTALL LO .) /
VANE (TYP.) � � �
�
J/0
MS-R2
FLOW q
p ROBERTS.MAYHEW
I
O
po.
G
V
v
ASHELY D. MAYHEW
D.B. 04970, PG. 01025
GIF P.I.N.: 179100-47-6468
• `
V
jn C
' `�•• �\�'
7
INSTALL CONSTRUCTED
/ HANNEL BLOCK (TYP. STONE RIFFLE (TYP.)
`/
CHANNEL FILL (TYP.)
O ENGINEERING
ENGINEERING, LLY C
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
INSTALL
W/ TOEWOOD TYI .).)
((TYP-
lj Z/ '� �
REVISIONS
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
�
30
N
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
02
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
260
260
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
PR
OSD
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
a
r
a
"
"
N
n
v
DRAWING INFORMATION
N
�+
N
PROJECT NO.
18-002
w
w
w
j
FILENAME
B&iSBUFFALO CREERIRIBS PLAN AND PROFILES.M
DESIGNED BY
KMV/CAT
w
w
I
/
w
250
°
250
DRAWN BY
APL
jo
DATE
3/28/2020
°
s °
F
a
N
¢
HORIZ. SCALE
1" = 60'
VERT. SCALE
1" = 6'
a
a
p,
o
GR
UND
TH
LW
G
NORTH
30 15 0 30 60
240
240
GRAPHIC SCALE
SHEET NAME
MS-R2
PLAN AND
PROFILE
230
230
SHEET NUMBER
38+00
39+00 40+00 41+00 42+00 43+00 44+00 45+00
12

1 \ l
\ \ N/F ENDCONSTR CTIONR \ / U o °
� ANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSON STAION 16+81
REVOCABLE TRUST o° j
D.B. 04094, PG. 0770 \ I , ` °o ° PF
\ \ P.I.N.: 179100-59-0695 ` ! AZ 1
INSTALL STONE AND LOG CH HAZEL \
'4-5111
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3 STEP POOL (TYP.) \\ FILL (TYP.)
\
o>< STATION 10+00 \ � �c III �
SEMENTATION
(TYP.) G \ �O INSTALL CONSTRUCTED o O /
l 7 STON IFFLE (TYPJ o0 0 0 / <
111I /
-c l \ NSTA GEOLIFT
\ � �
TOEWODOD�'YP.) / �
_ \ J
/ 4+0 — _ HYQRICS61L£-(T`}�\ \ I r /
' /
II I
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R1 _ I I I I
STATION 10+00
N/F
ANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSON
REVOCABLETRUST
D.B. 04094, PG. 0770
P.I.N.:179100-39-9802 CE CE CEO CE_ CE
WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
lan 6 lotion
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
_ `C�)`0
,,,,�,�� 1/ CAR
,\O \ C /i !�i�Ji�I
p
� HER P• �.
Q �� 0%
uu R
O ENGINEERING SERVICES BY
WLS ENGINEERING, PLLC
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
200 290
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
PROJECT NO.
18-002
FILENAME
B&IB BUFFALO CREERIRIBS PLAN AND PROFILES.DWG
DESIGNED BY
KMV/CAT
280
280
DRAWN BY
APL
DATE
3/28/2020
HORIZ. SCALE
1" = 60,
VERT. SCALE
1.. = 6-
8
kNKF
ULL
it
w
w
wllw
m
II
w
w
>
w
> N
wll
J
it c`OO
II
NORTH
N W
W W
W
30 15 0 30 60
270
a
a
a
W
270
GRAPHIC SCALE
a
a
y
it
¢
it+Il
¢
SHEET NAME
4Na
z3°
-s
N
a
a
¢
°
+
GROIINDa.
a rn
? a
a
R3
0—
1y°°
—
I
DEE
IGN
PLAN A N D
PROFILE
260
260
SHEET NUMBER
10+00 11+00 12+00 13+00
14+00
15+00 16+00
17+00
13

EXISTING WET DETENTION
Q0N$#1.
DO NOT DISTURB EXISTING 48" PIPE WITH
FES ELEV=280.62 r
N/F l f
ANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSON r s
WATER & LAND
1
L REVOCABLE TRUST
C \
SOLUTIONS
D.B. 04094, PG. 0770
CONSERVATION J �'L� 1 (695 /\ �j0/)
I J
�j
/
n
/
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
II I
1 NSTALL LFbF V2" PVC PIPE EASEMENT (TYP.) / ( ((
NV IN=280.30� �� / ! ( I 1 I \
INVQUT=272.00'^ V �O f ,--`// / J� 1/( `
)r BEGIN tlGTION R4
j � I I I l
F�
o )
o o�°
4(
Raleigh, NC 27615
[phone]
waterlandsolutions.com
PROJECT ENGINEER
1,111 It C_)
CA
STATIONN 10+0010+00 / � / 1 � �a°
/� ( / \ 1 pp • END CO S4T RUCTION R4
/ I /
7.
�
'.♦ �O • ........
P
\ REMOVE EXISTING 4" DIP f •' ! 0 / ��
V 1 INSTALL LOG
O/
i
CHANNEL BLOCK (TYP.)
i: (
WEIR (TYP.)
STALL CONSTRUCTED
STONE RIFFLE (TYP.) , .� R4 xp0
12+00 FLOW
��
�I
/
)
) (WSTOEWOOD (TYP.)
6
�� Iv��,�'•• �� ��
• Q ♦�
G ,�
/�/ER(NAL/PC10L( PJ
Q� 1 II 11��♦,♦♦
ENGINEERING
LLCY
SI ` / I /
I
FIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480
REVISIONS
/
\ INST/�LL CONSTRUCTED 4 a
/ LOG RIFFLE (TYP.) U o0�
\\
o
'
/
I
/ r 7 1
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
L HYD�IC SrI p.)
0
V r I I
CHANNEL FILL (TYP.) `
NO.
I DESCRIPTION
DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
285
265
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
EXSTIfIG
ET
PON
D#
IN
VI
=2
30.3'
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
N
DRAWING INFORMATION
N
PROJECT NO.
18-002
w
w
FILENAME
O&ifi BUFFALO CREEI(1WSS PLAN AND PROFILES.PfVG
DESIGNED 8Y
KMV/CAT
wwl
275
?
it II
j
275
DRAWN BY
APL
it
o
w
w
w
w
it
r
a
DATE
3/28/2020
—
♦
oo
v
w
W
>
J
>
p
HORIZ. SCALE
1" = 60'
VERT. SCALE
1" = 6'
a
o
N
N
rn
1
a
a
w
a
F
n
it
w
w
w>
it
wpp
n
�
pnql:n
\
a
y
Q
+
w
M
w
w
W
N
KF
CL
S
O
d
~
II
F
Q
N
II
+
N
w
W
J
II
N
r
265
72°
a
CL
Q
~
N
°
+
°''
Ld
w"
w
265
GRAPHIC SCALE
E
ISTI
G
_
Q
F
N
N
N
o
0
N
SHEET NAME
II
II
+
W
W
o
R4
a
n
.6
S s
¢
�+
N
N
PLAN AND
PROFILE
-iALI
IEG
t#--F
255
1
1
—fl+255
SHEET NUMBER
9+00 10+00
11+00 12+00 13+00 14+00
15+00
14

^7C7
NSERVATION /
1 �J
WATER & LAND
i ~ \ 7 �� CE
EASEMENT I ` /
SOLUTIONS
Forks Rd., 130
CE DO NOT DISTURB R5
�
`J a \ (� I I l /LL
7721 Six Suite
Raleigh, NC 27615
V /
��}(���1 I/
DO NOTI 19YURB I ("
/ EXISTING WETLAND FLOW
cE) (1 < r• ,
/ J /_�1911V`-I,
)/
1
/ �Ji r '� Oj
// W J
r CE 1
o
oop
/
[phone]
waterlandsoIutions.com
EXISTING 4"'PVC PIPE
O
J `' x0
I
1 ` \ �'
CIF �. INSTALL CONSTRUCTED BEGIR CONSTRUCTION R5
PROJECT ENGINEER
���'�� CAR
�� II
/ BEGIN CONSTR TION R5
STONE RIFFLE (TYP.) STATION 17+43
JJ
% Q� .cC c��, ►
\\
STATION 10+0
00 �_
11+00
�—
INS
\ L INSTALL STONE AND LOG
/ STEP POOL (TYP 17, 0
INSTALL LdG /� '� L
)�
._— - —_� ✓,
WEIR (TYN)
/
1
: G
• 1 V
,C7 Iv:� �
CIF 1
\ _/ L
p
ENGINEERING SERVICES B
II II `
3O 3O
�, 3O
\ _,
\ o
de �YD�F IC SOILS (TYP.) ��
o0
LSENGINEERING
FIRM N P-14 OY
REVISIONS
O f
f\ /
\ '•
o 0o
A
DRAFT MIT PLAN
1-17-2020
B
DRAFT FINAL MIT PLAN
3-28-2020
\
\
CHANIIJEL FILL (TYP.)
�
LL
NO.
DESCRIPTION
DATE
PROJECT NAME
BUFFALO CREEK
280
280
TRIBUTARIES
MITIGATION
PROJECT
N
s
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
w
w
it
BA
FU
L
DRAWING INFORMATION
/
\
n
II
m
it
PROJECT NO.
18-002
-
+�
w
w
J
w
W
II I
I
�
Y
FILENAME
1&ifi BIIFFAIO CREEI(1WSS PIFNANCPROFILES.PfVG
DESIGNED 8Y
KMV/CAT
�
a
~
r
II
II
270
\
-
_
a
II
w
270
DRAWN BY
APL
a
a
II
v
w
DATE
3/28/2020
a
N
N (V
N
HORIZ. SCALE
1" = 60'
VERT. SCALE
O
�O
-
N
OWJI
!I
N
++
W
WW
IW
IN
W N�
a
�N
w
E
ISTI
G
-a~
¢
ail
W
M.NORTH
a
_
.N
N
a
a
II
F
+
`
�
u
30 15 0 30 60
260
a
19 w +
260
GRAPHIC SCALE
HAL
fVEG
a
SHEET NAME
IQ+
R5
PLAN AND
PROFILE
250
250
SHEET NUMBER
10+00
11+00 12+00 13+00
14+00 15+00 16+00 17+00
15

WATER & LAND
SOLUTIONS
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
.. .. -�
. ... .
If III
'•:,
,�, ....,...,,
.-
. „ �
r
.•
�
a
.
I LGIR "KIN 0-
R
BUFFALO CREEK
R5 PROFILE
R6 PROFILE 270
■�ii��l■■■■■■■■■■MENEEMEN
MENEEMEN
MENEEMEN
MENEEMEN
MENEEMEN
MENEM
TRIBUTARIES
■��■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■7�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■MITIGATION
■���ii��C®®]®�Rddq���VA��®�I■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■��r�CIII�■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PROJECT
JOHNSTON COUNTY, INC
DRAWING INFORMATION
■■■�i►���ai��l�l���l���a��l■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■l�ii��i�����i��'I������a�i����'�����'��1�1�1■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
�
.:.BUFFALO CREEKTMBS. D PROFILES.DWG
■■■■Seri■■■�,����Ti■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e���A�!�����������i������i���i��i������m�i��e■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ee■■■■■■■■■■■■,
GRAPHIC SCALE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■e■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEETNAME
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ee®�■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
PLANAND
PROFILE
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
SHEET NUMBER

DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYDATEPROJECT NO. FILENAMEDRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEHORIZ. SCALEVERT. SCALEWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCBUFFALO CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERS
N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S18-002KMV/CATAPLDRAFT MIT PLAN17_19 _BUFFALO CREEK TRIBS_REVEGETATION PLAN.DWGDRAFT MIT PLANA1-17-20201/17/2020N/A17REVEGETATIONPLANPLANTING SCHEDULEPERMANENT SEEDING SCHEDULETEMPORARY SEEDING SCHEDULEPLANTING NOTESBotanical NameCommon Name% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesSeeding Rate(lb/acre)WetlandTolerancePermanent Herbaceous Seed Mixture – Streambank, Floodplain, Wetlands andRiparian Buffer Areas(Proposed Seed Rate @ 15 lbs/acre)Andropogon gerardiiBig blue stem10%1.50FACDichantheliumclandestinumDeer tongue15%1.50FACWCarex crinitaFringed sedge10%2.25FACW+ChasmanthiumlatifolumRiver oats5%1.50FACUElymus virginicusVirginia wildrye15%1.50FACJuncus effususSoft rush5%2.25FACW+Panicum virgatumSwitchgrass10%1.50FAC+EutrochiumfistulosumJoe-Pye Weed5%0.75FACWSchizachyriumscopariumLittle blue stem10%0.75FACUTripsacumdactyloidesEastern gammagrass5%0.75FAC+Sorghastrum nutansIndiangrass10%0.75FACUPlanting DatesBotanical NameCommon NameApplicationRate (lbs/acre)September toMarchSecale cerealeRye Grain (CoolSeason)130April to AugustUrochloa ramosaBrowntop Millet (WarmSeason)401.THE FOLLOWING TABLES LIST THE PROPOSED VEGETATIONSPECIES SELECTION FOR THE PROJECT REVEGETATION. THETOTAL PLANTING AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 6.3 ACRES AND WILLVARY BASED ON SITE CONDITIONS AND AREAS DISTURBEDDURING CONSTRUCTION.2.FINAL VEGETATION SPECIES SELECTION MAY CHANGE DUE TOREFINEMENT OR SPECIES AVAILABILITY AT THE TIME OFPLANTING. SPECIES SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE COORDINATEDBETWEEN ENGINEER AND PLANTING CONTRACTOR PRIOR TOTHE PROCUREMENT OF PLANT/SEED STOCK.3.IN GENERAL, WOODY SPECIES SHALL BE PLANTED AT ADENSITY OF 680 STEMS PER ACRE AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEETFROM THE TOP OF RESTORED STREAMBANKS AND TO THEREVEGETATION LIMITS. EXACT PLACEMENT OF THE PLANTSPECIES WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE CONTRACTOR’SVEGETATION SPECIALIST PRIOR TO SITE PLANTING AND BASEDON THE WETNESS CONDITIONS OF PLANTING LOCATIONS.4.SUPPLEMENTAL PLANTING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMEDWITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT USING NATIVE SPECIESVEGETATION DESCRIBED IN RIPARIAN BUFFER PLANT MIXTURE.5.ANY INVASIVE SPECIES VEGETATION, SUCH AS CHINESE PRIVET(LIGUSTRUM SINENSE) AND MULTIFLORA ROSE (ROSAMULTIFLORA) WILL BE INITIALLY TREATED AS DESCRIBED INTHE CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS PRIOR TO PLANTINGACTIVITIES TO ALLOW NATIVE PLANTS TO BECOMEESTABLISHED WITHIN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.6.LARGER NATIVE TREE SPECIES TO BE PRESERVED WILL BEFLAGGED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTIONACTIVITIES. ANY TREES HARVESTED FOR WOODY MATERIALWILL BE UTILIZED TO PROVIDE BED AND BANK STABILIZATION,COVER AND/OR HABITAT.7.ALL DISTURBED AREAS WILL BE STABILIZED USING MULCHINGAND SEEDING AS DEFINED IN THE CONSTRUCTIONSPECIFICATIONS AND THE APPROVED SEDIMENTATION ANDEROSION CONTROL PLANS.Botanical NameCommon Name% Proposedfor Plantingby SpeciesWetlandToleranceRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Overstory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Betula nigraRiver birch7%FACWTilia americanaBasswood7%FACUPlatanus occidentalisAmericansycamore7%FACWNyssa sylvaticaBlack Gum6%FACLiriodendron tulipiferaTulip-poplar7%FACUQuercus albaWhite oak6%FACUQuercus rubraNorthern RedOak3%FACUFraxinuspennsylvanicaGreen Ash3%FACWRiparian Buffer Bare Root Plantings – Understory(Proposed 8’ x 8’ Planting Spacing @ 680 Stems/Acre)Diospyros virginianaPersimmon7%FACAmelanchier arboreaCommonServiceberry5%FACMagnolia tripetalaUmbrellamagnolia6%FACUCarpinus carolinianaAmericanhornbeam6%FACHamamelis virginianaWitch-hazel6%FACUAsimina trilobaPawpaw6%FACLindera benzoinSpicebush6%FACWAlnus serrulataHazel alder6%OBLCorylus americanaHazelnut6%FACURiparian Buffer Live Stake Plantings - Streambanks(Proposed 2’-3’ Spacing @ Meander Bends and 6’-8’ Spacing @Riffle Sections)SambucuscanadensisElderberry20%FACW-Salix sericeaSilky Willow30%OBLSalix nigraBlack Willow10%OBLCornus amomumSilky Dogwood40%FACW
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECE
C
E
CE CE
CE
CECECECE10+00
11+00
12+0013+001
4
+
0
0
15+00
16+0
0
1
7
+
0
0
18+0019+0020
+
0
021+0022+0023+0024
+
0
0
25
+
0
0
10+0011+0012+0013+001
4+
0
0
15
+
0
0
16+0
0
17+0017+02
10+0011+0012+0013+001
4
+
0
014+6
7
BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 10+00BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R1STATION 10+00END CONSTRUCTION R3STATION 16+81CONSERVATIONEASEMENT (TYP.)BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 10+00BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R4STATION 14+59DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYDATEPROJECT NO. FILENAMEDRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALEVERT. SCALENORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCBUFFALO CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERS
N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S18-002KMV/CATAPLDRAFT MIT PLAN17_19 _BUFFALO CREEK TRIBS_REVEGETATION PLAN.DWG1" = 150'DRAFT MIT PLANA1-17-20201/17/2020N/APLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 19SALEM CHURCH ROAD
18REVEGETATIONPLANN/FANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSONREVOCABLE TRUSTD.B. 04094, PG. 0770P.I.N.: 179100-59-0695FLOWR4FLOWR3FL
O
W
M
S
-
R
1
N/FANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSONREVOCABLE TRUSTD.B. 04094, PG. 0770P.I.N.: 179100-39-9802N/FCOUNTY OF JOHNSTOND.B. 03573, PG. 0635P.I.N.: 179100-49-7055N/FJAMES RODNEY SEALEYDEBORAH ANN SEALEYD.B.04809, P.G. 0843P.I.N.: 179100-49-2231
WLBWL
B
WLBWLBWLBCEC
E
CE
CECECECECECECECECECECECECECECECE CE
CE
CECE
CE
CECECE25
+
0
0
26+00
27+
0
028+0029+00
30+0031+003
2
+
0
0
33+00
3
4
+
0
0
35+00
36+00
37+00
38+0039+0040+0040+4714+6
7
9+0010+0011+001
2
+
0
013+0014+0015+0016+0017+0017+5710+0011+0012+0013+0014+0014+17 50'50'BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 10+00END CONSTRUCTION R5STATION 17+43END CONSTRUCTION R6STATION 14+04BEGIN CONSTRUCTION R6STATION 11+52BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R2STATION 40+47BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R2STATION 16+45BEGIN CONSTRUCTION MS-R2STATION 40+47DESCRIPTIONNO.REVISIONSDATEPROJECT NAMESHEET NUMBERDESIGNED BYDRAWN BYDATEPROJECT NO. FILENAMEDRAWING INFORMATIONSHEET NAMEGRAPHIC SCALEHORIZ. SCALEVERT. SCALENORTHWATER & LAND SOLUTIONS7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615(919)614-5111waterlandsolutions.comPROJECT ENGINEERJOHNSTON COUNTY, NCBUFFALO CREEKTRIBUTARIESMITIGATIONPROJECTENGINEERING SERVICES BYWLS ENGINEERING, PLLCFIRM LICENSE NO. P-1480PR
O
F
ESSIONALSEAL36916ENGINEE
R
N
O
R
THCAROLINACHRISTOPAT
O
M
.
ICHERS
N
O
T

F
O
R

C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
P
R
E
L
IM
I
N
A
R
Y

P
L
A
N
S18-002KMV/CATAPLDRAFT MIT PLAN17_19 _BUFFALO CREEK TRIBS_REVEGETATION PLAN.DWG1" = 150'DRAFT MIT PLANA1-17-20201/17/2020N/APLANTING ZONESRIPARIAN BUFFER ENHANCEMENTRIPARIAN BUFFER RESTORATIONRIPARIAN BUFFER PRESERVATIONMATCHLINE - SEE SHEET 18FLOWR619REVEGETATIONPLANN/FANNIE LAURA G. JOHNSONREVOCABLE TRUSTD.B. 04094, PG. 0770P.I.N.: 179100-59-0695FLOWMS-R2FLOWR5N/FCOUNTY OF JOHNSTOND.B. 03573, PG. 0635PIN: 179100-49-7055N/FSAM'S BRANCH II, LLC D.B. 05160, PG. 0208P.I.N.: 179100-58-1377CARDINAL PRESERVEPHASE 1N/FCOUNTY OF JOHNSTOND.B. 03561, PG. 0693PIN: 179100-67-5865N/FGEORGE E. HUTTONPATRICIA A. HUTTOND.B. 02120, PG. 0025P.I.N.: 179100-57-4466N/FROBERT S. MAYHEWASHELY D. MAYHEWD.B. 04970, PG. 01025P.I.N.: 179100-47-6468N/FROBERT S. MAYHEWASHELY D. MAYHEWD.B. 04970, PG. 01025P.I.N.: 179100-47-6468
Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 2 – Site Analysis Data/Supplementary Information
Pre-Construction Gauge Data
Hydric Soils Report
Existing Cross-Sections
Particle Size Distribution (Sediment Samples)
BANCS (BEHI/NBS) Method Estimates
Watershed Information and Site Runoff Volume
NC Regional Curve Analysis
USGS Regression Flow Analysis
Stream Quantification Tool Reach Summary
Design Criteria and Stream Morphology Parameters Table
Site Photographs

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5/14/20195/21/20195/28/20196/4/20196/11/20196/18/20196/25/20197/2/20197/9/20197/16/20197/23/20197/30/20198/6/20198/13/20198/20/20198/27/20199/3/20199/10/20199/17/20199/24/201910/1/201910/8/201910/15/201910/22/201910/29/201911/5/201911/12/201911/19/201911/26/201912/3/2019Daily Rainfall (inches)Groundwater Depth (inches)Buffalo Creek Tributaries Well 1 -2019 Data
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5/14/20195/21/20195/28/20196/4/20196/11/20196/18/20196/25/20197/2/20197/9/20197/16/20197/23/20197/30/20198/6/20198/13/20198/20/20198/27/20199/3/20199/10/20199/17/20199/24/201910/1/201910/8/201910/15/201910/22/201910/29/201911/5/201911/12/201911/19/201911/26/201912/3/2019Daily Rainfall (inches)Groundwater Depth (inches)Buffalo Creek Tributaries Well 2 -2019 Data
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface

0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
-40
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5/14/20195/21/20195/28/20196/4/20196/11/20196/18/20196/25/20197/2/20197/9/20197/16/20197/23/20197/30/20198/6/20198/13/20198/20/20198/27/20199/3/20199/10/20199/17/20199/24/201910/1/201910/8/201910/15/201910/22/201910/29/201911/5/201911/12/201911/19/201911/26/201912/3/2019Daily Rainfall (inches)Groundwater Depth (inches)Buffalo Creek Tributaries Well 3 -2019 Data
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
-35
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5/14/20195/21/20195/28/20196/4/20196/11/20196/18/20196/25/20197/2/20197/9/20197/16/20197/23/20197/30/20198/6/20198/13/20198/20/20198/27/20199/3/20199/10/20199/17/20199/24/201910/1/201910/8/201910/15/201910/22/201910/29/201911/5/201911/12/201911/19/201911/26/201912/3/2019Daily Rainfall (inches)Groundwater Depth (inches)Buffalo Creek Tributaries Well 4 -2019 Data
Daily Rainfall Groundwater Depth Ground Level 12" Below Surface
!(
!(
!(
!(
4
3
2
1
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 400 800
Feet
FIGURE1Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Existing Conditions
Well Locations
Legend
Conservation Easement
!(Groundwater Monitoring Wells
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Existing Wetland
Hydric Soils 5.4 acres (LSS Determined)
MS-R1
R3 (upper)
MS-R2
R4
R5 (upper)
R3 (lower)
R5 (lower)
R6 (upper)
R6 (lower)
WB
WD
WC
Hydric Soils Investigation
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Neuse River Basin (CU 03020201)
Johnston County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
11030 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 119, Raleigh, NC 27614
[phone] 1 waterlandsolutions.com
Prepared by:
J
BROWN'S
ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP, INC.
SELMA, NC
242 Batten Farm Road
Selma, North Carolina 27526
[phone]

Introduction
Water and Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is investigating the feasibility of stream and wetland mitigation for
the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, in Johnston County, North Carolina in the Upper Neuse
River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020201). WLS has contracted Brown’s Environmental Group’s Inc. (BEG)
to perform a hydric soils investigation at the project site. The objective of the hydric soils investigation
was to identify the soils at the project site and to and determine soil areas suitable for wetland mitigation.
The described field investigation was performed on September 6, 2017 by Wyatt Brown, LSS.
The project site is part of the Neuse River Basin in northern Johnston County near the community of
Archer Lodge. The project study area is located in natural stream valleys situated with active agricultural
and forested areas. The stream systems are mostly incised, being greatly impacted by historic agricultural
and silvicultural practices.
Background
The project area has been mapped as moistly upland soils with hydric soils located along the stream
channels. This is common is the lower Piedmont of North Carolina. The publication Field Indicators of
Hydric Soils in the United States, A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils, (Version 8.0, 2016)
defines a hydric soil as a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough
during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part (USDA Soil Conservation
Service, 1994). Most hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of
saturation or inundation for more than a few days. Saturation or inundation, when combined with
microbial activity in the soil, causes the depletion of oxygen. This anaerobiosis promotes certain
biogeochemical processes, such as the accumulation of organic matter and the reduction, translocation,
or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in distinctive characteristics
that persist in the soil during both wet and dry periods, making them particularly useful for identifying
hydric soils in the field (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2010). This definition is for hydric
soils in their natural state receiving adequate hydrology.
Methodology
BEG performed 25 hand auger borings using visual and tactile methods to describe the soil along the
stream corridors that make up the project study area. Soil profile descriptions were recorded at the boring
locations and the borings were located by GPS. For each boring, BEG confirmed the existing soil mapping
and recorded the depth of the seasonal high-water table (SHWT). The depth of the SHWT or soil wetness
condition is stated by Rule .1942 (NCAC.2004) as the first occurrence of redox depletions observed in the
field as having a low chroma color (< or equal to 2) in Munsell Color Book at (> or equal to 2%) of soil
volume.
Discussion and Conclusions
The soil borings found hydric soils that were visually saturated, being found in apparent wetlands, as well
as hydric soils along the incised stream reaches that appeared to lack recent hydrology indicators.
According to the mitigation strategy proposed for the project, the headwater stream systems will be
restored, using Priority Level I Stream Restoration, to raise the proposed streambed back up to its historic
location to re-gain floodplain access. For the areas of hydric soils along these incised stream reaches that
appear to lack hydrology, it is BEG’s opinion that the described restoration of hydrology to starved hydric
soils will support hydric soil restoration and development of hydric soil criteria.
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, U SGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Study Area
Existing Stream
Hydric Soils Unit
Soil Borings
!(Hydric
!(Non-Hydric
±
0 500 1,00 0Feet
FIGUREHydric Soil InvestigationBuffalo Creek TributariesMitigation Project NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Johnston CountyNorth Carolina 1Prepared For:Water & Land Solutions
rqA6 JIT7
�- STrrr 1'2r1.red 6 f-f
o yR ?/a SL
sli s
-2v` yk s// Sc4-&,
yX _ 312 S,4 AJ D
4Zy-q" 1ovr, `VIr SAtin e',.e,t
/o S'AN D
f• /Fai✓t IUYQ 5/� MoHi>C /%a
//��/ , I
s/z S-AdD 69,tX � �I
Jo ;o /U yt `//L jC Eck • J I3/<
Ifnu�:.v

XS1 PRESERVATIONGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)100102104106108010203040Wbkf = 7.1Dbkf = .52Abkf = 3.72
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: R3
Cross Section Name: XS1 PRESERVATION
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 3.7 106.3 LPIN
9 4.25 105.75 GR
14 4.83 105.17 BKF LB
15 5.6 104.4 LEW
17 5.65 104.35 TW
18.5 5.4 104.6 REW
19.5 5.15 104.85 RB
22 4.65 105.35 GR
25 4.3 105.7 GR
30 3.6 106.4 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 105.99 105.99 105.99
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 105.17 105.17 105.17
Floodprone Width (ft) 22 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 7.1 3.55 3.55
Entrenchment Ratio 3.1 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.52 0.68 0.37
Maximum Depth (ft) 0.82 0.82 0.73
Width/Depth Ratio 13.65 5.25 9.59
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 3.72 2.4 1.32
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 7.45 4.55 4.35
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.5 0.53 0.3
Begin BKF Station 14 14 17.55
End BKF Station 21.1 17.55 21.1

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS2 PRESERVATIONGround PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9095100105010203040Wbkf = 5.46Dbkf = .56Abkf = 3.05
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: R3
Cross Section Name: XS2 PRESERVATION
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 6.55 103.45 LPIN
6 7.45 102.55 GR
13 7.85 102.15 LB
14 9.9 100.1 BKF
14.2 10.35 99.65 LEW
16.7 10.65 99.35 TW
18.5 10.5 99.5 REW
19.7 9.75 100.25 GR
21 7.65 102.35 RB
26 7.3 102.7 GR
35 7.6 102.4 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 100.85 100.85 100.85
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 100.1 100.1 100.1
Floodprone Width (ft) 6.44 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 5.46 2.94 2.52
Entrenchment Ratio 1.18 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.56 0.59 0.53
Maximum Depth (ft) 0.75 0.75 0.73
Width/Depth Ratio 9.75 5.02 4.75
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 3.05 1.72 1.33
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 5.95 3.98 3.43
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.51 0.43 0.39
Begin BKF Station 14 14 16.94
End BKF Station 19.46 16.94 19.46

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS3Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)9095100105110050100150Wbkf = 10.6Dbkf = 1.61Abkf = 17.2
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: MS-R1
Cross Section Name: XS3
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 5.25 104.75 LPIN
11 6.05 103.95 GR
22 5.25 104.75 GR
42 5.2 104.8 GR
62 5 105 GR
80.5 5.6 104.4 LB
81.1 0 101.54 BKF
81.5 9.8 100.2
82.5 10.5 99.5 LEW
87 10.3 99.7 TW
89.7 9.95 100.05 REW
91 9.45 100.55 GR
93.7 5.75 104.25 RB
100 5.4 104.6 GR
113 3.75 106.25 GR
122 2.4 107.6 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 103.58 103.58 103.58
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 101.54 101.54 101.54
Floodprone Width (ft) 12.54 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.62 5.31 5.31
Entrenchment Ratio 1.18 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.61 1.81 1.42
Maximum Depth (ft) 2.04 2.04 1.87
Width/Depth Ratio 6.6 2.94 3.74
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 17.15 9.59 7.56
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 12.46 8.4 7.8
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.38 1.14 0.97
Begin BKF Station 81.1 81.1 86.41
End BKF Station 91.72 86.41 91.72

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS4Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)100102104106108050100150Wbkf = 14.4Dbkf = 1.24Abkf = 17.8
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: MS-R1
Cross Section Name: XS4
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 5.15 104.85 LPIN
20 5.45 104.55 GR
36 5.65 104.35 LTD
38 6.15 103.85 DITCH BOTTOM
40 6.25 103.75 DITCH TW
42 6 104 DITCH REW
45 5 105 RTD
67 5.25 104.75 GR
94 5.4 104.6 GR
108 6 104 LB
108.6 7.3 102.7 BKF
109.1 8 102 GR
110.8 8.8 101.2 LEW
111.8 8.9 101.1 GR
113 8.75 101.25 GR
114 8.4 101.6 GR
116 8.45 101.55 BAR
117.3 8.65 101.35 BAR
118.6 9 101 TW
120 8.8 101.2 GR
121.3 8.65 101.35 REW
125 5.7 104.3 RB
136 4.5 105.5 GR
143 4.35 105.65 GR
150 2.9 107.1 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 104.4 104.4 104.4
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 102.7 102.7 102.7
Floodprone Width (ft) 38.45 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 14.39 7.01 7.38
Entrenchment Ratio 2.67 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.24 1.21 1.26
Maximum Depth (ft) 1.7 1.6 1.7
Width/Depth Ratio 11.6 5.78 5.86
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 17.79 8.5 9.29
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 15.56 8.76 9.08
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.14 0.97 1.02
Begin BKF Station 108.6 108.6 115.61
End BKF Station 122.99 115.61 122.99

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS5Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)1001011021031041050 1020304050Wbkf = 2.82Dbkf = .75Abkf = 2.13
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: R5
Cross Section Name: XS5
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 6.7 103.3 LPIN
14 6.85 103.15 GR
21 6.7 103.3 LB
21.55 7.6 102.4 BKF
22 8.35 101.65 LEW
23 8.6 101.4 TW
24 8.45 101.55 REW
24.7 6.85 103.15 RB
29 6.15 103.85 GR
40 5.55 104.45 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 103.4 103.4 103.4
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 102.4 102.4 102.4
Floodprone Width (ft) 26.24 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 2.82 1.41 1.41
Entrenchment Ratio 9.3 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.75 0.71 0.8
Maximum Depth (ft) 1 0.99 1
Width/Depth Ratio 3.76 1.98 1.76
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 2.13 1 1.12
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 3.84 2.85 2.97
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.55 0.35 0.38
Begin BKF Station 21.55 21.55 22.96
End BKF Station 24.37 22.96 24.37

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS6Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)100101102103104105106020406080Wbkf = 10.2Dbkf = 1.58Abkf = 16.1
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: MS-R2
Cross Section Name: XS6
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 6.05 103.95 LPIN
11 6.25 103.75 GR
26 5.2 104.8 LB
28 6.65 103.35 GR
28.5 0 102.6 BKF
30 9.25 100.75 GR
31 9.7 100.3 LEW
32.5 9.74 100.26 TW
34 9.25 100.75 GR
36 9.2 100.8 REW
37 8.5 101.5 GR
40 6.55 103.45 GR
42 6.1 103.9 RB
50 5.3 104.7 GR
60 4.05 105.95 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 104.94 104.94 104.94
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 102.6 102.6 102.6
Floodprone Width (ft) 51.92 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 10.19 5.1 5.09
Entrenchment Ratio 5.09 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 1.58 1.83 1.34
Maximum Depth (ft) 2.34 2.34 1.98
Width/Depth Ratio 6.45 2.79 3.8
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 16.12 9.32 6.8
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 11.8 8.12 7.64
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 1.37 1.15 0.89
Begin BKF Station 28.5 28.5 33.6
End BKF Station 38.69 33.6 38.69

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
XS7Ground PointsBankfull IndicatorsWater Surface PointsElevation (ft)Horizontal Distance (ft)1001011021031041051060 5 10 15 20 25 30Wbkf = 4.18Dbkf = .51Abkf = 2.12
RIVERMORPH CROSS SECTION SUMMARY

----------------------------------------------------------------------

River Name: Buffalo Creek
Reach Name: R6
Cross Section Name: XS7
Survey Date: 11/21/2019

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Section Data Entry

BM Elevation: 10 ft
Backsight Rod Reading: 100 ft

TAPE FS ELEV NOTE
----------------------------------------------------------------------
0 4.15 105.85 LPIN
7 4.9 105.1 GR
11 7.2 102.8 GR
14 7.95 102.05 LB
14.39 8.2 101.8 BKF
15.3 8.8 101.2 LEW
16.4 9 101 TW
18 8.6 101.4 REW
20.5 6.85 103.15 RB
23 6.05 103.95 GR
26 5.5 104.5 RPIN

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Cross Sectional Geometry
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Channel Left Right
Floodprone Elevation (ft) 102.6 102.6 102.6
Bankfull Elevation (ft) 101.8 101.8 101.8
Floodprone Width (ft) 7.91 ----- -----
Bankfull Width (ft) 4.18 2.09 2.09
Entrenchment Ratio 1.89 ----- -----
Mean Depth (ft) 0.51 0.53 0.48
Maximum Depth (ft) 0.8 0.8 0.78
Width/Depth Ratio 8.2 3.95 4.35
Bankfull Area (sq ft) 2.12 1.11 1.01
Wetted Perimeter (ft) 4.55 3.07 3.04
Hydraulic Radius (ft) 0.46 0.36 0.33
Begin BKF Station 14.39 14.39 16.48
End BKF Station 18.57 16.48 18.57

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Entrainment Calculations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Entrainment Formula: Rosgen Modified Shields Curve

Channel Left Side Right Side
Slope 0 0 0
Shear Stress (lb/sq ft)
Movable Particle (mm)
MS-R1
Percent RetainedParticle Size (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
0 - 0.062 0.25 - 0.50 1.0 - 2.0 4.0 - 5.7 8.0 - 11.3 16.0 - 22.6 32 - 45 64 - 90
0.125 - 0.25 0.50 - 1.0 2.0 - 4.0 5.7 - 8.0 11.3 - 16.0 22.6 - 32.0 45 - 64
MS-R1
Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
MS-R2
Percent RetainedParticle Size (mm)
0
5
10
15
20
0 - 0.0620.062 - 0.1250.125 - 0.250.25 - 0.500.50 - 1.01.0 - 2.02.0 - 4.04.0 - 5.75.7 - 8.08.0 - 11.311.3 - 16.016.0 - 22.622.6 - 32.032 - 4545 - 64MS-R2
Percent FinerParticle Size (mm)
0
20
40
60
80
100
0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, MS-R1 Field Crew: Emily Dunnigan/ Kyle Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
V. High Mod 5.0 0.3 50 75.0 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 75 33.8
Low Low 2.0 0.034 20 1.4 High High 5.0 0.5 25 62.5
High Mod 5.0 0.3 75 112.5 High Low 5.0 0.18 50 45.0
Mod-High Mod 4.0 0.25 50 50.0 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 75 33.8
Low Low 2.0 0.034 75 5.1 Mod High 5.0 0.38 50 95.0
V. High High 5.0 0.5 50 125.0 Low Low 1.5 0.034 75 3.8
Mod Low 2.0 0.09 25 4.5 High High 5.0 0.5 25 62.5
High Low 4.0 0.18 100 72.0 High Low 5.0 0.18 375 337.5
Low Low 1.0 0.034 25 0.9 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 50 18.0
High Low 5.0 0.18 225 202.5 Mod Mod 4.0 0.18 50 36.0
V. High High 5.0 0.5 100 250.0 Mod High 4.0 0.38 50 76.0
High Mod 4.0 0.3 50 60.0 V. High High 5.0 0.5 50 125.0
Mod Mod 4.0 0.18 75 54.0 Low Low 2.0 0.034 75 5.1
Low Low 2.0 0.034 25 1.7 V. High High 4.0 0.5 25 50.0
Mod Mod 4.0 0.18 50 36.0 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 75 20.3
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 150 81.0 Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 25 13.5
Low-Mod Low 3.0 0.055 50 8.3 Low Low 2.0 0.034 75 5.1
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 50 27.0 Mod Mod 4.0 0.18 25 18.0
V. Low Low 2.0 0.02 25 1.0 Low Low 3.0 0.034 50 5.1
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 50 27.0 Low V. High 2.0 0.28 25 14.0
V. Low Low 2.0 0.02 25 1.0 Low Low 2.0 0.034 50 3.4
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 25 13.5 High High 4.0 0.5 25 50.0
Low Low 2.0 0.034 75 5.1 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 75 20.3
High V. High 3.0 0.8 50 120.0 High High 6.0 0.5 50 150.0
Low Low 3.0 0.034 25 2.6
TOTAL FT³/YR 1336.9 TOTAL FT³/YR 1283.5
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 49.5 TOTAL YD³/YR 47.5
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 64.4 TOTAL TONS/YR 61.8
Total Length 1520 1525
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 3045
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 126.2 217.4
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0414
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 41.4
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, MS-R2 Field Crew: Emily Dunnigan/Kyle Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Low Mod 3.0 0.068 50 10.2 Mod Mod 5.0 0.18 100 90.0
V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 25 0.2 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 150 67.5
Low Low 2.0 0.034 100 6.8 Mod High 4.0 0.38 25 38.0
Low-Mod High 2.0 0.25 50 25.0 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 75 20.3
V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 20 0.2 High High 4.0 0.5 25 50.0
Low Low 2.0 0.034 50 0.0 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 100 27.0
Low-Mod Low 2.0 0.055 50 5.5 Mod Low 5.0 0.09 150 67.5
Mod Low 2.0 0.09 50 9.0 Low Mod 3.0 0.068 50 10.2
Low Low 3.0 0.034 100 10.2 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 50 18.0
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 25 6.8 V. High High 4.0 0.5 25 50.0
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 25 13.5 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 225 60.8
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 75 20.3 Low Low 3.0 0.034 50 5.1
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 15 0.6 Mod High 4.0 0.38 75 114.0
Mod-High Mod 3.0 0.25 100 75.0 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 50 13.5
Low Low 2.0 0.034 200 13.6 Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 25 13.5
Mod High 2.0 0.38 50 38.0 Low Low 2.0 0.034 25 1.7
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 50 27.0 Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 25 13.5
Mod Low 3.0 0.09 50 13.5 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 100 36.0
Mod-High High 3.0 0.4 50 60.0
Low-Mod Low 3.0 0.055 125 20.6
TOTAL FT³/YR 355.9 TOTAL FT³/YR 696.5
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 13.2 TOTAL YD³/YR 25.8
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 17.1 TOTAL TONS/YR 33.5
Total Length 1260 1325
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 2585
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 50.7
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0196
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 19.6
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, R3 (upper)Field Crew: Emily Dunnigan/Kyle Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Low Low 1.0 0.034 400 13.6 Low Low 1.0 0.034 400 13.6
Low-Mod Low 3.0 0.055 50 8.3 Mod Low 3.0 0.09 150 40.5
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 75 40.5
Low-Mod Low 2.0 0.055 25 2.8
TOTAL FT³/YR 65.1 TOTAL FT³/YR 54.1
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 2.4 TOTAL YD³/YR 2.0
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 3.1 TOTAL TONS/YR 2.6
Total Length 550 550
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 1100
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 5.7
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0052
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 5.2
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, R3 (lower)Field Crew: Emily Dunnigan/Kyle Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 100 54.0 Mod Mod 3.0 0.18 50 27.0
High High 4.0 0.5 50 100.0
TOTAL FT³/YR 54.0 TOTAL FT³/YR 127.0
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 2.0 TOTAL YD³/YR 4.7
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 2.6 TOTAL TONS/YR 6.1
Total Length 100 100
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 200
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 8.7
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0436
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 43.6
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, R5 (upper)Field Crew: E. Dunnigan/ K. Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 200 8.0 Low V. Low 2.5 0.02 175 8.8
Low Low 2.0 0.034 100 6.8 V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 125 1.0
Mod Low 4.0 0.09 150 54.0 Low Low 2.0 0.034 50 3.4
Low Low 1.0 0.034 50 1.7 Mod Low 4.0 0.09 100 36.0
Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 50 2.0
TOTAL FT³/YR 70.5 TOTAL FT³/YR 51.2
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 2.6 TOTAL YD³/YR 1.9
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 3.4 TOTAL TONS/YR 2.5
Total Length 500 500
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 1000
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 5.9
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0059
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 5.9
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, R5 (lower)Field Crew: E. Dunnigan/ K. Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Low Low 1.0 0.034 100 3.4 Low V. Low 2.0 0.02 150 6.0
V. Low V. Low 2.0 0.008 50 0.8 V. High Low 5.0 0.18 50 45.0
V. Low V. Low 1.0 0.008 75 0.6 V. Low V. Low 0.5 0.008 20 0.1
V. High Mod 4.0 0.3 50 60.0 V. High Mod 6.0 0.3 25 45.0
TOTAL FT³/YR 64.8 TOTAL FT³/YR 96.1
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 2.4 TOTAL YD³/YR 3.6
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 3.1 TOTAL TONS/YR 4.6
Total Length 275 245
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 520
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 7.7
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0149
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 14.9
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
BANCS Method Calcs Appendix 2
Location:Buffalo Creek Tribs, R6 (lower)Field Crew: E. Dunnigan/ K. Obermiller Date:12/12/2019
SEDIMENT LOADING ASSESSMENT SHEET
LEFT BANK RIGHT BANKABCDEFABCD E F
BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)BEHI NBS
STUDY BANK
HEIGHT
FEET/YR
(from curve)
DISTANCE (note
station for detailed
design needs)
TOTAL FT³/yr
=(C×D×E)
Mod-High Mod 2.5 0.25 208 130.0 Mod-High Mod 2.5 0.25 208 130.0
TOTAL FT³/YR 130.0 TOTAL FT³/YR 130.0
Divide FT³/yr by 27 TOTAL YD³/YR 4.8 TOTAL YD³/YR 4.8
Multiply YD³/yr by 1.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 6.3 TOTAL TONS/YR 6.3
Total Length 208 208
North Carolina unpublished curve (Alan Walker, NRCS)Total ft assessed 416
V. Low Low Low-Mod Mod Mod-High High V. High Extreme BEHI Total TONS per year 12.5
V. Low 0.008 0.02 0.03 0.035 0.07 0.1 0.2 0.8 Tons per ft per year 0.0301
Low 0.02 0.034 0.055 0.09 0.15 0.18 0.18 0.44 Tons per 1000ft 30.1
Low-Mod 0.03 0.051 0.078 0.135 0.2 0.24 0.24 0.77
Mod 0.035 0.068 0.1 0.18 0.25 0.3 0.3 1.1
Mod-High 0.07 0.1 0.15 0.27 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.8
High 0.1 0.14 0.25 0.38 0.4 0.5 0.5 2.7
V. High 0.2 0.28 0.4 0.78 0.8 0.8 0.8 6
Extreme 0.8 0.52 0.6 1.6 1.5 1.5 1.5 10
NBS
Catchment Area 13.5 BMP1, UT2‐R1
Pervious Area 13.5 Output
Impervious Area 0.07 Input
The Simple Method
RV = 0.05 + 0.9 * IA Step 1 in the Simple Method
RV 0.054642594 Runoff coefficient (unitless)
IA 0.005158438 Impervious fraction [impervious portion of drainage area (ac)/drainage area (ac)], (unitless)
V = 3630 * RD * RV * A Step 2 in the Simple Method
V 2677.760317 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (cubic feet)
V 0.7377 Volume of runoff that must be controlled for the design storm (acre‐in)
RD 1.0 Design storm rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
A 13.5 Watershed area (ac)
SCS Curve Number Method
Q* = (P ‐ 0.2S)^2 / (P + 0.8S)
Q* (From Impervious) 0.00 Runoff depth (in)
P 1.0 Rainfall depth (in) (Typically 1.0" or 1.5")
S 5.63 Potential maximum retention after rainfall begins (in) 
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 5.63 S is related to the soil and surface characteristics through the curve number (CN)
CN (Impervious) 64 Related to hydrologic soil group and ground cover. (Refer to DWQ Design Manual for CN Tables) 
S = (1000 / CN) ‐ 10 5.63
CN (Pervious) 64
Q* (From Pervious) 0.00
P 1.00
S 5.63
Q*total 0.01 (in)
Soil Type Weston http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/ 
Hydrologic Soil Group SCS (1986) A Refer to DWQ Design Manual after the soil series in the area of interest is identified
BMP Sizing Reqs
V = A(Q*) 0.05 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 170.88 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
V 1278.26 SCS Method Volume of Runoff (gallons) Required Storage Volume
V 0.74 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (ac‐in) Required Storage Volume
V 2678 Simple Method Volume of Runoff (cubic feet) Required Storage Volume
Required Ponding Depth 10.0 Depends on desired vegetation type and inundation time.  Usually 6‐12" (in)
Required BMP Surface Area 0.005 (ac) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 205.054 (ft^2) SCS Method
Required BMP Surface Area 0.074 (ac) Simple Method
Required BMP Surface Area 3213.312 (ft^2) Simple Method
Actual BMP Surface Area 0.009 (ac) Measured in Cadd, GIS or by hand.
Actual BMP Surface Area 400 (ft^2)
Actual BMP Storage Volume 333 (ft^3)
**Per DWQ BMP design manual, the BMP must be designed to treat a volume at least as large as the volume calculated using the simple method*
**DWQ recommends 9" but requires ponding depth to be less then 12"**
***CN Method in this spreadsheet is for 2 CN areas only.  The equations may need to be modified if using multiple CNs or use a composite pervious CN.
Total LoadThis is the summary of annual nutrient and sediment load for each subwatershed. This sheet is initially protected.1. Total load by subwatershed(s)Watershed N Load (no BMP)P Load (no BMP)BOD Load (no BMP)Sediment Load (no BMP)E. coli Load (no BMP)N Reduction P Reduction BOD ReductionSediment ReductionE. coli ReductionN Load (with BMP)P Load (with BMP)BOD (with BMP)Sediment Load (with BMP)E. coli Load (with BMP)%N Reduction%P Reduction%BOD Reduction%Sed Reduction%E. coli Reductionlb/year lb/year lb/year t/year Billion MPN/yelb/year lb/year lb/year t/year Billion MPN/yelb/year lb/year lb/year t/year Billion MPN/ye%%%%%W11935.4 449.9 5278.3222.30.0 367.9 111.3 476.9 115.80.0 1567.5 338.7 4801.4 145.40.0 19.0 24.79.065.40.0Total1935.4 449.9 5278.3222.30.0 367.9 111.3 476.9 115.80.0 1567.5 338.7 4801.4 145.40.0 19.0 24.79.065.40.02. Total load by land uses (with BMP)Sources N Load (lb/yr)P Load (lb/yr)BOD Load (lb/yr)Sediment Load (t/yr)E. coli Load (Billion MPN/yr)Urban610.70 85.45 2325.18 13.58 0.00Cropland713.69 199.81 1709.48 119.88 0.00Pastureland 164.94 17.65 553.74 5.32 0.00Forest57.49 27.71 139.24 2.81 0.00Feedlots0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00User Defined 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Septic15.54 6.09 63.47 0.00 0.00Gully0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Streambank5.14 1.98 10.28 3.78 0.00Groundwater 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00Total1567.50 338.69 4801.38 145.37 0.00
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: MS-R1
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.75 sq mi 480.00 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 12.01 sf 8.45 sf 9.98 sf
W = 9.89 ft 9.23 ft 9.40 ft
D = 1.18 ft 0.92 ft 1.06 ft
Q = 13.46 cfs 25.41 cfs (WCP)23.83 cfs
11.77 cfs (ECP)
18.59 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 18.13 sf 14.12 sf 9.25 sf 12.83 sf 17.62 sf
W = 13.08 ft 13.21 ft 11.46 ft 11.60 ft 10.51 ft
D = 1.51 ft 1.07 ft 0.80 ft 1.04 ft 1.37 ft
Q = 74.69 cfs 67.95 cfs 33.43 cfs 44.54 cfs 72.38 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 17.77 sf 10.61 sf 10.23 sf
W = 17.13 ft 12.22 ft 10.98 ft
D = 1.02 ft 0.87 ft 0.92 ft
Q = 80.88 cfs 25.96 cfs 34.42 cfs
CSA = 10.15 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)10.15 sf
W = 9.51 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)9.51 ft
D = 1.05 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.05 ft
Q = 20.90 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)20.90 cfs
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: MS-R2
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.84 sq mi 537.60 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 12.94 sf 9.15 sf 10.73 sf
W = 10.30 ft 9.64 ft 9.80 ft
D = 1.22 ft 0.96 ft 1.09 ft
Q = 14.61 cfs 27.60 cfs (WCP)25.50 cfs
12.83 cfs (ECP)
20.22 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 19.57 sf 15.34 sf 10.12 sf 13.96 sf 19.03 sf
W = 13.63 ft 13.81 ft 12.03 ft 12.18 ft 11.03 ft
D = 1.56 ft 1.11 ft 0.84 ft 1.08 ft 1.42 ft
Q = 80.95 cfs 74.07 cfs 37.21 cfs 48.79 cfs 78.54 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 19.19 sf 11.56 sf 11.11 sf
W = 17.86 ft 12.85 ft 11.53 ft
D = 1.05 ft 0.90 ft 0.95 ft
Q = 88.15 cfs 28.88 cfs 37.66 cfs
CSA = 10.94 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)10.94 sf
W = 9.91 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)9.91 ft
D = 1.09 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.09 ft
Q = 22.57 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)22.57 cfs
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: R3
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.04 sq mi 24.06 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 1.67 sf 1.04 sf 1.48 sf
W = 3.37 ft 2.96 ft 3.15 ft
D = 0.48 ft 0.35 ft 0.47 ft
Q = 1.56 cfs 2.86 cfs (WCP)3.98 cfs
1.21 cfs (ECP)
2.03 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 2.44 sf 1.59 sf 0.85 sf 1.39 sf 2.30 sf
W = 4.45 ft 4.11 ft 3.17 ft 3.18 ft 2.90 ft
D = 0.63 ft 0.39 ft 0.26 ft 0.38 ft 0.52 ft
Q = 8.92 cfs 6.99 cfs 1.96 cfs 4.01 cfs 8.39 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 2.32 sf 1.12 sf 1.18 sf
W = 5.66 ft 3.27 ft 2.98 ft
D = 0.40 ft 0.34 ft 0.39 ft
Q = 8.32 cfs 1.56 cfs 3.20 cfs
CSA = 1.39 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.39 sf
W = 3.16 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)3.16 ft
D = 0.43 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)0.43 ft
Q = 2.80 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)2.80 cfs
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: R4
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.05 sq mi 30.08 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 1.93 sf 1.22 sf 1.70 sf
W = 3.65 ft 3.22 ft 3.42 ft
D = 0.52 ft 0.38 ft 0.50 ft
Q = 1.83 cfs 3.36 cfs (WCP)4.54 cfs
1.43 cfs (ECP)
2.40 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 2.83 sf 1.87 sf 1.01 sf 1.64 sf 2.68 sf
W = 4.83 ft 4.49 ft 3.49 ft 3.50 ft 3.19 ft
D = 0.68 ft 0.42 ft 0.29 ft 0.41 ft 0.56 ft
Q = 10.45 cfs 8.28 cfs 2.42 cfs 4.80 cfs 9.85 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 2.70 sf 1.33 sf 1.38 sf
W = 6.15 ft 3.61 ft 3.28 ft
D = 0.43 ft 0.37 ft 0.41 ft
Q = 9.85 cfs 1.92 cfs 3.82 cfs
CSA = 1.62 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.62 sf
W = 3.43 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)3.43 ft
D = 0.46 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)0.46 ft
Q = 3.25 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)3.25 cfs
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: R5
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.03 sq mi 18.82 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 1.42 sf 0.88 sf 1.26 sf
W = 3.08 ft 2.70 ft 2.88 ft
D = 0.45 ft 0.33 ft 0.44 ft
Q = 1.31 cfs 2.39 cfs (WCP)3.43 cfs
1.00 cfs (ECP)
1.70 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 2.07 sf 1.33 sf 0.70 sf 1.16 sf 1.95 sf
W = 4.08 ft 3.74 ft 2.85 ft 2.86 ft 2.61 ft
D = 0.59 ft 0.36 ft 0.24 ft 0.35 ft 0.49 ft
Q = 7.49 cfs 5.80 cfs 1.55 cfs 3.29 cfs 7.03 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 1.96 sf 0.94 sf 0.99 sf
W = 5.17 ft 2.94 ft 2.67 ft
D = 0.37 ft 0.32 ft 0.36 ft
Q = 6.90 cfs 1.24 cfs 2.63 cfs
CSA = 1.19 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.19 sf
W = 2.89 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)2.89 ft
D = 0.40 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)0.40 ft
Q = 2.38 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)2.38 cfs
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
Project: 18-002 Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project Date:11/21/2019
Reach: R6
0% 0% Piedmont 100% Coastal 0% Urban (> 15% Impervious)
Average Field Observed Bankfull C.S.A. =ft
0.04 sq mi 25.09 ac Average Field Observed Bankfull Width =ft
Average Field Observed Bankfull Depth =ft
Mannings Calculated Q =ft
Rural Coastal Plains Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Coastal FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-02) USGS -VA, MD (2007-5162)
CSA = 1.71 sf 1.07 sf 1.52 sf
W = 3.42 ft 3.01 ft 3.20 ft
D = 0.49 ft 0.36 ft 0.47 ft
Q = 1.61 cfs 2.95 cfs (WCP)4.08 cfs
1.25 cfs (ECP)
2.10 cfs (Average)
Rural Piedmont Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina Piedmont FWS - MD (CBFO-S02-01) USGS -VA, MD (2009 North Carolina Walker Curves NCSU NC Piedmont ('99)
CSA = 2.51 sf 1.64 sf 0.88 sf 1.43 sf 2.37 sf
W = 4.52 ft 4.18 ft 3.23 ft 3.23 ft 2.95 ft
D = 0.64 ft 0.39 ft 0.27 ft 0.38 ft 0.53 ft
Q = 9.19 cfs 7.21 cfs 2.04 cfs 4.15 cfs 8.64 cfs
Rural Valley & Ridge Bankfull Regional Curves
North Carolina V&R FWS - MD (CBFO-S03-01) USGS -VA, MD (2005-5076)
CSA = 2.39 sf 1.16 sf 1.21 sf
W = 5.75 ft 3.34 ft 3.03 ft
D = 0.41 ft 0.35 ft 0.39 ft
Q = 8.58 cfs 1.62 cfs 3.31 cfs
CSA = 1.43 sf 0.00 ft (Observed Value)1.43 sf
W = 3.21 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)3.21 ft
D = 0.44 ft 0.00 ft (Observed Value)0.44 ft
Q = 2.88 cfs 0.00 ft (Observed Value)2.88 cfs
Bankfull Discharge Regional Curves
Watershed Characteristics
Valley & Ridge
Weighted Average Rural Regional Curve Values
Drainage Area:
Weighted w/ Urban Regional Curve Values
y = 9.4624x0.739R² = 0.9565
1.0
10.0
100.0
1000.0
0.1 1 10 100 1000Bankfull X-Sec. Area (Sq. Ft.)Watershed Area (Sq. Mi.)
NC Coastal Plain Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
Reference Reach Comparison
Curve Data
95% CI up
95% CI down
Beaver Dam Ref Reach
Lake Wendell Ref Reach (R4)
Pen Dell Ref Reach (R5)
Edwards-Johnson Ref Reach (R3)
Edwards-Johnson Ref Reach (R1)
Power (Curve Data)
y = 21.43 Aw 0.68
R2=0.95
y = 19.233x0.6528
R² = 0.9662
1
10
100
1000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Bankfull X-Sec. Area (square feet)Drainage Area (square miles)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Area
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker '15
Buffalo Creek Tribs Design Values Edwards Ref Reaches
Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99)Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker '15)
y = 89.039x0.7223
R² = 0.9069
y = 55.308x0.787
R² = 0.9945
1
10
100
1000
10000
0.01 0.1 1 10 100Discharge (cfs)Drainage Area (square miles)
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Discharge
Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99 NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker '15 Buffalo Creek Tribs Design Values
Edwards Ref Reaches (Mannings 'n')Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman '99)Power (NRCS Rural Piedmont, Walker '15)
Power (Lower 95%)Power (Upper 95%)
y = 89.039x0.7223R² = 0.90691.0010.00100.001000.0010000.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000DISCHARGE (CFS)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull DischargeBuffalo Creek TributariesPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
y = 13.686x0.3766R² = 0.91921.0010.00100.001000.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000WIDTH (FT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull WidthBuffalo Creek TributariesPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
y = 1.5555x0.3009R² = 0.87050.101.0010.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000DEPTH (FT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull DepthBuffalo Creek TributariesPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
y = 21.433x0.6761R² = 0.94911.0010.00100.001000.000.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000CROSS SECTIONAL AREA (SQFT)DRAINAGE AREA (SQUARE MILES)NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Cross Sectional AreaBuffalo Creek TributariesPublished Rural Piedmont, Harman 99Power (Published Rural Piedmont, Harman 99)
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project MS-R1 Drainage Area = 0.75 mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 46.93 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 68.49 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 94.88 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 137.36 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 235.37 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 312.54 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 419.90 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 508.09 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 601.09 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 118.27ln(x) + 46.931.0010.00100.001000.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project MS-R2Drainage Area = 0.84mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 48.93 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 72.63 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 101.64 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 148.85 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 255.82 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 340.40 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 458.46 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 555.69 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 658.41 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 129.98ln(x) + 48.9331.0010.00100.001000.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R3Drainage Area = 0.0376mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 10.32 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 12.06 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 14.20 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 16.46 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 26.07 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 32.76 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 41.26 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 47.71 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 54.21 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 9.5813ln(x) + 10.3171.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R4Drainage Area = 0.047mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 11.74 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 13.85 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 16.43 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 19.28 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 30.72 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 38.76 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 49.05 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 56.92 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 64.86 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 11.574ln(x) + 11.741.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R5Drainage Area = 0.0294mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 8.93 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 10.35 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 12.08 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 13.82 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 21.76 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 27.21 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 34.09 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 39.28 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 44.49 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 7.7764ln(x) + 8.93091.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Description: Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R6Drainage Area = 0.0392mi2Retun Interval Discharge Notes1 8.93 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.2 10.35 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.1.5 12.08 extrapolated. Need to use equation generated below.2 16.95 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)5 26.89 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)10 33.80 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)25 42.61 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)50 49.31 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)100 56.06 USGS regional regression, 2011 (small streams, HR1, ≤3 sq. mi.)y = 9.9257ln(x) + 10.571.0010.00100.001 10 100Discharge (cfs)Return Interval (years)USGS Discharge versus Return Interval
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
17.15 Abkf (sqft)1.61 Dbkf (ft)
10.62 W bkf (ft)13.85 W Pbkf (ft)
1 Dia (mm)0.00 D84 (ft)
0.0058 S (ft/ft)1.24 R (ft)
32.2 g (ft/sec2)377.43 ft/ft
0.75 DA (sqmi)0.48 u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
0.021
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
0.056
1.5 yr Return 5.53 ft/sec 94.88 CFS
Old Rural = 4.37 ft/sec 74.91
Old Urban = 16.86 ft/sec 289.14
New Rural = 4.36 ft/sec 74.69
New Urban = 14.92 ft/sec 255.94
Rural =2.60 ft/sec 44.54 CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R
2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S
0.38R-.16
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec8.37
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project MS-R1 Wendell, NC
U-AL-FD
03020201
G5c
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
143.63 CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
ft/sec
2.34
ft/sec
106.83
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R
2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
40.06
6.23 ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
16.12 Abkf (sqft)1.58 Dbkf (ft)
10.19 W bkf (ft)13.35 W Pbkf (ft)
1 Dia (mm) 0.00 D84 (ft)
0.0047 S (ft/ft) 1.21 R (ft)
32.2 g (ft/sec2)367.94 ft/ft
0.84 DA (sqmi) 0.43 u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
0.021
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
0.047
1.5 yr Return 6.30 ft/sec 101.64 CFS
Old Rural = 5.03 ft/sec 81.09
Old Urban = 19.13 ft/sec 308.43
New Rural = 5.02 ft/sec 80.95
New Urban = 17.05 ft/sec 274.89
Rural = 3.03 ft/sec 48.79 CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
39.71
5.51 ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
ft/sec
2.46
ft/sec
88.87
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
119.56 CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project MS-R2 Wendell, NC
U-AL-FD
03020201
E5
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec7.42
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
3.72 Abkf (sqft)0.52 Dbkf (ft)
7.1 W bkf (ft)8.15 W Pbkf (ft)
1 Dia (mm) 0.00 D84 (ft)
0.0351 S (ft/ft) 0.46 R (ft)
32.2 g (ft/sec2)139.16 ft/ft
0.0376 DA (sqmi) 0.72 u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
0.021
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
0.05
1.5 yr Return 3.82 ft/sec 14.20 CFS
Old Rural = 2.48 ft/sec 9.22
Old Urban = 14.11 ft/sec 52.50
New Rural = 2.40 ft/sec 8.92
New Urban = 10.44 ft/sec 38.84
Rural = 1.08 ft/sec 4.01 CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
12.31
7.88 ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
ft/sec
3.31
ft/sec
29.31
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
39.98 CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R3 Wendell, NC
C-AL-FD
03020201
C5b
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec10.75
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
Abkf (sqft)#DIV/0!Dbkf (ft)
W bkf (ft)#DIV/0!W Pbkf (ft)
Dia (mm) 0.00 D84 (ft)
S (ft/ft) #DIV/0! R (ft)
g (ft/sec2)#DIV/0! ft/ft
0.047 DA (sqmi) #DIV/0! u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
1.5 yr Return #DIV/0! ft/sec 16.43 CFS
Old Rural = #DIV/0! ft/sec 10.78
Old Urban = #DIV/0! ft/sec 59.62
New Rural = #DIV/0! ft/sec 10.45
New Urban = #DIV/0! ft/sec 44.70
Rural = #DIV/0! ft/sec 4.80 CFS
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
#DIV/0!
#DIV/0! ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
ft/sec
#DIV/0!
ft/sec
#DIV/0!
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
#DIV/0! CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R4 Wendell, NC
C-AL-FD
03020201
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec#DIV/0!
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
2.13 Abkf (sqft)0.76 Dbkf (ft)
2.82 W bkf (ft)4.33 W Pbkf (ft)
2 Dia (mm) 0.01 D84 (ft)
0.0275 S (ft/ft) 0.49 R (ft)
32.2 g (ft/sec2)74.96 ft/ft
0.0294 DA (sqmi) 0.66 u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
0.25
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
0.046
1.5 yr Return 5.67 ft/sec 12.08 CFS
Old Rural = 3.64 ft/sec 7.76
Old Urban = 21.42 ft/sec 45.63
New Rural = 3.52 ft/sec 7.49
New Urban = 15.61 ft/sec 33.26
Rural = 1.55 ft/sec 3.29 CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec8.87
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R5 Wendell, NC
C-AL-FD
03020201
E5b
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
18.89 CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
ft/sec
3.35
ft/sec
1.31
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
7.13
0.62 ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
Site Location
Date 11/21/2019 Stream Type Valley Type
Observers HUC (8-digit)
2.12 Abkf (sqft)0.51 Dbkf (ft)
4.18 W bkf (ft)5.19 W Pbkf (ft)
1 Dia (mm) 0.00 D84 (ft)
0.0566 S (ft/ft) 0.41 R (ft)
32.2 g (ft/sec2)124.40 ft/ft
0.0392 DA (sqmi) 0.86 u* (ft/sec)
input 'n' below
0.021
"n"calcuated
input 'n' below
0.056
1.5 yr Return 5.70 ft/sec 12.08 CFS
Old Rural = 4.48 ft/sec 9.49
Old Urban = 25.36 ft/sec 53.76
New Rural = 4.33 ft/sec 9.19
New Urban = 18.81 ft/sec 39.87
Rural = 1.96 ft/sec 4.15 CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
4. Continuity Equation: b) USGS Gage Data u=Q/A
D84 @Riffle
Bankfull Slope
NOTE: This equation is for applications involving steep, step-pool, high
boundary roughness, cobble-boulder dominated stream systems; i.e., (A1,
A2, A3, B1, B2, B3, C2, and E3)
2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
c) Manning's 'n' from Stream Type (Table 3)
4a. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
b) Manning's 'n' from Jarrett (USGS): n=0.39*S0.38R-.16
1. Friction Factor/Relative Roughness
Drainage Area
Gravitational Acceleration
D84 mm/304.8 =
Shear Velocity
(u*=(g*R*S)0.5
ft/sec12.67
Buffalo Creek Mitigation Project R6 Wendell, NC
C-AL-FD
03020201
B5a
Bankfull Cross-section AREA
Input Variables
CFS
CAT
Bankfull DISCHARGE
26.85 CFSu=[2.83+5.66*log{R/D84}]*u*
Bankfull Mean DEPTH
Wetted PERIMETER
(~2*Dbkf+W bkf)
Relative Roughness
( R(ft)/D84(ft))
Bankfull VELOCITY
ft/sec
3.48
ft/sec
19.68
Bankfull Width
Hydraulic Radius
(Abkf/W Pbkf)
.
CFS2. Roughness Coefficient: u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n
CFS
Bankfull VELOCITY/DISCHARGE Estimates
Output Variables
ESTIMATION METHODS
u=1.4895*R2/3*S1/2/n; n=____ (from tables 1 and 2)
2. Roughness Coefficient: a) Manning's 'n' from friction
factor/relative roughness.
4b. Continuity Equation: a) Regional Curves u=Q/A
CFS
Return Period for Bankfull Discharge Q=______
ft/sec
4c. Continuity Equation: a) Walker Curves u=Q/A
CFS
CFS
CFS
7.38
9.28 ft/sec
3. Other Methods, i.e. Hydraulic Geometry (Hey, Darcy Weisbach,
Chezy C, etc.)________________________________________
ft/sec
MS-R1Dimensionless Shear Stress AnalysisBankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft)Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) = Abkf/WbkfWetted Perimeter, WP = W+2Dbkf (ft)Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) = Abkf/WPSchan (ft/ft)Boundary/Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) = 62.4*R*Schand50pave - riffle 100 ct (mm)d50bar - bar sample or subpavement (mm) D100 (di) bar or subpavement (mm)D100 (di) (ft) = D100*.0032808ratio - d50pave/d50bar (3-7)ratio - di/d50pave(1.3-3)tcieq1 (3-7) = 0.0834*(d50pave/d50bar)-0.872tcieq2 (1.3-3) = 0.0384*(d50pave/di)-0.887Dcrit1 (ft) (3-7) = tcieq1*1.65*di/SchanDcrit2 (ft) (1.3-3) = tcieq2*1.65*di/SchanScrit1 (3-7) = tcieq1*1.65*di/DbkfScrit2 (1.3-3) = tcieq2*1.65*di/DbkfLargest moveable particle (Shields/CO curves), mm = 152.02*t0.7355Largest moveable particle (Shields/CO curves), in = mm*0.0394Bankfull Velocity (ft/s) (Vbkf)Unit Stream Power (watts/ sq meter) = 14.56*t*VbkfDimensional Shear Stress AnalysisSHIELDS CURVE ROSGEN CURVE SHIELDS CURVE ROSGEN CURVEt = 62.4*R*SchanMovable particle size (mm); Sheilds = 77.966*t1.042, Rosgen = 152.02*t0.735534.00 84.00 31.00 79.00Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax (tp); tp(Shields) = (di/77.966)1/1.042, tp(Rosgen) = (di/152.02)1/0.73550.5901 0.1911 0.5901 0.1911Predicted mean depth to move Dmax (Dp); Shields = tp(Sheilds)/(62.4*Schan), Rosgen = tp(Rosgen)/(62.4*Schan)1.63 0.53 1.45 0.47Predicted slope required to initiate movement of Dmax (Sp); Shields = tp(Sheilds)/(62.4*Dbkf), Rosgen = tp(Rosgen)/(62.4*Dbkf)0.0059 0.0019 0.0080 0.002679.003.11264.0826.624.2425.260.02390.01950.890.730.004930.00404215450.154.202.140.002953.309684.0016.5014.001.1816.361.010.00650.412.140.02390.01951.000.820.003600.45215450.154.2017.1510.621.6113.851.240.0058SUBPAVMENT XSAGGRADATIONAL DEGRADATIONALProposed Conditions0.4091Existing Conditions X30.4482AGGRADATIONAL DEGRADATIONAL
MS-R2Dimensionless Shear Stress AnalysisBankfull Xsec Area, Abkf (sq ft)Bankfull Width, Wbkf (ft)Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft) = Abkf/WbkfWetted Perimeter, WP = W+2Dbkf (ft)Hydraulic Radius, R (ft) = Abkf/WPSchan (ft/ft)Boundary/Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) = 62.4*R*Schand50pave - riffle 100 ct (mm)d50bar - bar sample or subpavement (mm) D100 (di) bar or subpavement (mm)D100 (di) (ft) = D100*.0032808ratio - d50pave/d50bar (3-7)ratio - di/d50pave(1.3-3)tcieq1 (3-7) = 0.0834*(d50pave/d50bar)-0.872tcieq2 (1.3-3) = 0.0384*(d50pave/di)-0.887Dcrit1 (ft) (3-7) = tcieq1*1.65*di/SchanDcrit2 (ft) (1.3-3) = tcieq2*1.65*di/SchanScrit1 (3-7) = tcieq1*1.65*di/DbkfScrit2 (1.3-3) = tcieq2*1.65*di/DbkfLargest moveable particle (Shields/CO curves), mm = 152.02*t0.7355Largest moveable particle (Shields/CO curves), in = mm*0.0394Bankfull Velocity (ft/s) (Vbkf)Unit Stream Power (watts/ sq meter) = 14.56*t*VbkfDimensional Shear Stress AnalysisSHIELDS CURVE ROSGEN CURVE SHIELDS CURVE ROSGEN CURVEt = 62.4*R*SchanMovable particle size (mm); Sheilds = 77.966*t1.042, Rosgen = 152.02*t0.735525.00 69.00 25.00 67.00Predicted Shear Stress to move Dmax (tp); tp(Shields) = (di/77.966)1/1.042, tp(Rosgen) = (di/152.02)1/0.73550.5901 0.1911 0.5901 0.1911Predicted mean depth to move Dmax (Dp); Shields = tp(Sheilds)/(62.4*Schan), Rosgen = tp(Rosgen)/(62.4*Schan)2.10 0.68 1.89 0.61Predicted slope required to initiate movement of Dmax (Sp); Shields = tp(Sheilds)/(62.4*Dbkf), Rosgen = tp(Rosgen)/(62.4*Dbkf)0.0060 0.0019 0.0076 0.002567.002.63984.6522.954.1720.080.06080.00482.960.230.011930.000944.313450.151.4410.440.000742.718669.0018.0014.501.2416.981.060.00500.3310.440.06080.00483.290.260.009360.344.313450.151.4416.1210.191.5813.351.210.0045SUBPAVMENT XSAGGRADATIONAL DEGRADATIONALProposed Conditions0.3307Existing Conditions X60.3390AGGRADATIONAL DEGRADATIONAL
Rater(s): KMV
Date: 11/18/19
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% F
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily forested F
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%F
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width 50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ftcorridor width >80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ftcorridor width G
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoff Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoff Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimal F
8 Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.
G
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reach A few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reach No NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passage P
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.F
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or Restored Less than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID: MS‐R1
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: Gc
Proposed Stream Type: C Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.21 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.42 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.691 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.21 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 100% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 1727 Existing Stream Length (ft)1727
Proposed Stream Length (ft):1590 Proposed Stream Length (ft)1590
Stream Slope (%): 0.7 Additional Stream Length (ft)‐137
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)363 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 363
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)668 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 668
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 305 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 305
Data Collection Season: Fall Functional Change (%)84% Functional Change (%)84%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.00 0.75
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 0.29 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.96 0.95
Bed Material 0.65 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.50 1.00
Plan Form 0.72 0.76
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 2.1 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 0
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/H 0.3
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)30 0.27
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.1 0.65 0.65
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 1.2 0.3
Percent Riffle 75 0.69
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.17 0.72 0.72
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 0.5
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.2 0.76 0.76
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.00 Not Functioning0.00
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.75
0.33
Measurement Method
0.96
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.00
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.62 0.95
PCS
0.75
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
0.75
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.21
0.62 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
0.29
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.50
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.95
Hydrology
0.75
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.95
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Rater(s): KMV
Date: 11/18/19
F
Level 3 - Geomorphology
Poor Fair Good
1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in place
Some potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources
No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F
2 Impervious cover (Hydrology)Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25%Less than 10% F
3 Land Use Change (Hydrology)Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburban Rural communities/slow growth or primarily forested F
4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plans
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans.
No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F
5 Percent Forested (Hydrology)<= 20%>20% and <70%>=70%F
6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width 50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ftcorridor width >80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ftcorridor width G
7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoff Moderate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoff Low sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimal F
8 Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G
9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.
Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.
There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.
G
10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reach A few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reach No NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reach G
11 Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -
12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passage
No impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passage
No impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passage P
13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.
Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.F
14 Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or Restored Less than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G
15 Other
Categories Description of Catchment Condition Rating
(P/F/G)
Catchment Assessment Form
Overall Catchment Condition
CATCHMENT ASSESSMENT
Restoration Potential
Purpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID: MS‐R2
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: Gc
Proposed Stream Type: C Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.30 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.47 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.841 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.17 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Gravel Percent Condition Change 57% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 1482 Existing Stream Length (ft)1482
Proposed Stream Length (ft):1357 Proposed Stream Length (ft)1357
Stream Slope (%): 0.5 Additional Stream Length (ft)‐125
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)445 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 445
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)638 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 638
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 193 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 193
Data Collection Season: Fall Functional Change (%)43% Functional Change (%)43%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.60 1.00
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 0.40 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.98 0.97
Bed Material 0.51 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.50 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.76
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 0.2
Entrenchment Ratio 5.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS M/M 0.5
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)25 0.3
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)130 0.95
Right Buffer Width (ft)130 0.95
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.08 0.51 0.51
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 1.2 0.3
Percent Riffle 75 0.69
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.08 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 51
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)130 0.95
Right Buffer Width (ft)130 0.95
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)0.7 1 1.00
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.2 0.76 0.76
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.95
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Bed Form Diversity 0.50
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.97
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.30
0.48 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
0.40
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.47
Measurement Method
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.48 0.95
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.40
0.47
Measurement Method
0.98
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.60
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Large Woody Debris
0.60 Functioning At Risk0.60
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedF4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageF13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.G14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name:Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID:R3 upper
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:Bc
Proposed Stream Type:Bc Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.41 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Region:Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.47 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.033 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.06 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 15%Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft)565 Existing Stream Length (ft)565
Proposed Stream Length (ft):565 Proposed Stream Length (ft)565
Stream Slope (%):2.5 Additional Stream Length (ft)0
Flow Type:Intermittent Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)232 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 232
River Basin:Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)266 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 266
Stream Temperature:Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 34 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 34
Data Collection Season:Fall Functional Change (%)15%Functional Change (%)15%
Valley Type:Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 1.00 1.00
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 1.00 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 1.00 1.00
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.50 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.70
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 3.5 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/VL 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)200 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)130 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 1.2 0.3
Percent Riffle 75 0.69
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.14 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.15 0.7 0.70
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
1.00 Functioning1.00
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.00
0.32
Measurement Method
1.00
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 1.00
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.62 0.94
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.41
0.62 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
1.00
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.47
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.50
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
1.00
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.94
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedF4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageF13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.G14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name:Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID:R4
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type:
Proposed Stream Type:C Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.36 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Region:Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.42 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.047 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.06 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 17%Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft)197 Existing Stream Length (ft)197
Proposed Stream Length (ft):459 Proposed Stream Length (ft)459
Stream Slope (%):1.9 Additional Stream Length (ft)262
Flow Type:Ephemeral (Pipe re-routed flow)Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)71 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 71
River Basin:Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)193 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 193
Stream Temperature:Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 122 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 122
Data Collection Season:Fall Functional Change (%)172%Functional Change (%)172%
Valley Type:Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.85 0.75
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 1.00 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.99 0.96
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.15 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.74
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 0.7
Entrenchment Ratio 51
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/VL 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)200 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)130 0.95
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.1 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 0.5
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.18 0.74 0.74
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.85 Functioning0.85
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
‐0.10
0.41
Measurement Method
0.99
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.85
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.53 0.94
PCS
0.75
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
0.75
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.36
0.53 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
1.00
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.15
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.96
Hydrology
0.75
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.94
Large Woody Debris 1.00
C
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedP4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageP13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.P14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R5 lower
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: G
Proposed Stream Type: B Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.26 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.44 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.03 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.18 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 69% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 158 Existing Stream Length (ft)158
Proposed Stream Length (ft):158 Proposed Stream Length (ft)158
Stream Slope (%): 2.6 Additional Stream Length (ft) 0
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)41 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 41
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)70 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 70
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 28 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 29
Data Collection Season: Fall Functional Change (%)69% Functional Change (%)71%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.43 1.00
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 0.67 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 1.00 1.00
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.15 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.8 0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.8 0.85
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)20 0.34
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)150 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)150 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.04 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 31
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.1 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.43 Functioning At Risk0.43
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.57
0.34
Measurement Method
1.00
Roll Up Scoring
Not Functioning
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.43
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.46 0.80
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.26
0.46 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
0.67
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.44
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.15
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
1.00
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.80
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedP4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageP13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.P14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R5 upper
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: E
Proposed Stream Type: E Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.31 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.38 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.02 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.07 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 23% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 585 Existing Stream Length (ft)585
Proposed Stream Length (ft):585 Proposed Stream Length (ft)585
Stream Slope (%): 2.4 Additional Stream Length (ft) 0
Flow Type: Perennial Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)181 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 181
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)222 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 222
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 41 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 41
Data Collection Season: Fall Functional Change (%)23% Functional Change (%)23%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.60 0.71
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 0.82 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 1.00 0.96
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.35 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.6 0.2
Entrenchment Ratio 9.3 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)10 0.64
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)150 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)150 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 75 0.69
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.02 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.2 0.7
Entrenchment Ratio 2.5 0.71
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Right Buffer Width (ft)120 0.92
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 70 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.1 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.60 Functioning At Risk0.60
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.11
0.25
Measurement Method
1.00
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.60
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.54 0.79
PCS
0.71
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
0.71
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.31
0.54 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
0.82
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.38
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.35
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
0.96
Hydrology
0.71
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.79
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedP4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageP13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.P14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.G15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tribs
Reach ID: R6 lower
Restoration Potential:Level 3 ‐ Geomorphology
Existing Stream Type: F
Proposed Stream Type: B Exisiting Condition Score (ECS)0.33 Existing BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS) 0
Region: Piedmont Proposed Condition Score (PCS)0.44 Proposed BMP Functional Feet Score (FFS)0
Drainage Area (sqmi):0.04 Change in Functional Condition (PCS ‐ ECS)0.11 Proposed BMP FFS ‐ Existing BMP FFS 0
Proposed Bed Material:Sand Percent Condition Change 33% Functional Change (%)
Existing Stream Length (ft) 208 Existing Stream Length (ft)208
Proposed Stream Length (ft):208 Proposed Stream Length (ft)208
Stream Slope (%): 2.7 Additional Stream Length (ft) 0
Flow Type: Intermittent Existing Functional Foot Score (FFS)69 Existing Stream FFS + Existing BMP FFS 69
River Basin: Neuse Proposed Functional Foot Score (FFS)92 Proposed Stream FFS + Proposed BMP FFS 92
Stream Temperature: Warmwater Proposed FFS ‐ Existing FFS 23 Total Proposed FFS ‐ Total Existing FFS 23
Data Collection Season: Fall Functional Change (%)33% Functional Change (%)33%
Valley Type: Confined Alluvial
Catchment Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity 0.78 1.00
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Lateral Stability 0.67 1.00
Riparian Vegetation 0.95 1.00
Bed Material
Bed Form Diversity 0.15 1.00
Plan Form 0.00 0.00
Temperature
Bacteria
Organic Matter
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Macros
Fish
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 1.3 0.56
Entrenchment Ratio 2.2 1
LWD Index
# Pieces
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)20 0.34
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 80 0.9
Right Canopy Coverage (%)80 0.9
Left Buffer Width (ft)110 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)80 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 10
Percent Riffle 80 0.3
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.08 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Functional Category Function‐Based Parameters Field Value Index Value Parameter Category Category Overall Overall
Catchment Hydrology Curve Number 66 0.42 0.42
Curve Number 66 0.42
Concentrated Flow Points
Soil Compaction
Bank Height Ratio 11
Entrenchment Ratio 31
LWD Index
# Pieces 30 1
Erosion Rate (ft/yr)
Dominant BEHI/NBS L/L 1
Percent Streambank Erosion (%)51
Left Canopy Coverage (%) 100 1
Right Canopy Coverage (%)100 1
Left Buffer Width (ft)110 1
Right Buffer Width (ft)80 1
Left Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Right Basal Area (sq.ft/acre)
Left Stem Density (stems/acre)
Right Stem Density (stems/acre)
Bed Material Characterization Size Class Pebble Count Analyzer (p‐value)
Pool Spacing Ratio
Pool Depth Ratio 21
Percent Riffle 60 1
Aggradation Ratio
Plan Form Sinuosity 1.08 0 0.00
Temperature Summer Daily Maximum  (°F)
Bacteria Fecal Coliform (Cfu/100 ml)
Leaf Litter Processing Rate
Percent Shredders
Nitrogen Total Nitrogen (mg/L)
Phosphorus Total Phosphorus (mg/L)
Biotic Index
EPT Taxa Present
Fish North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
Large Woody Debris
0.78 Functioning0.78
Reach Runoff
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
Function‐Based Parameters
Geomorphology
Floodplain Connectivity
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
FUNCTIONAL CATEGORY REPORT CARD
0.00
0.22
0.36
Measurement Method
0.95
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning At Risk
Hydrology 0.42 0.42
Hydraulics 0.78
Functional ChangeProposed ParameterExisting ParameterFunctional Category
Hydraulics
1. Users input values that are highlighted based on restoration potential
2. Users select values from a pull‐down menu
Functional Category  
EXISTING CONDITION ASSESSMENT
Hydrology
0.44 0.80
PCS
1.00
Geomorphology
ECS
Site Information and 
Performance Standard Stratification
Notes
0.42 Functioning At Risk
Hydrology
Geomorphology
Physicochemical
Biology
FUNCTIONAL FEET (FF) SUMMARY
3. Leave values blank for field values that were not measured
BMP FUNCTIONAL CHANGE SUMMARY
FUNCTION BASED PARAMETERS SUMMARY
1.00
1.00
Functioning At Risk
0.33
0.44 Functioning At Risk
0.42
Reach Runoff 0.42
0.67
0.42 Functioning At Risk
0.44
Measurement Method
Physicochemical Organic Carbon
Biology Macros
Bed Form Diversity 0.15
Bed Form Diversity 1.00
Hydraulics Floodplain Connectivity
Geomorphology
Lateral Stability
Riparian Vegetation
PROPOSED CONDITION ASSESSMENT
1.00
Hydrology
1.00
Macros
Functioning
Biology
Organic CarbonPhysicochemical
Roll Up Scoring
Functioning
0.80
Large Woody Debris 1.00
Rater(s): KMVDate: 11/18/19FLevel 3 - GeomorphologyPoorFairGood1 Concentrated Flow (Hydrology)Potential for concentrated flow/impairments immediately upstream of the project and no treatments are in placeSome potential for concentrated flow/impairments to reach restoration site, however, measures are in place to protect resources No potential for concentrated flow/impairments from adjacent land use F2 Impervious cover (Hydrology) Greater than 25% Between 10% and 25% Less than 10% F3 Land Use Change (Hydrology) Rapidly urbanizing/urban Single family homes/suburbanRural communities/slow growth or primarily forestedP4 Distance to Roads (Hydrology)Roads located in or adjacent to project reach and/or major roads proposed in 10 year DOT plansNo roads in or adjacent to project reach. No more than one major road proposed in 10 year DOT plans. No roads in or adjacent to project reach. No proposed roads in 10 year DOT plans.F5 Percent Forested (Hydrology) <= 20% >20% and <70% >=70% F6 Riparian Vegetation (Geomorphology)<50% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width50-80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor width>80% of contributing stream length has > 25 ft corridor widthG7 Sediment Supply (Geomorphology)High sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffModerate sediment supply from upstream bank erosion and surface runoffLow sediment supply. Upstream bank erosion and surface runoff is minimalF8Located on or downstream of a 303(d) listed stream TMDL list (Physicochemical)On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and no TMDL/WS Mgmt plan to address deficiencies On, upstream, or downstream of 303(d) and TMDL/WS Mgmt plan addressing deficiencies Not on 303(d) list G9 Agricultural Land Use (Physicochemical)Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland immediately upstream of project reach.Livestock access to stream and/or intensive cropland upstream of project reach. A sufficient reach of stream is between Ag. land use and project reach.There is little to no agricultural land uses or the livestock or cropland is far enough away from project reach to cause no impact to water quality or biology.G10 NPDES Permits (Physicochemical)Many NPDES permits within catchment or some within one mile of project reachA few NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachNo NPDES permits within catchment and none within one mile of project reachG11Specific Conductance (uS/cm at 25oC) (Physicochemical)Piedmont = >229; Blue Ridge = >66 Piedmont = 78-229; Blue Ridge = 41-66 Piedmont = <78; Blue Ridge = <41 -12 Watershed impoundments (Biology)Impoundment(s) located within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area and/or has a negative effect on project area and fish passageNo impoundment within 1 mile upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment does not adversely affect project area but a blockage could exist outside of 1 mile and impact fish passageNo impoundment upstream or downstream of project area OR impoundment provides beneficial effect on project area and allows for fish passageP13 Organism Recruitment (Biology)Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach is concrete, piped, or hardened. Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material, but is impaired.Channel immediately upstream or downstream of project reach has native bed and bank material.P14Percent of Catchment being Enhanced or RestoredLess than 40% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.40 to 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.Greater than 60% of the total catchment area is draining to the project reach.F15 OtherCategoriesDescription of Catchment ConditionRating (P/F/G)Catchment Assessment FormOverall Catchment Condition CATCHMENT ASSESSMENTRestoration PotentialPurpose: This form is used to determine the project's restoration potential.
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)52.00 86.70
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.90 8.16
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)7.90 21.10
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.74 1.99
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)43.00 62.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.05 5.84
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0058 0.0266
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.00 4.58
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.00
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)2.33 3.82
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.44 2.37
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.95 21.44
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.65 2.02
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)18.00 290.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.69 27.31
d16 (mm)4
d35 (mm)4
d50 (mm)4
d84 (mm)4
d95 (mm)4
1.36
0.0079
0.0058
Buffalo Creek MS-R1 Existing Stream Values-Riffle
Cross Section 3
1.61
6.58
17.15
4.08
10.62
G4c
70.00
12.54
1.18
1803
0.7500
12.99
29.70
45.00
1.14
1.84
2.55
4.70
0.79
9.72
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)65.00 80.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.64 5.71
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* 98.00 168.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 7.00 12.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 28.00 42.00
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 49.00 112.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0097 0.0129
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.50 2.00
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0013
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.20
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)2.36 4.13
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)18.20 23.80
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.30 1.70
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)56.00 98.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.00 7.00
0.0079
0.0065
1.00
1.22
1.18
11.88
1.50
1.27
1.50
14.00
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
1577
0.7500
C4
4.24
70.00
Buffalo Creek MS-R1
16.50
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)50.00 89.50
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.91 8.78
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)7.90 20.10
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.78 1.97
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)34.60 68.70
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)3.40 6.74
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0121 0.0151
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 2.66 3.33
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.00
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)2.32 3.09
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)1.47 1.95
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)7.51 13.40
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.74 1.32
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)47.00 158.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.61 15.51
d16 (mm)4
d35 (mm)4
d50 (mm)4
d84 (mm)4
d95 (mm)4 32.00
1.48
2.34
1.56
3.64
0.33
1.10
1475
0.8400
3.35
16.00
1.26
0.0057
0.0045
Buffalo Creek MS-R2 Existing Stream Values-Riffle
Cross Section 6
1.58
6.44
16.12
4.65
10.19
G4c/Incised E4
75.00
51.92
5.10
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)60.00 90.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.14 6.21
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* 101.50 174.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 7.00 12.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 29.00 43.50
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 50.75 116.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0075 0.0100
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.50 2.00
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0010
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.20
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)2.48 4.34
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)18.85 24.65
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.30 1.70
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)58.00 101.50
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.00 7.00
4.17
75.00
Buffalo Creek MS-R2
18.00
0.0057
0.0050
1.00
1.14
1.24
11.68
1.60
1.29
1.60
14.50
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
1401
0.8400
C4
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)17.60 20.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.48 2.82
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)3.30 25.70
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.46 3.62
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)18.40 37.10
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.59 5.23
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0103 0.0503
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.28 1.39
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.00
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)1.70 3.09
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)3.24 5.90
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)4.70 6.41
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)0.66 0.90
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)33.00 58.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.65 8.17
d16 (mm)4
d35 (mm)4
d50 (mm)4
d84 (mm)4
d95 (mm)4
1.12
0.0406
0.0362
Buffalo Creek R3 Existing Stream Values-Riffle
Cross Section 1
0.52
13.55
3.72
3.23
7.10
C5b
12.00
22.00
3.10
680
0.0376
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
1.57
0.82
1.00
0.82
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)20.00 25.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)3.64 4.55
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* #VALUE! #VALUE!
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)*
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* #VALUE! #VALUE!
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)*
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* #VALUE! #VALUE!
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)*
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0405 0.0662
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0147
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.40
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.77 1.35
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)1.10 1.50
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)8.25 27.50
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00
5.65
12.00
Buffalo Creek R3
2.13
0.0406
0.0368
1.00
1.10
0.39
14.24
0.50
1.29
0.50
5.50
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
701
0.0376
B4
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)10.00 15.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.82 2.73
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* 38.50 66.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 7.00 12.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 11.00 16.50
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 19.25 44.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0418 0.0683
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0152
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.40
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.85 1.49
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.05 8.25
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)8.25 27.50
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00
0.0398
0.0380
1.00
1.05
0.43
12.94
0.55
1.29
0.55
5.50
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
459
0.0470
B4
4.28
10.00
Buffalo Creek R4
2.34
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)NA NA
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)NA NA
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)NA NA
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0181 0.0340
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.66 1.24
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.00
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)1.85 5.26
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.45 6.96
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)4.01 7.21
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.42 2.56
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)67.00 108.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)23.76 38.30
d16 (mm)4
d35 (mm)4
d50 (mm)4
d84 (mm)4
d95 (mm)4 NA
1.32
1.00
1.75
1.75
NA
NA
766
0.0294
NA
NA
1.14
0.0315
0.0275
Buffalo Creek R5 Existing Stream Values-Riffle
Cross Section 5
0.76
3.73
2.13
3.29
2.82
E5b
7.00
26.24
9.30
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)10.00 25.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)2.00 5.00
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* 35.00 60.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 7.00 12.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 10.00 15.00
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 17.50 40.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0303 0.0495
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0110
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.40
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.68 1.18
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)5.50 7.50
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)7.50 25.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00
0.0315
0.0275
1.00
1.14
0.34
14.81
0.45
1.33
0.45
5.00
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
775
0.0294
B4
4.15
7.00
Buffalo Creek R5
1.69
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)NA NA
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)NA NA
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)NA NA
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)NA NA
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0387 0.0448
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 0.68 0.79
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0000
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.00
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)1.76 3.23
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)3.47 6.37
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)5.66 7.04
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.35 1.68
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)22.00 50.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)5.26 11.96
d16 (mm)4
d35 (mm)4
d50 (mm)4
d84 (mm)4
d95 (mm)4 Coarse Sand
1.58
0.80
1.31
1.05
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
208
0.0392
Coarse Sand
Coarse Sand
1.13
0.0639
0.0566
Buffalo Creek R6 Existing Stream Values-Riffle
Cross Section
0.51
8.24
2.12
5.66
4.18
B5a
12.00
7.91
1.89
Parameter MIN MAX
Stream Length (ft)
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
Stream Type (Rosgen)
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
Bankfull Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
Width of Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)25.00 30.00
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)4.17 5.00
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf (ft/ft)
Max Depth @ tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
Bank Height Ratio, Dmaxtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
Meander Wavelength, Lm (ft)* 42.00 72.00
Meander Wavelength Ratio, Lm/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 7.00 12.00
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)* 12.00 18.00
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 2.00 3.00
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)* 21.00 48.00
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf (ft/ft)* 3.50 8.00
Sinuosity, K (Sval/Schan)
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
Riffle Slope, Srif 0.0632 0.1034
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan 1.10 1.80
Pool Slope, Spool (ft/ft)0.0000 0.0230
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan 0.00 0.40
Pool Max Depth @ bkf, Dmaxpool (ft)0.73 1.28
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf (ft/ft)2.00 3.50
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)6.60 9.00
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.10 1.50
Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)9.00 30.00
Pool-Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf (ft/ft)1.50 5.00
0.0639
0.0574
1.00
1.11
0.37
16.36
0.55
1.50
0.55
6.00
Proposed Stream Values
(Restoration)
252
0.0392
B4
5.45
12.00
Buffalo Creek R6
2.20
Reach MS‐R1 –Stream incision and bank erosionReach MS‐R2 –Stream incision and channel wideningReach MS‐R1 – Excessive sedimentation in channelReach MS‐R2 –Stream incision and bank erosion
Reach MS‐R2 – Sedimentation downstream of new culvertReach R4 –Outfall pipe from historic farm pondReach MS‐R2 –Upstream of newly installed culvertReach R3 (upper) – Preservation section 
Reach R5 – Unstable banks and excessive sedimentationReach R6 –Erosion of spoil piles along R6Reach R4 –Historic channel location Reach R6 –Pond at top of R6
Stormwater BMP 2 at Corinth Holders High SchoolStormwater outfall pipe of BMP 1Erosion from stormwater outfall adjacent to Reach R5Stormwater BMP 1 at Corinth Holders High School
Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 3 – Site Protection Instrument
WLS is in the process of obtaining a conservation easement from the current landowners for the project
area. The easement deed and survey plat will be submitted to DMS and State Property Office (SPO) for
approval and will be held by the State of North Carolina. Once recorded, the secured easement will allow
WLS to proceed with the project development and protect the mitigation assets in perpetuity. The Table
below includes the draft Site Protection Instrument information.

Table 3-1. Site Protection Instrument Information
Owner of Record
N/F
PIN County Site Protection
Instrument
Deed Book
and Page
Numbers
Acreage
Protected
Annie Laura G. Johnson
Revocable Trust
179100-39-9802,
179100-59-0695 Johnston Conservation
Easement
Book: 04094
Page: 0770 8.62 acres
Sam’s Branch II, LLC 179100-58-1377 Johnston Conservation
Easement
Book: 05160
Page: 0208 8.79 acres

Water & Land Solutions

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 4 – Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported in the approved final
mitigation plan, unless there are major discrepancies and then a mitigation plan addendum will be
submitted. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District Engineer
(DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA authorization is
required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the NC Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently to meet
the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards have not
been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may be required
to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the specified
performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described in the
Tables below.

Table 4-1. Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits

Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements
made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
and interim performance standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
and interim performance standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%**)
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
and interim performance standards have been met 10% 75%
(85%**)
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
and interim performance standards have been met 5% 80%
(90%**)
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable
and performance standards have been met 10% 90%
(100%**)
*Please note that vegetation and channel stability data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these
monitoring years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
Water & Land Solutions

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Table 4-2. Credit Release Schedule – Wetland Credits

Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Release
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated below) 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvement made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 10% 40%
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 15% 65%
6* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 5% 70%
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 15% 85%
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
standards have been met 5% 90%
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that performance
standards have been met 10% 100%
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless
otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the IRT.
Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits, as specified in the mitigation plan can be released by the NCDEQ
DMS without prior written approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:

a. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
b. Recordation of the preservation mechanism, as well as a title opinion acceptable to the USACE
covering the property.
c. Completion of project construction (the initial physical and biological improvements to the
mitigation site) pursuant to the mitigation plan; Per the NCDEQ DMS Instrument, construction
means that a mitigation site has been constructed in its entirety, to include planting, and an as-
built report has been produced. As-built reports must be sealed by an engineer prior to project
closeout, if appropriate but not prior to the initial allocation of released credits.
d. Receipt of necessary DA permit authorization or written DA approval for projects where DA
permit issuance is not required.

Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects a reserve of
10% of a site’s total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred, in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, DMS will submit a
request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria
required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 5 – Financial Assurance
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NCDEQ DMS (formerly Ecosystem Enhancement Program)
In-Lieu Fee Instrument dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
(NCDEQ) has provided the USACE-Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by NCDEQ DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance
for all mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Water & Land Solutions

Appendix 6 – Maintenance Plan
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will take place at least
once a year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance standards are met.
These site inspections may identify site components and features that require routine maintenance.
Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years following site construction and
may include the following:

Routine Maintenance Components
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project – NCDEQ DMS Project No. 100042
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Stream Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include modifying in-stream
structures to prevent piping, securing loose coir matting, and supplemental installations of
live stakes and other target vegetation along the project reaches. Areas of concentrated
stormwater and floodplain flows that intercept the channel may also require maintenance
to prevent bank failures and head-cutting. Stream maintenance activities will be
documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Wetland Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental installations
of target vegetation within the wetland. Areas where stormwater and floodplain flows
intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour that adversely and
persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation Vegetation will be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted plant
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
planting, pruning, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species will be treated by mechanical
and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation requiring herbicide application will be performed
in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations. Vegetation
maintenance activities will be documented and reported in annual monitoring reports.
Site Boundary Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
bollard, post, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation easement.
Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or replaced on an
as needed basis. Easement monitoring and staking/signage maintenance will continue in
perpetuity as a stewardship activity.
Stream Crossing The stream crossing(s) within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements. Crossings
in easement breaks are the responsibility of the landowner to maintain.
Beaver Management Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dewatering/dam removal. Beaver management will be
implemented using accepted trapping and removal methods only within the recorded
Conservation Easement.

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project

Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 7 – DWR Stream Identification Forms
The streams at the project site were categorized into eight reaches based on treatment types (MS-R1, MS-
R2, R3 Upper, R3 Lower, R4, R5 Upper, R5 Lower, R6) totaling approximately 5,451 linear feet of existing
streams on six stream reaches. Reach breaks were based on drainage area breaks at confluences, changes
in restoration/enhancement approaches, and/or changes in intermittent/perennial stream status. Field
evaluations conducted at the proposal stage and during existing conditions assessments determined that
Reaches MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 lower, and R5 are perennial streams. Reaches R3 (upper) and R6 were
determined to be intermittent streams. Reach R4 was determined to be ephemeral; however, Reach R4
is shown as a blue line stream on the USGS topographic map, and the historic flow appears to have been
piped from an existing stormwater BMP towards Reach R5 and diverted away from its natural stream
valley. Determinations were based on NCDWQ’s Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and
Perennial Streams and Their Origins, (v4.11, Effective Date: September 1, 2010) stream assessment
protocols. Copies of the supporting field forms are included herein.
Table 7-1. Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Project
Reach
Designation
Existing Project
Reach Length (ft)
NCDWQ Stream
Classification
Form Score1
Watershed Drainage
Area (acres)1
Stream Status Based
on Field Analyses
MS-R1 1,816 44.0 442 Perennial
MS-R2 1,482 46.0 543 Perennial
R3 701 26.75 24 Intermittent/Perennial
R4 469 10.5 30 Ephemeral
R5 775 32.0 19 Perennial
R6 208 23.0 25 Intermittent
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was approximated based on topographic and LiDAR information and
compared with USGS StreamStats at the downstream end of each reach.

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ] i _
Project/Site: i� �.l
Latitude: 35 o y3� yGn
Evaluator: i
Count -
Longitude:. q
ld
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent y
Stream Determination (circle.o e)
Ephemeral
Other
e.9. Quad Name:
Name;
H>_19 orperennial rfz30"
(Subtotal = 7 t
A. Geomor holo �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. rife -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1 3
5. Active/relict 800dplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
;2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
-
9. Grade control „Lw,-"4F=
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5'-
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
°arlificial ditches are not mted; see discussions in manual
B.Hvdroloav (Subtotal= - 1
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
0.5
_t5..
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
_ 0.5
_=
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
-No 0
Yes = 3
C Rinlnnv lRuhtntal = 9.0 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
; 2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note dive ily 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 = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0�
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Ary p ,r- 01'/�
Sketch:
-�-

NC 1nWn Ctraam idpntifiratinn Form Version 4.11
Date: S j1
Projectisite: gfr - A145IL7
Latitude: -5 oy3 2/. 0& NN
Evaluator: K VaCW
County: ��(
Longitude: -7S°� �36.$S
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent qt� O
Stream Determination ('
Ephemeral Intermitten erenni
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
H>_ 19 or erenniel if> 30-
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = %%,� )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2 ,
3
3. In -channel structure: ez. e{�oo tap -pool,
ripple- ool sequence -
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional hars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
S. Headcuis
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
1 0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I No = 0
es = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrimion r (Suhtotal = S, S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
C Rinlnnv tRuhfMM = 1
ous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
ted upland plants in streambed
'3
2
1
0
robenthos (note diversity and abundance)
01
2
3
atic Mollusks
0
1
2
T-M
0yfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
phibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
e
0tland
plants o streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Oth =
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Is
Date: q �$ ; r-
Pro1ectrSite: F--r - �_,
Latitude: 350y3 s.3d "A�
Evaluator: 'f-_ �._.: --L�
County: �, j �',
Longitude: 7g'Z013a754�
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent %-.�
Stream DInatlon (circle one)
Ephern Intermittent Aerennial
Other _
Quad No..: j--LP1/��.'�
Z�
!(algor e.1cmd tira30' �-
e.g.
A. Geornor holo Subtotal = I )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
l 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
/2�
l2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
S. Active/relict ffoodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. a control
0
.5
1
1.5
i4m
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
'artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = G/ 5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(11
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf liner
1.5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
7',
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(No = 0
- Yes = 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = -, ' c, )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
! 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
( 2)
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abandon.)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquafic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
'0
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
y0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-�
*ACW = 0.75) OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes F z-
Sketch:
-�
v

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Prolewsite: 6�
Latitude: 57 1 .xyj
Evaluator. �
County: �p�-U/5 U �
Longitude:'' v '33, Z5
Total Points:
Stream is at leastintermittenr I 5
Bar�LLnQQggterminatlon (ctrots one)
Parent nlet
Other
e.g Quad Name: f
its l9 or erennial iia 3o'
phe..7,11ntenoitlent
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
ia, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(1)
2
3
3. Inchannel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
-0-)
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelmlict fioodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 -
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2 j
3
9. Grade control
LO
0.5
1
1.5
10. Naturel valley
0 ---
0.5
1
1.5
i t Secend or greater order channel
No = 0 '
I Yes = 3
' artificial dilUes are not rated; see discussions in manual -
R Rvdrnlnnv /Suhtntal= ') r7 1
12. Presence of BaseBow
0,
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0_'
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
- No = 0-'--
Yes = 3
C. Rinlnov (Sihtntal=
A)
18. Fibrous roots in sleambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambetl
3_
2
1
0
20. Macrobenlhos more 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 = 0,75; OBL = 1S Other= 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: �. - _
Latitude: 3500 ZZ.Lyl�A)
Evaluator: /-_�
County:
Longituda57ga ZO y31, 9317
/
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cW&.oae)
Other
Stream is at least imananent -
Ephemeral Intermittenh'Perennla,
e.g. quad Name:
/C
tfa19or ammaali230`
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St ong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thakve9
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri Ie- ool sequence
0
1
2�
4. Particle size of
stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelmild goodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
r 2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
_0.5 �'
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvchocav (Subtotal = I 7 )
12. Presence of Baseaow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
9�
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 I
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
:5
/ 1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5�
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No=O�
Yes =3 -_
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5 5 )
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 i
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians -
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
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: fiti iFL'^1 ✓2r iS !i
17
:-✓
-
.�rl: != L= NCB
�-
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: UI / `�
ProjectfSite: -
Latitude: �SJ r �i7U
Evaluator:
County: - _
Longitude:7 °7o rag_3/y
Total Points:
Scream DetgryinatieMEircle one)
Other
3treamis of least intermittent
Z
Ephemeral- Intermittent Perennial
/
ag.Quad Name: F(.,,Y•C
ifa 19 or erennialiR 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' ` 7 I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. nfln .I ep-poo,
ri ool sequence
0
1
2
O
4. Panicle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Aclive/rolict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
.5�
11. Second or greater order channel
(No = 0
Yes = 3
aioiiuei itid.ee ace iio��oio�. �_,.��,.,»�.,�•� ��•e���a•
R Zllrolonv rSuhtntal= 5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
' 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 i
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
__.OS
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(No =O%
Yes =3
C_ Bioloov
W
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
CO2
20. Macrobenlhos(nme diversity and abundance)
0 1
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
_0
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5 ;
1
L5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
P--.
0.5.
1
L5
25.Algae
l 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Welland 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: i9a„y,�
;v raves vn.:.
Sketch:

0
Legend
Conservation Easement
NC Floodplain Mapping Program
LiDAR
Elevation
363.397 - 1741.29
330.946 - 363.397
308.944 - 330.946
297.757 - 308.944
287.537 - 297.757
277.736 - 287.537
W 267.224 - 277.736
253.891 - 267.224
206.85 - 253.891
4 WATER & LAND Buffalo Creek Tributary
SOLUTIONS Mitigation Project
R1
wu
N� 5
GeoEye. Earihslar. Geogrephio
I
0IGN, and the GIS User C0m
FIGURE
LOAR Map
NAD 1983 2014 SW . Plana
oM Carolina HIPS 3200 FT US

Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 8 – USACE District Assessment Methods/Forms
NC SAM
NC WAM
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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72399, -78.343508
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): MS-R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1497
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (3) Flow Restriction NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT 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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72078, -78.34304
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): MS-R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1340
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3.5 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:
MS-R2 receives more sediment from stormwater outflow from adjacent school than MS-R1. New road crossing also impacted MS-R2.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pa3 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography MEDIUM
(3) Stream Stability LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH (2) Baseflow HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (3) Flow Restriction NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT 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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72724, -78.34196
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R3 lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 108
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality LOW LOW (2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (3) Flow Restriction NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72756, -78.34132
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R3 upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 398
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Flood Flow HIGH HIGH
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH HIGH (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH (4) Channel Stability HIGH HIGH (4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology HIGH HIGH (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality HIGH HIGH (2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability HIGH HIGH
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (3) Flow Restriction NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall HIGH HIGH

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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72293, -78.34290
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R5 lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 215
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:
BMP areas from school development to the east drain directly into R5. Drainage from historic channel R4 is diverted via pipes to R5.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM (2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance MEDIUM (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (3) Flow Restriction NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall MEDIUM

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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72287, -78.34154
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R5 upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 512
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 1 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:
BMP areas from school development to the east drain directly into R5. Drainage from historic channel R4 is diverted via pipes to R5.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Flood Flow LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation MEDIUM
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW (4) Channel Stability MEDIUM (4) Sediment Transport LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM (2) Baseflow MEDIUM (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors NO
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1) Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3) Baseflow MEDIUM
(3) Substrate HIGH
(3) Stream Stability MEDIUM
(3) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (3) Flow Restriction NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA
Overall MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT 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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72177, -78.34375
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R6 lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 107
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4 Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM MEDIUM (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality LOW LOW (2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW MEDIUM
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (3) Flow Restriction NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

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/Sketch” section if supplementary measurements were performed. See the
NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT/SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any):
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation
Project 2. Date of evaluation: 12/5/2019
3. Applicant/owner name: Water & Land Solutions 4. Assessor name/organization: Kyle Obermiller - WLS
5. County: Johnston 6. Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Buffalo Creek 7. River basin: Neuse
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.72192, -78.34425
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R6 upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 200
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? Yes No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) Piedmont (P) Inner Coastal Plain (I) Outer Coastal Plain (O)
16. Estimated geomorphic
19 valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream):
A B
(more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mi2) Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi2) Size 4 (≥ 5 mi2)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
Section 10 water Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed (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)
Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in “Notes/Sketch” section or attached? Yes No

1. Channel Water – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
A Water throughout assessment reach.
B No flow, water in pools only.
C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction – assessment reach metric
A At least 10% of assessment reach in-stream habitat or riffle-pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
B Not A
3. Feature Pattern – assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile – assessment reach metric
A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down-cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
B Not 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

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])
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/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in “Notes/Sketch”
section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
I Other: (explain in “Notes/Sketch” section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather – watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream – assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types – assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in-stream hardening [for example, rip-rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
vegetation
C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
G Submerged aquatic vegetation
H Low-tide refugia (pools)
I Sand bottom
J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
K Little or no habitat

*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. Yes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
A Riffle-run section (evaluate 11c)
B Pool-glide section (evaluate 11d)
C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffle sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach – whether or not submerged. Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) = absent, Rare
(R) = present but < 10%, Common (C) = > 10-40%, Abundant (A) = > 40-70%, Predominant (P) = > 70%. Cumulative percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 – 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 – 256 mm)
Gravel (2 – 64 mm)
Sand (.062 – 2 mm)
Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
Detritus
Artificial (rip-rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. Yes No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check for Tidal Marsh Streams Only
12. Aquatic Life – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes No Was an in-stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. No Water Other:
12b. Yes No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check all that
apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to “individuals” for Size 1 and 2 streams and “taxa” for Size 3 and 4 streams.
Adult frogs
Aquatic reptiles
Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
Beetles
Caddisfly larvae (T)
Asian clam (Corbicula)
Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
Dipterans
Mayfly larvae (E)
Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
Midges/mosquito larvae
Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula)
Other fish
Salamanders/tadpoles
Snails
Stonefly larvae (P)
Tipulid larvae
Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and upland runoff.
LB RB
A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples: ditches, fill, soil compaction,
livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage – streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water ≥ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors – assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
C Obstruction passing flow during low-flow periods within the assessment area (beaver dam, leaky dam, bottom-release dam, weir)
D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron in water indicates seepage)
E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors – assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low-flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
C Urban stream (≥ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the streamside area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading – assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider “leaf-on” condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider “vegetated buffer” and “wooded buffer” separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top of bank out
to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A A ≥ 100 feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B B B B From 50 to < 100 feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50 feet wide
D D D D From 10 to < 30 feet wide
E E E E < 10 feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Vegetated” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but is
within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A A A A A A Row crops
B B B B B B Maintained turf
C C C C C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D D D D D D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 (“Wooded” Buffer Width).
LB RB
A A Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10 feet wide.
LB RB
A A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
B B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition – streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes to
assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native species,
with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non-characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity – assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. Yes No Was conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
A < 46 B 46 to < 67 C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 E ≥ 230

Notes/Sketch:
R6 upper is a historic farm pond, above existing spring. Current pond being affected by adjacent development.

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1

Stream Site Name Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project Date of Assessment 12/5/2019
Stream Category Pb1 Assessor Name/Organization Kyle Obermiller - WLS

Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent

Function Class Rating Summary
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW (4) Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH HIGH
(4) Microtopography NA NA
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW (4) Channel Stability LOW LOW (4) Sediment Transport LOW LOW (4) Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW (2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA (2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA (2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1) Water Quality MEDIUM MEDIUM (2) Baseflow HIGH HIGH (2) Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH HIGH (3) Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH HIGH
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH NA (2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1) Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(3) Baseflow HIGH HIGH
(3) Substrate LOW LOW
(3) Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3) In-stream Habitat LOW LOW
(2) Stream-side Habitat HIGH HIGH
(3) Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH (2) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (3) Flow Restriction NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA (4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA (3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA (2) Intertidal Zone NA NA
Overall MEDIUM MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0 USACE AID # NCDWR# Project Name Buffalo Creek Date of Evaluation 12/9/2019 Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name WB Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201 County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.722971, -78.341593
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), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area. Anadromous fish Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) Publicly owned property N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer) Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout Designated NCNHP reference community Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetla nd, if any? (check all that apply) Blackwater Brownwater Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence an effect. GS VS A A Not severely altered B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less 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. B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change ) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT 3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. 4a. A Sandy soil B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redox imorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres) C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redox imorphic features D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetla nd and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd 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)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). WS 5M 2M A A A > 10% impervious surfaces B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) 7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water? Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8. Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. 7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.) A ≥ 50 feet B From 30 to < 50 feet C From 15 to < 30 feet D From 5 to < 15 feet E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches 7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width. ≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present) 7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend in to the bank of the tributary/open water? Yes No 7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries. WT WC A A ≥ 100 feet B B From 80 to < 100 feet C C From 50 to < 80 feet D D From 40 to < 50 feet E E From 30 to < 40 feet F F From 15 to < 30 feet G G From 5 to < 15 feet H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) Answer for assessment area dominant landform. A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes) Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) A A A ≥ 500 acres B B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D D From 25 to < 50 acres E E E From 10 to < 25 acres F F F From 5 to < 10 acres G G G From 1 to < 5 acres H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size. B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric 13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. Well Loosely A A ≥ 500 acres B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D From 10 to < 50 acres E E < 10 acres F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats 13b. Evaluate for marshes only. Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland) May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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 assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.” A 0 B 1 to 4 C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics). B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics. C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present? Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands. A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps C C Canopy sparse or absent A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent A A Dense shrub layer B B Moderate density shrub layer C C Shrub layer sparse or absent A A Dense herb layer B B Moderate density herb layer C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH. C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris. A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. P atterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only) Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D. A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area. C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area. Notes pond culvert and incised stream Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WB Date of Assessment 12/9/2019
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0 USACE AID # NCDWR# Project Name Buffalo Creek Date of Evaluation 12/9/2019 Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name WC Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201 County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.723013, -78.343297
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), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area. Anadromous fish Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) Publicly owned property N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer) Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout Designated NCNHP reference community Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetla nd, if any? (check all that apply) Blackwater Brownwater Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence an effect. GS VS A A Not severely altered B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less 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. B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change ) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT 3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. 4a. A Sandy soil B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redox imorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres) C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redox imorphic features D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetla nd and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd 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)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). WS 5M 2M A A A > 10% impervious surfaces B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) 7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water? Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8. Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. 7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.) A ≥ 50 feet B From 30 to < 50 feet C From 15 to < 30 feet D From 5 to < 15 feet E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches 7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width. ≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present) 7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend in to the bank of the tributary/open water? Yes No 7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries. WT WC A A ≥ 100 feet B B From 80 to < 100 feet C C From 50 to < 80 feet D D From 40 to < 50 feet E E From 30 to < 40 feet F F From 15 to < 30 feet G G From 5 to < 15 feet H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) Answer for assessment area dominant landform. A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes) Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) A A A ≥ 500 acres B B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D D From 25 to < 50 acres E E E From 10 to < 25 acres F F F From 5 to < 10 acres G G G From 1 to < 5 acres H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size. B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric 13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. Well Loosely A A ≥ 500 acres B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D From 10 to < 50 acres E E < 10 acres F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats 13b. Evaluate for marshes only. Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland) May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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 assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.” A 0 B 1 to 4 C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics). B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics. C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present? Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands. A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps C C Canopy sparse or absent A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent A A Dense shrub layer B B Moderate density shrub layer C C Shrub layer sparse or absent A A Dense herb layer B B Moderate density herb layer C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH. C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris. A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. P atterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only) Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D. A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area. C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area. Notes Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WC Date of Assessment 12/9/2019
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition HIGH
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition HIGH
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating HIGH

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0 USACE AID # NCDWR# Project Name Buffalo Creek Date of Evaluation 12/9/2019 Applicant/Owner Name Water & Land Solutions Wetland Site Name WD Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201 County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 35.723662, -78.343224
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), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area. Anadromous fish Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA) Publicly owned property N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer) Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout Designated NCNHP reference community Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetla nd, if any? (check all that apply) Blackwater Brownwater Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) Lunar Wind Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? Yes No
Is the assessment area’s surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? Yes No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? Yes No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition – assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment area based on evidence an effect. GS VS A A Not severely altered B B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compact ion, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less 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. B B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation). C C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change ) (examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief – assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT). AA WT 3a. A A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep B B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep C C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep D D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot
4. Soil Texture/Structure – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature. Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional indicators. 4a. A Sandy soil B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redox imorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres) C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redox imorphic features D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. A Soil ribbon < 1 inch B Soil ribbon ≥ 1 inch
4c. A No peat or muck presence B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland – opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges (Surf) and sub-surface pollutants or discharges (Sub). Examples of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank , underground storage tank (UST), etc. Surf Sub A A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area B B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetla nd and stressing, but not overwhelming the treatment capacity of the assessment area C C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area a nd 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)
Check all that apply (at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining to assessment area within entire upstream watershed (WS), within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (5M), and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area (2M). WS 5M 2M A A A > 10% impervious surfaces B B B Confined animal operations (or other local, concentrated source of pollutants C C C ≥ 20% coverage of pasture D D D ≥ 20% coverage of agricultural land (regularly plowed land) E E E ≥ 20% coverage of maintained grass/herb F F F ≥ 20% coverage of clear-cut land G G G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer – assessment area/wetland complex condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) 7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water? Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No, skip to Metric 8. Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed. 7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbe d.) A ≥ 50 feet B From 30 to < 50 feet C From 15 to < 30 feet D From 5 to < 15 feet E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches 7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width. ≤ 15-feet wide > 15-feet wide Other open water (no tributary present) 7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend in to the bank of the tributary/open water? Yes No 7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed? Sheltered – adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic. Exposed – adjacent open water with width ≥ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries. WT WC A A ≥ 100 feet B B From 80 to < 100 feet C C From 50 to < 80 feet D D From 40 to < 50 feet E E From 30 to < 40 feet F F From 15 to < 30 feet G G From 5 to < 15 feet H H < 5 feet

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands) Answer for assessment area dominant landform. A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days) B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes) Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition). A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels. B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland. C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column. WT WC FW (if applicable) A A A ≥ 500 acres B B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D D From 25 to < 50 acres E E E From 10 to < 25 acres F F F From 5 to < 10 acres G G G From 1 to < 5 acres H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only) A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size. B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric 13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300 feet wide. Well Loosely A A ≥ 500 acres B B From 100 to < 500 acres C C From 50 to < 100 acres D D From 10 to < 50 acres E E < 10 acres F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats 13b. Evaluate for marshes only. Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland) May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l 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 assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.” A 0 B 1 to 4 C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat) A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area. B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing. It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata. C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only) A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics). B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics. C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present? Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands. A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation B < 25% coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately. AA WT A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps C C Canopy sparse or absent A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent A A Dense shrub layer B B Moderate density shrub layer C C Shrub layer sparse or absent A A Dense herb layer B B Moderate density herb layer C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH. C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes) Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris. A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability). B Not 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. P atterned areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water. A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only) Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion, man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D. A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area. C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area. D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area. Notes Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name WD Date of Assessment 12/9/2019
Wetland Type Floodplain Pool Assessor Name/Organization Emily Dunnigan/WLS Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and Retention Condition NA
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition HIGH
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition HIGH
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 9 – WOTUS Information
1
Catherine Manner
From:Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>
Sent:Friday, April 3, 2020 1:16 PM
To:Catherine Manner; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
Cc:Crocker, Lindsay
Subject:RE: [External] Buffalo Creek
Attachments:BCT_Fig4_Existing Hydro.pdf
Catherine,

Reference is made to SAW-2018-00425, please reference this number on any correspondence regarding this
action.

On February 21, 2018, the US Army Corps of Engineers met at the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Site, in
Johnston County North Carolina, to review the boundaries of aquatic resources. Subsequent delineations were
performed and submitted by you in a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) request made on August
22, 2019, including map revisions provided today.

We have reviewed the information provided by you concerning the aquatic resources, and by copy of this e-
mail, are confirming that the aquatic resources delineation has been verified by the Corps to be a sufficiently
accurate and reliable representation of the location and extent of aquatic resources within the identified review
area. The location and extent of these aquatic resources are shown on the delineation map, labeled ‘Buffalo
Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Jurisdictional Waters Map’ (undated), provided via email on April 3, 2020
with revisions (attached).

Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 16-01

https://usace.contentdm.oclc.org/utils/getfile/collection/p16021coll9/id/1256 provides guidance for
Jurisdictional Determinations (JD) and states “The Corps generally does not issue a JD of any type where no JD
has been requested”. At this time we are only verifying the delineation. This delineation may be relied upon
for use in the permit evaluation process, including determining compensatory mitigation. “This verification
does not address nor include any consideration for geographic jurisdiction on aquatic resources and shall not be
interpreted as such.
This delineation verification is not an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) and is not an appealable
action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (33 CFR Part 331). However, you may
request an AJD, which is an appealable action.

If you wish to receive a PJD, or an AJD, please respond accordingly, otherwise nothing further is required and
we will not provide any additional documentation. 

Regards, 

Christopher D. Hopper 
Regulatory Specialist 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Regulatory Division 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, NC 27587 
2
(919) 554‐4884, Ext. 35 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0. Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and 
complete the survey. 

From: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 9:50 AM 
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY 
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Hey Chris,  

Attached is the final PJD. Its does not need updated from the Aug 22, 2019 document. I can explain what is going on with 
R4 on a call. I am free after 11 today for a phone call. 

Thanks! 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Manager 
Water & Land Solutions 
Blockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2020 6:59 AM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Good Morning, Catherine: 

As promised I spent some time this morning reviewing the project history. Clear as mud. 

It’s unfortunate the oversights went undetected so long. Ross could’ve addressed this with more time to respond. 

I think a call may be in order. I’ve been working since 3:15 this morning and need to step away soon. I should be back at 
it by 1030‐1100 though. Would you be available for a conversation? Minimally I’ll need one complete document to work 
with, and request Andy Williams’ comment regarding R4 in his December 19, 2019 email be addressed. If you believe 
this feature has become jurisdictional, I’ll be happy to schedule a site visit with you once our COVID‐19 restrictions are 
lifted.  

Does the August 22, 2019 document need to be updated? 

Thank you, 

3
Christopher D. Hopper 
Regulatory Specialist 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Regulatory Division 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, NC 27587 
(919) 554‐4884, Ext. 35 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: Blockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0. Thank you for taking the time to visit this 
site and complete the survey. 

From: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 4:56 PM 
To: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY 
CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Re: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Hey Chris, 
Yes an email concurrence at this time would work for now! It would be great if we could get one tomorrow morning! 

Thanks! 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Manager 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
Direct (571) 643‐3165 |  
Office (919) 614‐5111 |  
Email [e-mail] 
From: Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 2:11:04 PM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) 
<[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External] Buffalo Creek  

Thanks for the summary, Catherine: 

I’ll go through Ross’ files and verify the extents you’ve provided. I can issue a delineation concurrence email in in fairly 
short order, but a PJD will take a little time. Is the email concurrence sufficient for your needs? I could probably have 
that to you tomorrow morning. 

Thanks in advance, 

Christopher D. Hopper 
Regulatory Specialist 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Regulatory Division 
4
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, NC 27587 
(919) 554‐4884, Ext. 35 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: BlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0. Thank you for taking the time to 
visit this site and complete the survey. 

From: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 2:01 PM 
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Hey Kim,  

Yes you are correct this is the Project that Ross originally gave us a concurrence via email, but then we figured out that 
what we had submitted was incorrect. Then Andrew Williams took over from Ross and told us that our concurrence was 
still valid from Ross, but never gave us a concurrence on the new updated PJD request/map. Then on Andrews request 
WLS sent you and him and update ORM table but I noticed that there was never a concurrence on the updated map. 
Andrew said because of work load he couldn’t get to issuing the PDJ but we could get it during the permitting stage.  

But if Chris could issue the PJD verification email now we would prefer that, but understand if it can’t happen until the 
permit stage. I just want to make sure our new map has the concurrence not just the incorrect one.  

I hope you are also doing well! Stay safe.  

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Manager 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2020 1:41 PM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Hey Catherine 
Please refresh my memory because all 176 sites I'm dealing with are blending together in a COVID‐fog in my brain lately. 
ਐ਑਒ਓ Was this the site that Ross originally verified via email and then you guys re‐did the JD map? Are you asking Chris for 
a PJD verification email with the new map? 
Thanks and hope you guys are doing well 
Kim 
5

Kim Browning 
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division   I   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105   I   Wake Forest, NC 27587   I   919.554.4884 x60  

BUILDING STRONG ®er 

*NOTE: I am currently teleworking and away from my office. Please contact me via email or at 919.413.6392. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, April 02, 2020 12:59 PM 
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>; Hopper, Christopher D CIV (USA) 
<[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: [External] Buffalo Creek 

Hey Kim,  

I just wanted to follow up on the Buffalo Creek PJD request. WLS submitted the updated ORM table and sent it to you in 
December 2020. I have attached the email for your reference. While finalizing our final draft mitigation plan submittal I 
did notice that we didn't include the new JD map in our email to you in December, so I will attach it to this email for your 
reference.   

I also copied Chris on this email as he is the new contact for Johnston County.  

Thanks,  

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Manager 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 10:30 AM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: [External] Buffalo Creek 

See below FYI when you are putting together the PJD stuff for Buffalo Creek.  I brought this up with her at another site 
visit and she seemed to think it would not be a problem.  I explained that you had a tech that accidentally submitted the 
hydric soils layer instead of the jurisdictional layer... 

LC 

Lindsay Crocker 
Eastern Regional Supervisor 
NC DEQ Division of Mitigation Services 
217 West Jones St., Raleigh, NC 27603 
6
919.594.3910 
[e-mail] 

Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed 
to third parties unless the content is exempt by statute or other regulation. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Wednesday, February 19, 2020 4:13 PM 
To: Crocker, Lindsay <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [External] Buffalo Creek 

CAUTION: External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an 
attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]> 

Hey Lindsay 
I assume this is the site you told me about the other day regarding the JD. If you need the JD modified, please have WLS 
send Chris Hopper the revised request (and copy me). Chris said he'd be happy to take a look at it. 
Thanks 
Kim 

Kim Browning 
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division   I   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105   I   Wake Forest, NC 27587   I   919.554.4884 x60 

BUILDING STRONG (r) 

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CN ES/Airbus
DS, U SDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±
0 500 1,000
Fe et
FIGURE4Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Jurisdictional Waters
Map
Legend
Uplan d D ata Form Locations
Conservation Easement
Existing Pon d
Existin g Stream
Wetlan d D ata Form Locations
Existing Wetlands
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, EarthstarWD
WC
WC
R3
MS-R1
R5
MS-R2
WB
R6

Po nd
SC
1
Cara Conder
From:Catherine Manner
Sent:Monday, January 6, 2020 3:23 PM
To:Cara Conder
Subject:FW: PJD-Johnston County
Attachments:20180801 Delineation Concurrence.pdf; 20180801 Delineation Concurrence.pdf;
ORM_Upload_Sheet_AqResources_Rapanos_20190428.xlsm

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:43 AM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Williams, Andrew E CIV 
USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: PJD‐Johnston County 

Catherine, 

I checked both of these files (SAW‐2018‐00431‐Odell's House and SAW‐2018‐00425‐Buffalo Creek Tributaries).  Below is 
my assessment for each: 

1. SAW‐2018‐00431‐‐Ross provided a delineation concurrence on August 1, 2018 for Figure 3: Jurisdictional Waters Map. 
Due to a heavy workload, we are unable to complete a PJD for this project. I have spoken with Kim Browning in our 
Mitigation Section. She has indicated that they will be able to continue moving forward with your project, based on the 
delineation concurrence email. Please send her a "Waters Upload" spreadsheet for this project. I have attached a blank 
spreadsheet for your use. 

2. SAW‐2018‐00425‐‐ Due to a heavy workload, we are unable to complete a PJD for this project, at this time.I reviewed 
the notes from the site visit. I could not find any mention of S4. So I would not be able to concur with that feature. 
Additionally, the notes, including the NCDWR stream form score (10.5) for feature R4, indicates that that feature was 
determined to be non‐jurisdictional. As such, Ross's delineation concurrence email from August 1, 2018 that included 
Figure 3: Jurisdictional Waters Map, is still valid. In speaking with Kim, she has indicated that they will be able to 
continue moving forward with this project, based on the delineation concurrence email. Please send her a "Waters 
Upload" spreadsheet for this project, as well. 

You can always have the PJD completed concurrently with the permits associated with the above projects (if permits are 
necessary) or you can chose to go through the permitting process based on the delineation concurrence and not request 
any sort of jurisdictional determination. 

Please let me know if you have any additional questions or concerns.     

Andrew Williams 
Regulatory Project Manager 
US Army Corps of Engineers 
Wilmington District, Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
2
919‐554‐4884 ext. 26 

The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public.  To help us ensure we 
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at our website at 
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 
to complete the survey online. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Catherine Manner [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2019 5:24 PM 
To: Williams, Andrew E CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: PJD‐Johnston County 

Hey Andy,  

I wanted to follow up on the PDJ approval for Buffalo Creek Tributaries and Odell's House. We are getting very close to 
turning in our mitigation plan for both of these projects.  

Happy Holidays! 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Scientist III 
Water & Land Solutions 
Blockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Catherine Manner  
Sent: Monday, December 9, 2019 5:01 PM 
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: PJD‐Johnston County 

Hey Andy,  

I wanted to send a follow up email about the PJD approvals for two of our projects (Buffalo Creek Tributaries & Odell's 
House). Again we are trying to submit our draft mitigation plans very soon.  

Recently on another one of our project we were asked to fill in the ORM aquatic resource data sheet. I went ahead and 
did those for both Buffalo Creek and Odell's House.  

Please let me know if you need anything else from me to keep these PJD approvals moving along.  

Thanks, 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Scientist III 
Water & Land Solutions 
Blockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
3
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Catherine Manner  
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 5:35 PM 
To: [e-mail] 
Subject: PJD‐Johnston County 

Hello Andy,  

My name is Catherine Manner and I work for Water & Land Solutions. Kim Browning pointed me in your direction. I am 
trying to get the PJD approvals for two of our Mitigation Projects. We had previously been coordinating with Ross but I 
was told he is no longer with the Corps and that you covering Johnston County while his replacement is found.  

We submitted the original PJD request for the Odell's House Mitigation Project (SAW‐2018‐00431) as well as the Buffalo 
Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (SAW‐2018‐00425) to Ross in July 2018 and had some back and forth 
communication, which can been seen below. When we originally submitted the PJD request an employee, who is no 
longer with us, was coordinating the effort with Ross. When we submitted the PJD request Ross had already seen the 
sites and gave us a concurrence via email and said that when we needed the official PJD to let him know (this was in Aug 
of 2018). Since then we discovered the employee who did the original delineation on Buffalo Creek made some 
mistakes, and we since coordinated with Ross and submitted an updated package (this was in Aug 2019). We have been 
trying to get in contact with Ross about an update on getting the PJD approval since late summer. We really need to get 
these projects moving along. I wanted to reach out to you to see if you needed anything from us to help in this process. I 
would be happy to jump on a call to discuss these two projects if that would be helpful.  

Thanks, 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Scientist III 
Water & Land Solutions 
Blockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2019 9:49 AM 
To: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: PJD‐Johnston County 

They're  hiring two new folks soon, but for now Andy Williams is covering it.  

Kim Browning 
Mitigation Project Manager, Regulatory Division   I   U.S. Army Corps of Engineers  
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105   I   Wake Forest, NC 27587   I   919.554.4884 x60 

BUILDING STRONG ® 

4

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Catherine Manner [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Monday, November 18, 2019 10:15 AM 
To: Browning, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] PJD‐Johnston County 

Hey Kim, 

I wanted to see if you could point me in the right direction, I am trying to find a point of contact for getting two PJD 
approvals for Johnston County. It is my understanding that Ross is no longer working for the Corps.  
We are trying to get the PJD approval for two DMS projects: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (SAW‐2018‐
00425) and Odell's House Mitigation Project. 

Thanks for your help, 

Catherine A. Manner 
Project Scientist III 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd., Suite 130 
Raleigh, NC 27615 
Direct (571) 643‐3165  |  Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Adam McIntyre  
Sent: Friday, October 25, 2019 12:41 PM 
To: 'Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US)' <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: 20190125_Sams Branch Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD Concurrence from Ross S 
(UNCLASSIFIED) 

Hey Ross, 
 Just wanted to follow up on these projects.  I believe you were ready to issue the PJD for Odell's House 
Mitigation Site and Buffalo Creek (otherwise referred to as Sams Branch Wetland Mitigation Project).  I left you another 
voicemail but wanted to follow up with an email.  Let me know where we are with these PJD approvals.  Thanks!   

Adam V McIntyre 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130 
Raleigh, North Carolina  27615 
Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 632‐5910  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]>  
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 2:12 PM 
To: Adam McIntyre <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Jon Harrell <[e-mail]> 
Subject: RE: 20190125_Sams Branch Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD Concurrence from Ross S 
(UNCLASSIFIED) 

5
CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Hey Adam, 

 I just had one addition to the delineation map. During the 2/21/2018 site visit, my field notes indicate that I observed a 
small stretch of stream in the northern portion of the site. It was a deeply incised feature that begins at a steep headcut 
and drains 30‐50 feet to MS‐R1. 

It was shown as SC on the delineation map submitted with the previous version of the PJD request. 

Thanks, 

Ross 

Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist Regulatory Specialist Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers ‐ Wilmington District 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
Office #: 919‐554‐4884. Ext. 25 
Email: [e-mail] 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: 
BlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE95B1BE
‐995E‐4A7E‐9968‐B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Adam McIntyre [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 1:43 PM 
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Jon Harrell <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] RE: 20190125_Sams Branch Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD Concurrence from 
Ross S (UNCLASSIFIED) 

Good afternoon Ross, 
 Nice to chat with you this morning and thanks for understanding the confusion on future wetlands vs existing 
wetlands.  I have attached the PJD packet for Sams Branch (Buffalo Creek mitigation site).  Please let me know if you 
have any questions or need additional information.    

Adam V McIntyre 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130 
Raleigh, North Carolina  27615 
Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 632‐5910  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2019 7:49 AM 
To: Adam McIntyre <[e-mail]> 
6
Subject: RE: 20190125_Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD Concurrence from Ross 
S (UNCLASSIFIED) 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Here is what Water & Land Solutions submitted to me. Give me a call when you get a chance to discuss. 

Thanks! 

Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist Regulatory Specialist Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers ‐ Wilmington District 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
Office #: 919‐554‐4884. Ext. 25 
Email: [e-mail] 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: 
BlockedBlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?sourcedoc={AE
95B1BE‐995E‐4A7E‐9968‐B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Adam McIntyre [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Monday, August 12, 2019 12:32 PM 
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] FW: 20190125_Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD 
Concurrence from Ross S 
Importance: High 

What's up Ross, 
 I wanted to follow up from my long voicemail I left you on Friday. Apologies about the length and probably lack 
of clarity.  Hopefully this email will provide the information you need.   

The Buffalo Creek Mitigation site is located on a piece of land we refer to as the "Markham Tract".  It was identified and 
secured over 2 years ago as a property that was going to be developed but had great restoration potential.  The primary 
stream channel that is located in the valley bottom is deeply incised and has effectively drained what was historically a 
valley bottom with lots of wetlands and a single thread stream channel.  The two processes of residential development 
and mitigation site development are two very separate processes with different funding sources, owners, and processes. 
But for the purpose of your delineation approval...it should be 1 process (which as you can see below you desire).  For 
our full delivery submittal we propose streams and wetlands to be preserved, enhanced, and restored and go through a 
pretty rigorous process to determine what those credits are.  All of which is reviewed and approved by the IRT as you 
know.  For the wetland portion to be restored we are required by the State to hire a LSS to provide detailed soil borings 
and assess the wetland restoration potential, which we did for the submittal and for post submittal confirmation.  Based 
on the detailed assessments that were supported and agreed to by the IRT, the entire valley bottom has hydric soils but 
has been historically drained because of the incised elevation of the stream channel.  Upon restoring the stream, we 
anticipate the groundwater to be elevated to the new stream channel bottom and therefore providing hydrology BACK 
to the drained valley bottom.  When I conducted a delineation a few weeks ago, it was clear to me that the valley did 
not have any wetland hydrology indicators.  In addition the herbaceous vegetation regime has transitioned to something 
more conducive of a drained floodplain with plants like microstegium  and pokeberry talking over the valley bottom.  
And last in looking at the fact that the stream is incised 3‐4+ feet lower than historically anticipated, it is no surprise as a 
20+ year veteran of the wetland industry that the valley doesn't currently contain anything I would flag as jurisdictional 
7
wetlands.  I have attached 2 figures that were used pre and post IRTY visit to determine where the hydric soils were and 
where the wetland restoration would be.   

The challenge I am having with this project is in the official PJD package that is missing from all of our files.  The 
development client and I are aligned on wanting to use the WLS PJD, but unfortunately Chris didn't leave us much of 
anything to go on.  He didn't save his forms nor did he include the JD request packet.  Unfortunately this was common 
on his other projects as well and we have had to clean those up.  The only thing I have found was a general GIS figure 
with estimated wetlands, but that file doesn't match up at all with the detail studies that were conducted and approved 
by the IRT the first time.  So what I would like to do is resubmit a new packet with updated forms and map that actually 
reflects what I believe is existing on the site with no wetland pockets (drained because of lack of hydrology).  This also 
reflects what was approved as wetland restoration by the IRT.  Also we have groundwater gauge data for the months of 
May and June that reflect this drained condition (no site hydrology).  But because I didn't know what you remembered 
seeing...I wanted to get confirmation of this from you before I sent that packet.  I know you are busy but if you want to 
do a field visit, Id be glad to meet you out there.  Based on my determination site walk last week, I think this is a pretty 
easy site to delineate because of the drained conditions.  Let me know what your thoughts are.  The residential 
developer is pushing on me to get the PJD completed.                     

Adam V McIntyre 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Rd, Suite 130 
Raleigh, North Carolina  27615 
Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 632‐5910  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Scott Hunt <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 4:08 PM 
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: Catherine Manner <[e-mail]>; Kayne Van Stell <[e-mail]>; Scott 
Hunt <[e-mail]> 
Subject: 20190125_Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC_PJD Concurrence from Ross S 

Got this one too Ross, thanks for all of your help this week! 

Thanks, 

Scott Hunt 

William "Scott" Hunt, III, PE 
Vice President of Technical Operations 
WLS Engineering, PLLC 
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.WLSEngineering.com 
Water & Land Solutions 
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 
Raleigh, North Carolina  27615 
Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 270‐4646  |  eFax (919) 591‐0026  |  Email  [e-mail] 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
8
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2019 2:57 PM 
To: Scott Hunt <[e-mail]> 
Subject: FW: Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC (UNCLASSIFIED) 

CLASSIFICATION: UNCLASSIFIED 

Hey Scott, 

Please see the email chain below regarding my concurrence with the delineation for the above referenced project. It 
might take some time for me to issue the PJD. Usually, having concurrence from the Corps is sufficient for permitting. 
However, if you need the actual PJD sooner, please let me know the reasons you need me to expedite and a date you 
need the paperwork. 

Chris sent me the requested JD Form. Let me know if you have any questions. 

Best regards, 

Ross 

Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist Regulatory Specialist Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers ‐ Wilmington District 
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
Office #: 919‐554‐4884. Ext. 25 
Email: [e-mail] 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: 
BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttps://cops.usace.army.mil/sites/RD/ORM2_Blog/_layouts/15/WopiFrame.aspx?source
doc={AE95B1BE‐995E‐4A7E‐9968‐B619432F7CEB}&file=National_Customer_Survey_for_Dec_2018.xlsx&action=default 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) 
Sent: Wednesday, August 1, 2018 12:05 PM 
To: 'Christopher Sheats' <[e-mail]> 
Cc: [e-mail] 
Subject: RE: Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC 

Chris, 

I have reviewed the information provided by you and have determined that the delineation map (Figure 3: Jurisdictional 
Waters Map) provided accurately depicts the limits of potentially jurisdictional waters within the project area based on 
my field notes and memory from the IRT site visit conducted on 2/21/2018. Therefore, I do not need to conduct an 
additional site visit to verify the delineation. 

I noticed that you did not include a completed Jurisdictional Determination Request Form (see attached) with your 
request. Please complete this document and return to me at your earliest convenience. 

I will issue the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for this project in the order that it was received once I 
receive the completed Jurisdictional Determination Request Form. Please note that I have a substantial backlog of 
permits and JDs to work through at this time and it may take several months for me to issue this PJD.  
9

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Ross 

Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist Regulatory Specialist Raleigh Regulatory Field Office U.S. Army Corps of 
Engineers ‐ Wilmington District Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 Office #: 919‐554‐4884. Ext. 25 
Email: [e-mail] 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0 
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Christopher Sheats [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:05 PM 
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: [e-mail] 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC 

Ross, 

As mentioned in my previous email I just sent a minute ago, I've attached a PJD package for Odell's House Stream and 
Wetland Mitigation Project.  I'd like to request a field concurrence meeting for this project as well so maybe we can see 
this site and the Buffalo Creek Tributaries project the same day.  Please let me know if you have any questions. 

Thanks, 

Chris 

Chris Sheats 

Water & Land Solutions 

BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
<BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.waterlandsolutions.com/>  

10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 200 

Raleigh, North Carolina  27614 

10
Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 417‐2732  |  eFAX (919) 591‐0026 

Email  [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>  

From: Christopher Sheats 
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:00 PM 
To: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]> 
Cc: '[e-mail]' <[e-mail]> 
Subject: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC 

Ross, 

Please see the attached Preliminary JD Package for the subject NCDMS stream and wetland mitigation project located in 
Johnston County North Carolina.  I'd like to request a PJD field concurrence meeting. If you have availability, could you 
send me a few dates to consider for the field meeting? I'll be following up right after this email with another PJD package 
for another site (Odell's House Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project) very close in the adjacent watershed to the 
northwest, also a UT to Buffalo Creek.  I think we could see both sites in a day if you wanted to combine. Please let me 
know if you have any questions.  

Thanks, 

Chris  

Chris Sheats 

Water & Land Solutions 

BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedwww.waterlandsolutions.com 
<BlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedBlockedhttp://www.waterlandsolutions.com/>  

10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Suite 200 

Raleigh, North Carolina  27614 

Office (919) 614‐5111  |  Mobile (919) 417‐2732  |  eFAX (919) 591‐0026 

1
Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US)
From:Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US)
Sent:Wednesday, August 1, 2018 11:57 AM
To:'Christopher Sheats'
Cc:[e-mail]
Subject:RE: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC
Attachments:FINALSAW-JD-REQUEST-FORM-20170508.pdf
Chris, 

I have reviewed the information provided by you and have determined that the delineation map (Figure 3: Preliminary 
Jurisdictional Features Map) provided accurately depicts the limits of potentially jurisdictional waters within the project 
area based on my field notes and memory from the IRT site visit conducted on 2/21/2018. Therefore, I do not need to 
conduct an additional site visit to verify the delineation. 

I noticed that you did not include a completed Jurisdictional Determination Request Form (see attached) with your 
request. Please complete this document and return to me at your earliest convenience. 

I will issue the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) for this project in the order that it was received once I 
receive the completed Jurisdictional Determination Request Form. Please note that I have a substantial backlog of 
permits and JDs to work through at this time and it may take several months for me to issue this PJD.  

Please feel free to contact me with any questions. 

Sincerely, 

Ross 

Ross Sullivan, PWS, ISA Certified Arborist 
Regulatory Specialist 
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ‐ Wilmington District 
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587 
Office #: 919‐554‐4884. Ext. 25 
Email: [e-mail] 

We would appreciate your feedback on how we are performing our duties. Our automated Customer Service Survey is 
located at: http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0  
Thank you for taking the time to visit this site and complete the survey. 

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ 
From: Christopher Sheats [mailto:[e-mail]]  
Sent: Tuesday, July 24, 2018 3:00 PM 
To: Sullivan, Roscoe L III CIV (US) <[e-mail]> 
Cc: [e-mail] 
Subject: [Non‐DoD Source] Buffalo Creek Tributaries Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Wendell, NC 

Ross, 
S C
S D
SA
SA
SA
WA
WF
WE
WD
WB
WC S B
SF
SE
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/AirbusDS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±
0 500 1,000Feet
FIGURE3Buffalo Creek TributariesMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Preliminary Jurisdictional Features MapWATER & LANDSOLUTIONS Aerial OrthophotographyJohnston County, North Carolina
Intermittent Stream
Perennial Stream
Wetland
Pond
Conservation Easement
WE WC
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,GeoEye, EarthstarGeographics, CNES/Airbus

August 22, 2019

US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Attn: Ross Sullivan 3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105 Wake Forest, NC 27587
Subject: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project, Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination Concurrence Request, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ross: Please find the attached Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Request attached for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Stream and Wetland Mitigation Project. The project is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, between the Town of Wendell and the Community of Archer Lodge. In addition, the project is located in the NCDEQ Sub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504 study area for the Neuse01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II (RWP), and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. Attached you will find the following:
• Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) Form
• Landowner Authorization Forms
• Four Maps: Project Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic Map, Soils Map, and Preliminary Jurisdictional Waters Map
• Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Determination Forms
• NC DWR Stream Identification Forms If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me directly. Sincerely, Adam McIntyre 7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130 Raleigh, NC 27615 Office Phone: [phone] Mobile Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A.REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B.NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C.DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D.PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: County/parish/borough: City:
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.:Long.:
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody:
E.REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH “MAY BE”SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non-wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
Wetland
ID/Reach
Latitude Longitude Estimated amount
of resource in
review area
(acreage and linear
ft, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e.
wetland vs. non-
wetland waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource “may be”
subject (i.e. Section
404 or Section 10/401)
WB 35.72294 -78.34144 0.032 ac Wetland Section 404/401
WC 35.72301 -78.34325 0.004 ac Wetland Section 404/401
WD 35.72364 -78.34324 0.039 ac Wetland Section 404/401
MS-R1 35.72596 -78.34234 1,785.674 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
MS-R2
(includes
crossing)
35.72251 -78.34356 1,610.219 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
R3 35.72730 -78.34187 682.448 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
R5 35.72289 -78.34220 775.082 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
R6 35.72180 -78.34397 208.002 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
SC 35.72606 -78.34215 125.830 lf Non-wetland Section 404/401
Pond 35.72207 -78.34444 0.134 ac Non-wetland Section 404/401

Note: Linear feet of non-wetland are estimated based on survey mapping. Some reach lengths include
areas outside of the proposed conservation easement.
1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring “pre-
construction notification” (PCN), or requests verification for a non-reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant’s acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there “may be” waters of the U.S. and/or that there “may be”navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:
SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
❑■ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requester:
Map:USGS, Soils, Jurisdictional Waters
0 Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Surrey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1:24,000 Flowers
❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ Statellocal wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous dete rmi nation (s). File no, and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessaril
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

^_WENDELL RDLAKE WENDELL RD
OL
D

J
O
H
N
S
O
N

R
D
")"231
")"96
±0 1 2Miles
FIGURE1Buffalo Creek TributariesMitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Project Location
^_
Wake County
Johnston County
Nash County
Legend
^_Project Location
TLWsTLW: 03020201180050
LWPsHUC-8 (Neuse 01)
HUC-12
Johnston Co. HydrographyJohnston County
NC Counties
0 4 8Miles0 50 100Miles
Wake CountyJohnston CountyProject is located in TLW HUC-14: 03020201180050
Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubed
±
0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE2Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
USGS
Topographic
Map
Johnston County, North Carolina
Legend
Conservation Easement
WoB
Wt
GeD
WoD
GeB
GeB
UcB
UcC
Ly
WoD
DoA
MaB
WoD
WoD
DoA
w
WoB
w
WoB
MaB
WoD
NoB UcC
GeB
CoB
WoD
NoB
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE3Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
NRCS Soils
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Ephemeral Stream
Existing Wetlands
Soils Map Units (NRCS Data from Web Soil Survey)
CoB: Cpwarts loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
DoA: Dorian fine sandy loam, 0-2% slopes, rarely flooded
GeB: Gilead sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
GeD: Gilead sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Ly: Lynchburg sandy loam, 0-2% slopes
MaB: Marlboro sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
NoB: Norfolk loamy sand, 2-6% slopes
UcB: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 2-6% slopes
UcC: Uchee loamy coarse sand, 6-12% slopes
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
Wt: Wehadkee loam, 0-2% slopes, frequently flooded
w: water
R3
MS-R1
WBR5
WD
WC
MS-R2
Pond
R6
SC
R4
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus
DS, USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community
±
0 500 1,000
Feet
FIGURE4Buffalo Creek Tributaries
Mitigation Project
NAD 1983 2011 State PlaneNorth Carolina FIPS 3200 FT US
Jurisdictional Waters
Map
Legend
Conservation Easement
Existing Pond
Existing Stream
Ephemeral Stream
Existing Wetlands
Wetland Data Form Locations
Upland Data Form Locations
Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe,
GeoEye, EarthstarWD
WC
WC
R3
MS-R1
R5
MS-R2
WB
R6
Pond
SC
R4
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 1
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/RegulatoryPermitProgram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx ,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE& CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELDOFFICES
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue,Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGHREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina27587
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WASHINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina27889
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTONREGULATORYFIELDOFFICE
US ArmyCorps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
GeneralNumber:910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D – PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 2
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address:
City, State:
_______________________________________________
____________________________________________
County:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
B. REQUESTORINFORMATION
Name:
Mailing Address:
_________________________________________
Telephone Number: _________________________________________
Electronic Mail Address: ________________________________________
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant
1
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain. ________________________________________
__________________________________________________________
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
2
Name:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Landowner Mailing
Address
PIN County Deed Book &
Parcel Number
Parcel
Acreage
Annie Laura G.
Johnson
Revocable
Trust
880 Salem
Church
Road,
Wendell, NC
27591
179100-39-
9802, 179100-
59-0695
Johnston 04094/0770 47.36, 24.76
Sam’s Branch
II, LLC
114 W.
Main St.,
Clayton, NC
27520
179100-58-
1377
Johnston 05160/0208 24.72

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION''
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. 1, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Adam McIntyre
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner ✓❑ Authorized Agent`
6/92 Pt
Date
���
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ 1 intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
l intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list andfor is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑✓ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
H
I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry Iand.
Other:
} For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOTIUSACE protocols, skip to Part E.
If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 4
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United States”on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional “waters of
the United States”. PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
“preliminary” in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
I am requesting that the Corps provide an approvedJD for the property identifiedherein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional “waters of the United States” or “navigable waters of the United
States” are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other “affected
party” (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Propertyor Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
Size of Property or Review Area acres.
The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 5
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude: ______________________
Longitude: ______________________
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
North Arrow
Graphical Scale
Boundary of Review Area
Date
Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
Jurisdictional non-wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non-Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non-
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non-Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non-jurisdictional (i.e.
“Isolated”, “No Significant Nexus”, or “Upland Feature”). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non-wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non-wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
____________________________________________________________________________
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled “Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations” to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards.http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
Jurisdictional Determination Request
Version: May 2017
Page 6
Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
PJDs,please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form7 and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form
8
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
Other Assessment Forms
_____________________________________________________________________________
7 www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL_08-02_App_A_Prelim_JD_Form_fillable.pdf
8 Please see http://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose:The information thatyou provide will beusedinevaluating your requestto determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project areasubjecttofederaljurisdictionunder the regulatory
authorities referencedabove.
Routine Uses:This information maybeshared with the Department of Justice andother federal, state,and local
government agencies, and the public,and maybe made available aspartof a public notice as required byfederal
law. Your nameand property location where federal jurisdiction is to bedetermined will beincluded in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD),which will bemade available tothe public on the District's website
andonthe Headquarters USAGEwebsite.
Disclosure:Submission ofrequested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is notprovided, the
requestforanAJD cannot beevaluated norcananAJD be issued.
NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 04094 Page: 0770 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: 179100-39-9802, containing 47.36 acres, more or less
Street Address: NIA
Property Owner (please print): Annie I..aur;i G. Johnson Rev. Trust, Annie Laura G._Johnson,.Trustee
Property Owner (please print): N/A
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Full Delivery Provider', the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: 880 Salem Church Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591-6530
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-365-:nw 3 f (o r]
Property Owner Telephone Number: N/A
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
n
(Prope ty Owncr Authorized ature} (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery company

NORTH CAROLINA ECOSYSTEM ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM
LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION:
Deed Book: 04094 Page: 0770 County: Johnston
Parcel ID Number: I79100-59-0695, containing 24.76 acres, more or less
Street Address: NIA
Property Owner (please print): Annie Laura G. Johnson Rev. Trust, Annie Laura G. Johnson, Trustee
Property Owner (please print): NIA
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Full Delivery Provider', the NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, and the US
Army Corps of Engineers, their employees, agents or assigns to have reasonable access to the above
referenced property for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream, wetland and/or
riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream and/or wetland determinations and
delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required permit(s) or certification(s).
Property Owners(s) Address: 880_Salem Church Road
(if different from above)
Wendell, NC 27591-6530
Property Owner Telephone Number: 919-365AW S I is
Property Owner Telephone Number: NIA
I/We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of my/our knowledge.
eaw� X 1 - .{
(Pro erty Owner Auth zed Signature) (Date)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Name of full delivery company

WATER & LAND SOLUTIONS
7721 SIX FORKS ROAD, SUITE 130 RALEIGH, NC 276'5
i919i 614 - 5111 I walerlandsolutions.com
AGENT AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
DEED BOOK 05160 PAGE NO. 0208 PARCEL ID:179100-58-1377
STREET ADDRESS: �[
5 � S 4 '-'- 12 �1 _ +•levy c,�,.. + 'C ?- 70,
Please Print: Sam's Branch If LLC.
Property Owner:
Property Owner:
The undersigned, registered property owners of the above noted property, do hereby
authorize
Adam McIntyre , of _Water & Land Solutions, LLC_
(Contractor / Agent) (Name of consulting firm)
to review my property and to act on my behalf to take all actions necessary for the
processing, issuance and acceptance of necessary permits and/or certifications and any and
all standard and special conditions attached. This authorization allows the individual to
represent on my behalf to the necessary Government agency personnel for the proposed
property.
Property Owner's Address (if different than property above):
114 W. Mains St., Clayton, NC 27520
Telephone:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate
to the best of our knowledge.
4z4A-77
uthorized Signature Authorized Signature
Date, I2-7 IP Date:

US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Johnston 8/13/2019
Water & Land Solutions NC WB
WLS - K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan na
depression concave 2-5
LRR - P 35.72294 -78.34144 WGS - 84
Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes PFO
X
XX
X
X X
X
Hydrology affected by nearby stormwater outflow from high school
XNA
X>20
X>20 X
Water stained leaves in depressions in wetland
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:____________
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals:(A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
;
WB
30' radius
Pinus taeda
Liquidambar styraciflua
Liriodendron tulipifera
Acer rubrum
Ulmus rubra 25
15
20
10
20
90
Y
N
Y
N
Y
FAC
FAC
FAC
FACU
FAC
8
11
73%
45 18
30' radius
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ulmus rubra
10
20
20
50
Y
Y
Y
FAC
FACU
FAC
Liquidambar styraciflua
25 10
10' radius
Microstegium vimineum
Polystichum acrostichoides
10
10
15
35
Y
Y
Y
FACU
FAC
FACU
Ligustrum sinense
17.5 7
30' radius
Smilax rotundifolia
Toxicodendron radicans
25
10
20
55
Y
N
Y
FAC
FAC
FAC
Vitis rotundifolia
X
22.5 11
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
WB
0-4
4-16
16-20
10 YR 6/2
10 YR 6/2
10 YR 6/3
100
80
85
10 YR 5/1
10 YR 6/6
10 YR 5/8
10
10
15
C
C
C
M
M
M
S
SC
SC
S
X
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Johnston 8-21-2019
Water & Land Solutions NC WB Upland
WLS- K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan NA
hillslope convex 5-10
LRR-P 35.72301 -78.34160 WGS-84
Lynchburg sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NA
X
X
X
X XX
XNA
X>20
X>20 X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
WB Upland
30' radius
Liquidambar styraciflua
Quercus rubra
Liriodendron tulipifera
Quercus alba
Juglans nigra 15
20
10
40
5
N
Y
N
Y
N
FACU
FAC
FACU
FACU
FACU
5
6
83%
45 18
30' radius
15
15
YFACUlmus rubra
7.5 3
10' radius
Phytolacca americana
Polystichum acrostichoides
90
10
5
105
Y
N
N
FAC
FACU
FACU
Microstegium vimineum
52.5 21
30' radius
Vitis rotundifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
15
10
25
Y
Y
FAC
FAC
12.5 5
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

WB Upland
0-11
11-20
10 YR 4/4
10 YR 4/4
100
70 10 YR 5/2
10 YR 8/3
20
10
C
C
M
SL
L
L
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Johnston 8/13/2019
Water & Land Solutions NC WC
WLS - K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan na
drainage area concave 2-5
LRR - P 35.72301 -78.34325 WGS - 84
Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded PFO
X
X
X
X X
X
xNA
x>20
10 x
✔
✔✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:____________
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals:(A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
;
WC
30' radius
Acer rubrum 60
60
YFAC 3
4
75%
30 12
30' radius
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ligustrum sinense
20
10
5
35
Y
Y
N
FAC
FACU
FACU
Liquidambar styraciflua
17.5 7
10' radius
Polystichum acrostichoides
Athyrium filix-femina
Arundinaria gigantea
Boehmeria cylindrica
75
5
10
15
5
110
Y
N
N
N
N
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACW
FACW
Microstegium vimineum
55 22
30' radius
none present
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
WC
0-4
4-10
10-20
10 YR 3/3
10 YR 3/1
10 YR 3/1
95
95
95
10 YR 5/4
10 YR 3/6
5YR3/3
5
5
5
C
C
C
M
PL
M
SCL
SC
SL
X
H2S odor in soil
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Other (Explain in Remarks) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Iron Deposits (B5) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Johnston 8/13/2019
Water & Land Solutions NC WD
WLS - K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan na
drainage depression concave 0-5
LRR - P 35.72364 -78.34324 WGS - 84
Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded PFO
X
X
X
X X
X
XNA
X>20
X>20 X
Water stained leaves present
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants.Sampling Point:____________
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals:(A)(B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft (1
m) tall.
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
;
WD
30' radius
Liriodendron tulipifera
Acer rubrum 35
25
60
Y
Y
FAC
FACU
5
6
83%
30 12
30' radius
Liriodendron tulipifera
25
5
30
Y
N
FAC
FACU
Acer rubrum
15 6
10' radius
Microstegium vimineum
Ligustrum sinense
Saururus cernuus
Sagittaria latifolia
Woodwardia areolata
Athyrium filix-femina
35
40
5
5
5
5
10
105
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
FACW
FAC
FACU
OBL
OBL
FACW
FAC
Arundinaria gigantea
52.5 21
30' radius
10
10
YFACSmilax rotundifolia
X
52
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Dark Surface (S7) 2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148) Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Black Histic (A3) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148) (MLRA 147, 148)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) (MLRA 136, 147)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Redox Depressions (F8)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N, Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148) MLRA 136)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148) wetland hydrology must be present,
Stripped Matrix (S6) Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:
WD
0-6
6-10
10-12
12-16
16-20
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 3/2
10 YR 4/2
10 YR 5/1
10 YR 4/1
50
100
100
70
100
10 YR 5/8
10 YR 3/3
50
30
C
C
M
M
SC
S
SC
SC
SC
X
soil profile likely affected by sedimentation/deposition in wetland
✔
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region

Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat: Long: Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Surface Water (A1) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2) Marl Deposits (B15) (LRR U) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (B2) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Geomorphic Position (D2)
Iron Deposits (B5) Other (Explain in Remarks) Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Sphagnum moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:

Buffalo Creek Tributaries Johnston 8-21-2019
Water & Land Solutions NC WC Upland
WLS- K. Obermiller, E. Dunnigan NA
floodplain none 5
LRR-P 35.72322 -78.34328 WGS-84
Wehadkee loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NA
X
X
X
X XX
Form is representative of upland points WC and WD
XNA
X>20
X>20 X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
VEGETATION (Four Strata) – Use scientific names of plants. Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)

Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)

Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B)

Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
OBL species x 1 =
FACW species x 2 =
FAC species x 3 =
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
Column Totals: (A) (B)
Prevalence Index = B/A =
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is ”3.01
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)

1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:

Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.

Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than 3.28 ft (1 m) tall.

Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.

Woody vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below).
WC Upland
30' radius
Liquidambar styraciflua
Acer rubrum
Liriodendron tulipifera
Ilex opaca 10
40
30
10
90
N
Y
Y
N
FACU
FAC
FAC
FACU
8
8
100
45 18
30' radius
Quercus alba
Liquidambar styraciflua
Carya ovata
20
10
15
10
55
Y
N
Y
N
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACU
Carpinus caroliniana
27.5 11
10' radius
Athyrium filix-femina
Polystichum acrostichoides
Microstegium vimineum
Ligustrum sinense
15
5
5
20
10
55
Y
N
N
Y
N
FACW
FAC
FACU
FAC
FACU
Arundinaria tecta
27.5 11
30' radius
Toxicodendron radicans
Lonicera japonica
Vitis rotundifolia
Smilax rotundifolia
20
5
10
5
40
Y
N
Y
N
FAC
FACU
FAC
FAC
20 8
X
US Army Corps of Engineers Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region – Version 2.0
SOIL Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks

1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (LRR S, T, U) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
Black Histic (A3) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O) Reduced Vertic (F18) (outside MLRA 150A,B)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, S, T)
Stratified Layers (A5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20)
Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U) Redox Dark Surface (F6) (MLRA 153B)
5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Red Parent Material (TF2)
Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U) Redox Depressions (F8) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T) Marl (F10) (LRR U) Other (Explain in Remarks)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A) Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S) Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151) unless disturbed or problematic.
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 150B)
Sandy Redox (S5) Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
Stripped Matrix (S6) Anomalous Bright Loamy Soils (F20) (MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):

Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Remarks:

WC Upland
0-9
9-20
10 YR 4/4
10 YR 4/4
100
85 10 YR 5/2 15 C M
SL
SL
X
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: ] i _
Project/Site: i� �.l
Latitude: 35 o y3� yGn
Evaluator: i
Count -
Longitude:. q
ld
Total Points:
Stream is at least Intermittent y
Stream Determination (circle.o e)
Ephemeral
Other
e.9. Quad Name:
Name;
H>_19 orperennial rfz30"
(Subtotal = 7 t
A. Geomor holo �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. rife -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
1 3
5. Active/relict 800dplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
;2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
-
9. Grade control „Lw,-"4F=
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5'-
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
°arlificial ditches are not mted; see discussions in manual
B.Hvdroloav (Subtotal= - 1
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
0.5
_t5..
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
_ 0.5
_=
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
-No 0
Yes = 3
C Rinlnnv lRuhtntal = 9.0 1
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
; 2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note dive ily 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 = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other = 0�
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.35 of manual.
Notes: Ary p ,r- 01'/�
Sketch:
-�-

NC 1nWn Ctraam idpntifiratinn Form Version 4.11
Date: S j1
Projectisite: gfr - A145IL7
Latitude: -5 oy3 2/. 0& NN
Evaluator: K VaCW
County: ��(
Longitude: -7S°� �36.$S
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent qt� O
Stream Determination ('
Ephemeral Intermitten erenni
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
H>_ 19 or erenniel if> 30-
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = %%,� )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2 ,
3
3. In -channel structure: ez. e{�oo tap -pool,
ripple- ool sequence -
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional hars or benches
0
1
2
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
S. Headcuis
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
1 0
1 0.5
1 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
I No = 0
es = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
R Hvrimion r (Suhtotal = S, S )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
o =
Yes = 3
C Rinlnnv tRuhfMM = 1
ous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
ted upland plants in streambed
'3
2
1
0
robenthos (note diversity and abundance)
01
2
3
atic Mollusks
0
1
2
T-M
0yfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
phibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
e
0tland
plants o streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Oth =
0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 Is
Date: q �$ ; r-
Pro1ectrSite: F--r - �_,
Latitude: 350y3 s.3d "A�
Evaluator: 'f-_ �._.: --L�
County: �, j �',
Longitude: 7g'Z013a754�
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent %-.�
Stream DInatlon (circle one)
Ephern Intermittent Aerennial
Other _
Quad No..: j--LP1/��.'�
Z�
!(algor e.1cmd tira30' �-
e.g.
A. Geornor holo Subtotal = I )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
18 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
l 3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
/2�
l2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
S. Active/relict ffoodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. a control
0
.5
1
1.5
i4m
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
'artificial ditches are not rated see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = G/ 5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
(11
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf liner
1.5
1
0.
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
7',
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(No = 0
- Yes = 3
C. Biologv (Subtotal = -, ' c, )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
! 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
( 2)
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abandon.)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquafic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
'0
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
y0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
-�
*ACW = 0.75) OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes F z-
Sketch:
-�
v

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Prolewsite: 6�
Latitude: 57 1 .xyj
Evaluator. �
County: �p�-U/5 U �
Longitude:'' v '33, Z5
Total Points:
Stream is at leastintermittenr I 5
Bar�LLnQQggterminatlon (ctrots one)
Parent nlet
Other
e.g Quad Name: f
its l9 or erennial iia 3o'
phe..7,11ntenoitlent
A. Geomor holo Subtotal = �
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
ia, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
(1)
2
3
3. Inchannel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
-0-)
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelmlict fioodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1 -
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2 j
3
9. Grade control
LO
0.5
1
1.5
10. Naturel valley
0 ---
0.5
1
1.5
i t Secend or greater order channel
No = 0 '
I Yes = 3
' artificial dilUes are not rated; see discussions in manual -
R Rvdrnlnnv /Suhtntal= ') r7 1
12. Presence of BaseBow
0,
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0_'
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
- No = 0-'--
Yes = 3
C. Rinlnov (Sihtntal=
A)
18. Fibrous roots in sleambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambetl
3_
2
1
0
20. Macrobenlhos more 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 = 0,75; OBL = 1S Other= 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site: �. - _
Latitude: 3500 ZZ.Lyl�A)
Evaluator: /-_�
County:
Longituda57ga ZO y31, 9317
/
Total Points:
Stream Determination (cW&.oae)
Other
Stream is at least imananent -
Ephemeral Intermittenh'Perennla,
e.g. quad Name:
/C
tfa19or ammaali230`
A. Geomo holo Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St ong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thakve9
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri Ie- ool sequence
0
1
2�
4. Particle size of
stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Activelmild goodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
r 2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
_0.5 �'
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No
Yes
a artificial ditches are not rated: see discussions in manual
B. Hvchocav (Subtotal = I 7 )
12. Presence of Baseaow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
9�
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1 I
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
:5
/ 1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5�
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table?
No=O�
Yes =3 -_
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = 5 5 )
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 i
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians -
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
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: fiti iFL'^1 ✓2r iS !i
17
:-✓
-
.�rl: != L= NCB
�-
Sketch:

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: UI / `�
ProjectfSite: -
Latitude: �SJ r �i7U
Evaluator:
County: - _
Longitude:7 °7o rag_3/y
Total Points:
Scream DetgryinatieMEircle one)
Other
3treamis of least intermittent
Z
Ephemeral- Intermittent Perennial
/
ag.Quad Name: F(.,,Y•C
ifa 19 or erennialiR 30'
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = ' ` 7 I
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
V Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. nfln .I ep-poo,
ri ool sequence
0
1
2
O
4. Panicle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Aclive/rolict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
(1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
.5�
11. Second or greater order channel
(No = 0
Yes = 3
aioiiuei itid.ee ace iio��oio�. �_,.��,.,»�.,�•� ��•e���a•
R Zllrolonv rSuhtntal= 5 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
' 1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5 i
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
__.OS
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
(No =O%
Yes =3
C_ Bioloov
W
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
CO2
20. Macrobenlhos(nme diversity and abundance)
0 1
1
2
3
21, Aquatic Mollusks
_0
1
2
3
22, Fish
0
0.5 ;
1
L5
23. Crayfish
0
1
1.5
24, Amphibians
P--.
0.5.
1
L5
25.Algae
l 0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Welland 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: i9a„y,�
;v raves vn.:.
Sketch:

Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 10 – Invasive Species Plan
WLS will treat invasive species vegetation within the project area and provide remedial action on a case
by-case basis. Common invasive species vegetation, such as Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense)
and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), will be removed to allow native plants to become established
within the conservation easement. Invasive species vegetation will be treated by approved
mechanical and/or chemical methods such that the percent composition of exotic/invasive species
vegetation is less than 5% of the total riparian buffer area. Any control methods requiring herbicide
application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations. If necessary, these removal treatments (i.e., cutting and/or spraying) will continue until the
corrective actions demonstrate that the site is trending towards or meeting the standard monitoring
requirement.
Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 11 – Approved FHWA Categorical Exclusion Form
July 26, 2018
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
Attn: Lindsay Crocker, Project Manager
217 West Jones Street, Suite 3000-A
Raleigh, NC 27603
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project, NCDEQ DMS Full-Delivery Project ID
#100042, Contract #7422, Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201, Johnston County, NC
Dear Ms. Crocker: Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS) is pleased to present the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). Please find enclosed two (2) hard copies of the CE as required. The project site is located in Johnston County, North Carolina, between the Town of Wendell and the Community of Archer Lodge. In addition, the project is located in the NCDEQ (formerly NCDENR) Sub-basin 03-04-06, in the Lower Buffalo Creek Priority Sub-watershed 030202011504 study area for the Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP), and in the Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050, all of the Neuse River Basin. The Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project is a full-delivery project for the NCDEQ DMS identified and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Neuse River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201. The project will involve the restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of nine stream reaches (Reaches MS-R1, MS-R2, R3 (Upper), R3 (Lower), R4, R5 (Upper), R5 (Lower) R6 (Upper) and R6 (Lower)), totaling approximately 4,838 linear feet of existing streams. In addition, approximately 4.3 acres of degraded riparian wetlands will be returned to their natural function, utilizing wetland restoration (rehabilitation) and enhancement approaches by implementing Priority Level I Stream Restoration, limited removal of overburden soil above the hydric soils, and re-vegetation. The entire restored corridor will be protected by a permanent conservation easement, approximately 17.8 acres in size, to be held by the State of North Carolina. The project site consists of a degraded headwater stream and riparian wetland system. A new high school, Corinth Holders High School, was built in 2009, adjacent to the project, which has contributed to a significant increase in impervious surface area and surface runoff within the project watershed that flows into the mature bottomland hardwood floodplain adjacent to Buffalo Creek. The proposed restoration project not only has the potential to provide at least 4,073 stream mitigation credits, and 2.7 Riparian wetland mitigation credits, but will also provide significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration, and through decreasing nutrient and sediment loads from the project watershed. Based on the review of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) county list (6-27-18), the following species are considered federally-listed in Johnson County:
Species Type Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Code
Vertebrate Picoides borealis Red-cockaded woodpecker E
Invertebrate Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedgemussel E
Invertebrate Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinymussel E
Invertebrate Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T
Vascular Plant Rhus michauxii Michaux’s sumac E
Definitions of Federal Status Codes:
E = endangered. A taxon “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.”
T = threatened. A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range." (Federal status information referenced from http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/johnston.html)
Vertebrates
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Federal Status: Endangered Habitat Description: The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting/roosting habitat. The RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older, which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat. The foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than 0.5 miles. Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist in the study area. Forests in the study area are comprised of canopy hardwood forests along streams and sheltered slopes. Where loblolly and shortleaf pines occur within the study area, the age or stand density exclude them from being used for either foraging or nesting habitat. Therefore, a half mile survey was not conducted.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect Suitable nesting (open to semi-open pine stands 60 years or greater in age) and foraging (open to semi-open pine stands 30 years or greater in age) habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker was not observed in the study area. Forests in the study area are comprised of a mix of deciduous riparian canopy species. Surveys were conducted by WLS staff on April 30, 2018, and RCW’s were not observed. A review of the April 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known RCW occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Invertebrates
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) Federal Status: Endangered Habitat: In North Carolina, the dwarf wedgemussel is known from the Neuse and Tar River drainages. The mussel inhabits creek and river areas with a slow to moderate current and sand, gravel, or firm silt bottoms. Water in these areas must be well oxygenated. Stream banks in these areas are generally stable with extensive root systems holding soils in place.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect Streams were assessed for the presence of freshwater mussels and none nor their associates (e.g. Asian clams) were observed during the stream investigations. Due to the small size and landscape position of the headwater stream systems that comprise the project, suitable habitat was not observed within the project area. A review of the April 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) Federal Status: Endangered Habitat: The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar and Neuse River drainage basins in North Carolina. This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well-oxygenated, circumneutral pH water. The bottom should be composed of unconsolidated gravel and coarse sand. The water needs to be relatively silt-free, and stream banks should be stable, typically with many roots from adjacent riparian trees and shrubs.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect Streams were assessed for the presence of freshwater mussels and none nor their associates (e.g. Asian clams) were observed during the stream investigations. Due to the small size and landscape position of the headwater stream systems that comprise the project, suitable habitat was not observed within the project area. A review of the April 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata) Federal Status: Threatened Habitat: In North Carolina, the yellow lance is known from the Neuse and Tar River drainages. This species has been found in multiple physiographic provinces, from the foothills of the Appalachian Mountains, through the Piedmont and into the Coastal Plain, in small streams to large rivers, in substrates primarily consisting of clean sand, occasionally gravel, with a high dissolved oxygen.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect Streams were assessed for the presence of freshwater mussels and none nor their associates (e.g. Asian clams) were observed during the stream investigations. Due to the small size and landscape position of the headwater stream systems that comprise the project, suitable habitat was not observed within the project area. A review of the April 2018 NCNHP database indicates no known occurrence within 1.0 mile of the study area.
Vascular Plants
Michaux’s sumac (Rhus michauxii) Federal Status: Endangered Habitat: Michaux’s sumac, endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and lower Piedmont, grows in sandy or rocky, open, upland woods on acidic or circumneutral, well-drained sands or sandy loam soils with low cation exchange capacities. The species is also found on sandy or submesic loamy swales and depressions in the fall line Sandhills region as well as in openings along the rim of Carolina bays; maintained railroad, roadside, power line, and utility rights-of-way; areas where forest canopies have been opened up by blowdowns and/or storm damage; small wildlife food plots; abandoned building sites; under sparse to moderately dense pine or pine/hardwood canopies; and in and along edges of other artificially maintained clearings undergoing natural succession. In the central Piedmont, it occurs on clayey soils derived from mafic rocks. The plant is shade intolerant and, therefore, grows best where disturbance (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, periodic fire) maintains its open habitat.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect Marginal habitat is present for this species along some of the upland forest ecotones. Michaux’s sumac currently retains a status of “Historic” in Johnston County. Marginal habitats observed were surveyed for Michaux’s sumac and none were found. In addition, a review of the April 2018 NCNHP records indicates no known Michaux’s sumac occurrences within 1.0 mile of the study area.
The implementation of the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project is considered a “Ground-disturbing Activity”, and therefore the required “Appendix A, Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement Program Projects, Version 1.4” “Checklist” (Parts 1 through 3) has been completed and is attached. Copies of required correspondence and supporting documentation, including the following are also attached:
•Project figures and photolog sent to each of the review/regulatory agencies
o Figure 1 Project Location
o Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
o Figure 3 NRCS Soils Map
o Figure 4 LiDAR Map
o Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project Pre-Restoration Photo Log
•Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Environmental Risk Review Report
•Copy of correspondence with and resulting minimal comments from the USFWS
•Copy of correspondence with and resulting minimal comments from the NCWRC
•Copy of correspondence with and resulting finding of “no comment” from the North Carolina State HistoricPreservation Office (NCSHPO) due to their finding of no historic resources that would be affected by the project
•NCSHPO Map of Records
•Copy of correspondence with and resulting finding regarding farmland conversion from the United StatesDepartment of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
•USDA Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Worksheet (Form AD-1006)
•Copy of written landowner correspondence required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies ActSubmission of this Categorical Exclusion document fulfills the environmental documentation requirements mandated under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA; 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508). Please contact me if you have any further questions or comments. Sincerely,
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
William “Scott” Hunt, III, PE Vice President of Technical Operations 10940 Raven Ridge Road, Suite 200 Raleigh, NC 27614 Office Phone: [phone] Mobile Phone: [phone] Email: [e-mail]
Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
-art : eneral Project Information
Project Name: Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project County Name' Johnston
EEP Number: DMS Proj. #100042, DMS Contract #7422 Project Sponsor: Water & Land Solutions, LLC Project Contact Name: William "Scott" Hunt, Ill PE
Project Contact Address: 10940 Raven Ridge Road, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail] DMS Pro ect Mena • er:
The Buffalo creek Tributaries mitigation Project
identified and contracted to provide stream
Basin, Cataloging Unit 03020201 The project
riparian wetland functions along unnamed
Reuse River. The project will involve the potential
headwater tributaries (Reaches MS-R1. MS
of existing streams. In addition, approximately
ufilizIng wetland restoration (rehabilitation)
limited removal of overburden soil above the
clusters', will be implemented collectively,
restoration, riparian buffer restoration, water
The proposed restoration project will provide
and through decreasing nutrient and sediment
North Carolina
L ndsa Crocker
Project Description
is a hill-delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) and wetland mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Reuse River will involve restoration, enhancement, and preservation of stream. riparian buffer and
tributaries to Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Little River, which is a tributary to the
restoration, enhancement, preservation, and permanent protection of unnamed
-112, R3 (Lower), R3 (Upper), R4, RE. and R6), totaling approdmately 4,838 linear feet
4.3 acres of degraded deaden wetlands will be returned to their natural function,
and enhancement approaches by implementing Priority Level I Stream Restoration,
hyddc soils, and re-vegetation. Combinations of different measures or "project
along with the stream restoration, for a combined effect, to include riparian wetland
quality improvement features, and agricultural best management practices (BMPs).
significant ecological improvements and functional uplift through habitat restoration.
loads from the project watershed. The project site is located In Johnston County.
and the Communit of Archer Lothe.
For Official Use Only
between the Town of Wendell
Reviewed By:
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
outstanding issues
j-ilt-ez)--
Check this box if there are
Final Approval By:
7-30 -19 Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4,8/16/05
7/30/2018
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 2
Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes No 2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? Yes No N/A 3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes No N/A 4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management Program? Yes No N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) 1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes No 2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been designated as commercial or industrial? Yes No N/A 3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? Yes No N/A 4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area? Yes No N/A 5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous waste sites within the project area? Yes No N/A 6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes No N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106) 1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places in the project area? Yes No 2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes No N/A 3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes No N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act) 1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes No 2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes No N/A 3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes No N/A 4. Has the owner of the property been informed: * prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and * what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes No N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 3

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities

Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA) 1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians? Yes No 2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes No N/A 3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic Places? Yes No N/A 4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes No N/A
Antiquities Act (AA) 1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes No 2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects of antiquity? Yes No N/A 3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes No N/A 4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes No N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) 1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes No 2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes No N/A 3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes No N/A 4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes No N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA) 1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat listed for the county? Yes No 2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes No N/A 3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical Habitat? Yes No N/A 4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the specie and/or “likely to adversely modify” Designated Critical Habitat? Yes No N/A 5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes No N/A 6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes No N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05 4
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites) 1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory” by the EBCI? Yes No 2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed project? Yes No N/A 3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred sites? Yes No N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) 1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes No 2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally important farmland? Yes No N/A 3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes No N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) 1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any water body? Yes No 2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes No N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f)) 1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public, outdoor recreation? Yes No 2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes No N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat) 1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes No 2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes No N/A 3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the project on EFH? Yes No N/A 4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes No N/A 5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes No N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) 1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes No 2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes No N/A
Wilderness Act 1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes No 2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining federal agency? Yes No N/A

Water & Land Solutions
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Appendix 12 – Agency Correspondence & Floodplain Checklist
LF orstem
I] �a ~enent
PROGRAM
EEP Floodplain Requirements Checklist
This form was developed by the National Flood Insurance program, NC Floodplain
Mapping program and Ecosystem Enhancement Program to be filled for all EEP projects.
The form is intended to summarize the Foodplain requirements during the design phase
of the projects. The form should be submitted to the Local Floodplain Administrator
with three copies submitted to NFIP (attn. State NFIP Engineer), NC Floodplain Mapping
Unit (attn. State NFIP Coordinator) and NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program.
Project Location
Name of project:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
Name if stream or feature:
Unnamed tributaries to Buffalo Creek
County:
Johnston
Name of river basin:
Neuse
Is project urban or rural?
Rural
Name of Jurisdictional
municipality/county:
Johnston County
DF1RM panel number for
entire site:
1792J and 1780J (map number 3720179200J and
3720178000J, effective date 12/2/2005)
Consultant name:
Water & Land Solutions, LLC
Phone number:
919-614-5111
Address:
7721 Six Forks Road, Suite 130
Raleigh, NC 27615
FEMA_Floodplain_ Checklist Page I of

Design Information
The Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (Project) is located within an
urbanizing watershed in Johnston County, within the Neuse River Basin and USGS 14-
digit HUC 03020201180050. The Project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve over
5,063 linear feet of stream, and provide a water quality benefit for a 543-acre drainage
area. The stream mitigation components are summarized in the table below. The purpose
of the Project is to meet water quality improvements described in the River Basin
Restoration Priorities and improve overall aquatic resource health.
Reach Name
Length feet
Mitigation Type
MS -RI
1,577
Stream Restoration PI
MS-R2
1,351
Stream Restoration (PI
R3 (upper)
565
Stream Preservation
R3 lower
116
Stream Restoration (PI/PII)
R4
459
Stream Enhancement Level 1
R5 (upper)
585
Stream Enhancement Level I
RS lower
158
Stream Restoration (P[
R6
252
Stream Enhancement Level I
Floodplain Information
Is project located in a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA)?
r Yes r: No
If project is located in a SFHA, check how it was determined:
I— Redelineation
r` Detailed Study
` r- Limited Detail Study
r! Approximate Study
F— Don't know
List flood zone designation: Zone X Minimal Flood Risk
Check if applies:
r- AE Zone
r Floodway
r' Non -Encroachment
(-- None
l' A Zone
FEMA_Floodplain_Checklisl Page 2 of 4

r - Local Setbacks Required
C' No Local Setbacks Required
If local setbacks are required, list how manX feet:
Does proposed channel boundary encroach outside floodway/non-
encroachment/setbacks?
r Yes 1: No
Land Acquisition (Check)
* State owned (fee simple)
f Conservation easment (Design Bid Build)
* Conservation Easement (Full Delivery Project)
Note: if the project property is state-owned, then all requirements should be addressed to
the Department of Administration, State Construction Office (attn: Herbert Neily,
919 807-4101
Is community/county participating in the NFIP program?
r' Yes t No
Note: if community is not participating, then all requirements should be addressed to
NFIP attn: State NFIP Engineer, 919-715-8000
Name of Local Floodplain Administrator: Johnston County Planning Director, Berry
Gra , Phone Number: 919-989-5150
Floodplain Requirements
This section to be filled by designer/applicant following verification with the LFPA
ry No Action
r No Rise
l— Letter of Map Revision
r Conditional Letter of Map Revision
r Other Requirements
List other requirements:
N/a
Comments:
Project is not in a FEMA zone
FEMA Floodplain Checklist Page 3 of 4

Name: Signature:
Title: �L �,ho y Y) Date:
FEMA_rloodplain_Cnecklist Page 4 of 4

USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery. Data refreshed April, 2019.
National Flood Hazard Layer FIRMette
0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000250Feet
Ü78°20'53.81"W 35°43'46.30"N 78°20'16.36"W 35°43'17.10"N
SEE FIS REPORT FOR DETAILED LEGEND AND INDEX MAP FOR FIRM PANEL LAYOUT
SPECIAL FLOODHAZARD AR EAS
Without Base Flood Elevation (BFE)Zone A, V, A99With BFE or Depth Zone AE, AO, AH, VE, AR
Regulator y Floodway
0.2% Annual Chance Flood Hazard, Areasof 1% annual chance flood with averagedepth less than one foot or with drainageareas of less than one square mile Zone X
Future Conditions 1% AnnualChance Flood Hazard Zone XArea with Reduced Flood Risk due toLevee. See Notes.Zone X
Area with Flood Risk due to Levee Zone D
NO SCREE N Area of Minimal Flood Hazard Zone X
Area of Undetermined Flood Hazard Zone D
Channel, Culver t, or Storm SewerLevee, Dike, or Floodwall
Cross Sections with 1% Annual Chance17.5 Water Surface ElevationCoastal Transect
Coastal Transect BaselineProfile BaselineHydrographic Feature
Base Flood Elevation Line (BFE)
Effective LOMRs
Limit of StudyJurisdiction Boundar y
Digital Data Available
No Digital Data Available
Unmapped
This map complies with FEMA's standards for the use of digital flood maps if it is not void as described below. The basemap shown complies with FEMA's basemap accuracy standards
The flood hazard information is derived directly from theauthoritative NFHL web ser vices provided by FEMA. This mapwas exported on 1/6/2020 at 1:53:35 PM and does notreflect changes or amendments subsequent to this date andtime. The NFHL and effective information may change orbecome superseded by new data over time.
This map image is void if the one or more of the following mapelements do not appear: basemap imagery, flood zone labels,legend, scale bar, map creation date, community identifiers,FIRM panel number, and FIRM effective date. Map images forunmapped and unmodernized areas cannot be used forregulatory purposes.
Legend
OTHER AREAS OFFLOOD HAZARD
OTHER AREAS
GENERALSTRUCTURES
OTHERFEATURES
MAP PANELS
8
1:6,000
B 20.2
The pin displayed on the map is an approximate point selected by the user and does not represent an authoritative proper ty location.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LOCATOR DIAGRAM
i `tip A' 0 , e
.pro 06 0ro
_ I � 1� 1h wavxF
DATUM INFORMATION
The projection used I, the preparation of the map was [he North Carolina
State Rane (FIPSZONE 3200)Thehori.-Ire tlatmm was [he North American
Datum of 1983 GRS80 ellipsoid. Differences in datum, all ".id. projection, or
Univareal Transverse Mercator zones used in the production of FIRMs for adlecent
jurisdictions may result In slight pos4onal tl ffmences 'n map features across
jurisdictional boundaries These tl ff-re do not off- he accuracy of this
FIRM. All'ONdiretes .n the map are I, U.S Survey Feet, where
1 U.S. Survey Foot = 12W/W37 Meters.
Flood elevations on this map ere rderencetl to the North American Vertical
Datum o11888 (NAND 88). These flood elevations must be compared to shecbsre
and greund elevations ref,,n,,d w the same vertical date,. An average
offset between NAVD M and the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
(NGVD 29) has been computed for each North Carolina county. This offset was
then applied to the NGVD 29 flood elevations that were not revised during the
creation of this statewide format FIRM. The onsets for each county shown on
this FIRM panel are shown in the vertical datum offset table below. Where a
bounds and a flooding with u 'sad NGVO 29 flood ekwfons
a, o boundary 9 source nrav
are not Dueond, an rewid, formal
has been calculated and appthe eel during the
eodon of Due
statew9tle format FIRM Sea Section 61 of the a cm Nm rig
Flood Insurence Study reportto obtain further reformat on on the cconvers on
of elevat ens between NAVD 88 and NGVD 29. To obtain current elevation,
desorption, and/or location Informe on for bench ,arks shown on this map.
please content the North Cardin, Geodetic Survey at he address shown below,
You
may also Correct the Information Services Branch of the National Goodell
Survey et(Sol) 713.3242, Or visit its websto at Ls In annmo.OoV
North Carolna Geode[, Survey County Average Vwtosl Datum Offset Table
121 West Janes Street County var s Dawm on". NO
Relegh NC 27, Johnswn -0a1
2 la0 uvu IL_I Ta•2 ore JOINS PANEL 1782 138
i 22'00- 78•21.00- JOINS PANEL In
] 195 able FEET
Y2a 000 FEET
? r .a
ease®n '
ZONE AE
t _ l
i p .
ZONE AE e,,Tw-•a",`
f'y
s
,TO11n8L0D
^®a facorporeted:-
370138
v s.
35
'42-00-
r
t
(919) 33a836 -
35.92.00•
www ncga smte.nc.us
91
Feenps NAVD as - NGVD m a E0.9e) b'-
4. 1 1 T'E'•M11 ...3
All streams listed In the Flood H,Z,rd Date Table below ware studied by
dm,IIae methods usng field s rvey, Other flood hazard data shown on this
map may have been derived using ethers consul analysis or limited detailed 22I
rwarm,anayss More Information on the flooding sources studied by these
analyses Is contained in the Flood Insurance Study report
Ed
rl a
- = ZONE AE
/ aaJ 2$Ci'I
fA
7os zoo FELT
Fro '
re
395z m v - ' a fi•A. ;, ... �: 4 ao
6 �
YON2222
4 Noy 'lh +l £Ip _ ,: t� 1. ZONE AE
ZONE X
7X 000 FEET
2183 000 FEET 736 ®• 79.2J'00' 31� 000 FEET rIa i9.22'00" is 2i 00 '<0 JOINS PANEL 1695 ie 20 00 2 2- 0- FEET 'EI
JOINS PANEL 1669
NOTES TO USERS
This map is for use in administering the National Flood Insurence Program. h does not Cartein moom not in Spacial Flood Hazed Areas may be proteculd by flood control This map reflects more tleuiled and up-to-0dmv stream ehe... I eonfig... tiona then MAP REPOSITORY
ssaHly identify all a subject 10 flooding, particuiady from local dminage sources structu es. Refer to Section 4.4 "Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance those shown on the previous FIRM for this IUHsdiction. The flodplaina and flootlways Reler to Ii,ins 0 Map Rep-imne. on Map Ind. or mh www.ngloodma
M of smell size. The community map repository should be consulted for possible updated Study report for information on flood control sountOes in the jurisdictions. that were transferred from the previous FIRM may have been adjusted to conform to
60-5,
or additional flood hazard inormaton. Merenewstream channel configurations. As a r ft, the Flootl Promos antl Floodway
9 m To obtain more detailed information in areas where Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) Bass map information and geospetial date used to develop this FIRM were obtained from Data tables in the Flood Insurence Study report (which contains authoritative hydraulic EFFECIINE DATE OF FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP PANEL
and/or floodesys have bean determined, users are ....ureged to consult the Flood various organizations, including the Participating local communiZimli. state and federal data) my reflect Stream channel distances that differ from what is shown on this map. DECEMBER 22-a
O Profiles. Floodway Data, Umited Detailed Flood Hazard Data, and/or Summary of Stilhvater agencies. and/or other sou as. The primary basis for this FIRM is aerialima9ery acquired by
Elevations tables crushed within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report that a mpenies Johnston Count- The time paned of collection for the imagery, is 2001. Information end Please refer to the separately printed Bap led,, for an overview map of the county EFFECTNE DATEISIOF REMSIOMSITO mire PANEL
this FIRM. Users should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent Tountldtl geospatial i plied by the to -I communiMiesl that and FEMA base map spacifkalions showing the layout of map panels. community map repository atlOresses, antl a Listing of
who elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood insurance
rating Pereoses `^'f4e-nsidared the preferred source for development of the base map. Sae gaosPatial Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for each community
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)was pmdueed through a unique only and should not be used as the sole source d flood devanT neinfOreation. Accerdm9ly, moOdate for the associated digital FIRM for addhi... I informed., about base map es well es a listing of the panels on which each is located.
.operative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Fad- flood elevation data presentetl in the AS report should be Oilind in conjunction with preparation.
Emergency Management Agenty (FEMAj. The State Of NOrih Carolina has the FIRM for Purposes of cons[mc[ion and/or ilootlplain management. gale ma features shown on this ma If you have questions about this map, or questions concerning the National Flood
impleg$nCV a long term approach offloohe S management to decrease the FIRM of regulatory flooded shown fl the FIRM foremen s es studied p p. such o corporate limits. are based on the Insurence Progremin gmeral.please calif-871-FEBA NAPI1� 7� 2627)m,minthe
the cosu a area with n appr This is daiplain an b he Slate's corm gu y ys 9 ours moat ul,t dam data available m the time of publication. Changes in the corporate FEMA websee at ---.fore For "on hism de ma rider to Me Communi Ma
g' y t by detailetl methods were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross limits may have occurred since this ma has published. Map users should a oov rty ap reran ry prior m natewi ppmg ty p
.it merd to macs flood lain areas at the locallevel. As artof lSthis snortthe
y D P Hi table rented in Me Fkad Imuarl- Stud re ort for Mis'uddiNon.
p p p
sections. The nodwa were based on h reulic consitleretions with re ad [o merits
entry Y P I
ys ytl g regMre nsuh the a r Hate communi official or website [o veri c ,rent contlitions o An accem a in Flood Insurance Study re rt. Letter of Me Revision LOMR or Letter
PP .p ty N u p m v oo p 1 I
Stale of North Carolina has joined in a Coo cretin TaMnicelS[ate a re mart
e
I� 0 g ti e
dof ethe National Flood Insurance Program. F ethod widths and other ertihmen Iloo N' Y P Y I and base m f This m s h M Am n OM of this panel, n digital ai this To den9mi a if flood imu vailable n this n Me
9 unsdrenom boundaries a eatures contain road tat ware of a dmen[ L N rewsin orti0ns t s and di tu versons t s ¢your iwnn- 4
with FEMA to rotluce and maintain this digital FIRM. j map map may ep ( g p Pa e g moony, carers age
p g re, : for flooding sources studied limited
itetailetl methods th well re proVd d I,Othe FI widths not considered h the hydraulic analysis to streams where no new hydraulic model was FIRM maybe available. use ,rho Meath Carolina p Service Center t Program m valb,its6-9506 Noel Cardin. Division dEmergenq Mana�mem or Me Na4oml Flod Inwrance Program at ere
for flooding sources he HS by on 1, detailed m en -time
are provided in the FIS report created during the production of this statewide forme[ FIRM. for
www.ndlOn on 11 mlateor contact the FEme Map Ban, FIR Center of A Map 5 Serve.
following phone numbers or websaes:
www.neFloodmaps.eom using s ln,adc,eanc The HIS report also provides instructions y limited
detail a method..
for informs ion on all rektetl y Im as associa eel with this FIRM. The FEMA Map Se.e. NC Div c n, rRy Managemen Na loner Flood Im..f Program
using no ncroachment widths for flooding sources studied by limhd detailed methods. Center may also be reached by Fax at 1�00-36fL9g20 and its website at wmv.msc.fema.00v. 19I91 ns-fi00D I-antrd.orR/n0p 1�00-Gie�62D www./ema.lovMFio
LEGEND
-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFHAs) SUBJECT TO
INUNDATION BY THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1 % annual clan- flood g00.yesr godL also known ss the base good, s the flood
Mat haz a % chance M be rigg egwkd exceed m a given yyveaar The Special
Flood Hazard Area s Me area H" to floodrirg by Me 1% I u Idunce flood. Areas
d Specal Food Hazard ndude ZOns ti AE, AH, AO, NR, A99, V, ad VE. The Base
Flmd Ekvatirn s the waver -dace elewtinn n! the ", wl <nance frs,d.
ZONE NoGaze R Elevations de umn nod.
ZONE M Base Flood Eleva iom determined.
iorvF AN Flood of o! 1 ned. Elevations determito 3 feet )usually areaz of pond ng1, Base Flood
ZONE AO Flood depth f 1 to 3 feet (..any heat Sow loping [¢maid;
-rage depths determined. For are of ell -al ran feeding wlogd-
also tle[ermind
ZONE AN r..I Flood Hazard Area !.,madly protegad from the 1% annual
ccdhno.-mod�dnebAR I.N.—iaz mu Idlse former lMkoaztl m tN'I s�yngem�s
being resmred - provide pm a d.. from the 1 % annual chance or
greater none.
1011 A99 Area to be protooted from 1 % annual chance food F deral
ood fprole-on sy.am under wnstr.gion, rw Base FI Elevations
deemed
ZONE VE C flood zoo with wINStY hazard Maw action); Base Flood Ele oive
determined.
® FLOO— AREAS IN ZONE AE
The fodway is the channel da stream plw any adja-nt flendpl.in areaz that must be
Eept lrcr of enawrhment that th l% ann chance A- n be carried witiwut
mkt inreazea m none neighn.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Ares d 0.2% l Mane food: areas of 1% annual Malice flod
with avenge depNs d less Man l fret air wrtM1 drat ;age areaz lee Nan
=are m01. d areas p.— by levees from %annual chance
OTHER AREAS
ZONE X Areas&I-rend In he oupde Ma 02% annual clurce foodplan
ZONE D Aeaz in when food hazards are undeterm red, bat p bie.
® COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
F,7 1 OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAs)
CBRs areas eM OPA9 ere n-melN lo- d whhin or adacsnt to Specie Flo. Tsmad Aam,
1% annwl ,hence sedpkin bourgary
0.2% a near Manse lkodpkin boundary
1—y boundary
----Z1na D Boundary
CBRS and OPA Mo-dary
-- Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and
boumlary dMdrng sPeoaI Flood Hazard Areaz of different
Base Flood Elevatlons,fl�od depths or flood wleodes
—513^^-- Base Flood Elevation line and value elevation I. feet•
(EL eaJl Batt Flood Elevation value where uniform wM. Zone,
elevation n feet •
'RIto Me NoMmer on Ve Am-1 DffiFm of 19M
Cme -I. tire
�______O Tnntta lure
97OT l0 . 32 22 l0
f gnpM1 a corm -ere ere3 fenced se Me North Amer ran
Datum NAD ) of 1983
200Bmetez Unrwool Tnmwrse Mart- Slid a dP, zone 17
14)7 fi00 FEET 50W-foot ppM values Nadi Umline State Plans ceord'nare
zyzdan IFlPSZONE 3200, Sure Plane NAD fee,
BM551g Nod, Carolina eepd-c survey benh mark (see expla-ti-
X n the Dawm Infomnti.n ttgmn afMs FIRM panel).
BM5510 Oonal —mir su_ us-1, k [see expknanon 'n
® The Information mn of Mks FIRM panel)
•MI.5 RirerMk
GRID NORTH
NAP 80ALE 1a - 1000' (1 : 12,000)
FEET
AFTERS
800 0 8m am
® PANEL 1780J
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
® NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 1780
ISLE LOEATOR DIAGRAM OR MAP INDEX FOR RRM
coNray s
CDMMUNIIY xry CIIazNo. PANEL SUFFIX
EFFECTIVE DATE
MAP NUMBER
DECEMBER 2, 2005
06-
��s33��722I00+�178000J
iU':
State of North Carolina
Federal Emergency Management Agency

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA FIRM PANEL LOCATOR DIAGRAM
,yl ,\0ry0 pAq 16rg0'410 , rct _
3nraaaoN ,y
DATUM INFORMATION
The projection used in the prepmation of this map was the North Carolina
Stale Rana (FIPSZONE 3200). The horizontal datum was the North American
Datum of 1983, GR580 ellipsoid. Differences in daWm, eIli".id. projection, or
Universal Transverse Mercator zones used in the production of FIRMS for adjacent
jurisdictions may result in slight positional
differences in map features across
jurisdimre ional boundaries. These diffences not do affect the accumov, of this
FIRM. All coordinates on this map ere in U.S. Survey Feet. where
1 U.S. Survey Foot = 12DO/3937 Maters.
Flood elevations on this map ere referenced to the North American Vertical
Datum o11888 INAVD 88). These flood elevations must be compared to stromaa
and ground elevations ref,,n,,d w the same vertical date,. An average
offset between NAVD BS end the National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929
(NGVD 29) has been computed for each North Carolina county. This offset was
then applied to the NGVO 29 flood elevations that were not revised during the
creation of this statewide format FIRM. The offsets for each county shown on
this FIRM panel are shown in the vertical Or— offset table below. Where a
county boundary and a flcading source with umevised NGVD 29 flood elevations
ncitlam, an individual offset has been calculated and applied during the
resti n of this
statewide format FIRM. Sea Section 6.1 of the accompanying
Flood Imurenee Stutly report W obtain further inforandion on the oorwamw
of elevations between NAVD 88 and NGVD 29. To obtain current elevation,
description. and/or location information for bench ,arks shown on this map.
please content the North Caroline Geodetic Survey al the address shown below.
You may also contact the Information Services Branch of the National Geodetic
Survey st [phone], of visit its website at www rigsdoe
Nonh Carolina Geodetic Survay County Average Vertical Datum Offset Table
121 West Jones Street Doung cal Oawm Or—ru
Raleigh, NC 21M 1—sion - o.aa
(919) 7333836
"W". no
us
o.s41
All streams listed in the Flood Nozord oats Table below ware studied by
detallatl methods using field survey. Other flood hazard data shown on this
map may have been derived using either coastal analysis or limited detailed
analysis. More int—anon on the flooding so s studistl by these
analyses Is contained in the Flood Insurance Study report.ta
y.,
(�mn lrratim• "I'erhnical Stale
]r
I
F
This digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)wae pmducetl through a unique
ooperative partnership between the State of North Carolina and the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The State of North Carolina has
implememed a long term approach of floodplain management to decrease
the coo, associated wnh gcodng. This IS demonatmled by the Sen.!. corm
mitmard to map floodplain areas at the local level. As a part of this effort. the
State of North Carolina has oir,d in a Coo ,ratio Technical State e re melt P
wmlnaln ith FEMA t0 produce and athis digital FI fi e
RM.
www.ncfloodmaps.com
JOINS PANEL 1T93
0.21.30' O-Z I. Oo•
JOINS PANEL 1760
This map is for use in administering the Netionel Flood Insurance Program. Itdoes not
scarily identify all a subject to flooding, particularly from local drainage sources
of smell size. The a mounity map repository should be consulted for possible updated
r adtlitional flood hazartl iMonnation.
To obtain m on, detailed information in —a where Base Flood Elevations( BFEs
and/or floodesys have been determined. users are encouraged to consult theNO of
Profile, Floodway Data, Umited Detailed Flood Hazad Data, and/or Summary of Stilhrater
Elevations tables comained within the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) report that accompanies
this FIRM. Use, should be aware that BFEs shown on the FIRM represent rounded
whole -foot elevations. These BFEs are intended for flood ra ins nee rating purposes
only sae should not be used as the sole source of flood elevation information. Acmtlingly,
flood elevation data presented in the AS report should be utilized in conjunction with
the FIRM for purposes of construction and/or floodplain management.
Boundaries of regulatory floodwys shown on the FIRM for flooding so es studied
by detailed methods were computed at cross sections and interpolated between cross
sections. The floodways were based on hydraulic considerations with regard to requirements
of the National Flood Insurance Program. Floodway widths and other pertinent tloodvray
data for flooding sources studied by detailed methods as well as non -encroachment widths
Zflootling sources Mud,,d by limited deailed methods are provided in the FIS report
this jurisdiction. The HIS report also provides instructions for determining a f1 dway
using non-encroachmant widths for flooding sources studied by limited detailed methods.
NOTES TO USERS
Certain am, not in Special Flood Hazard Areas may be protected by flood control
structures. Refs,W Section 4.4 -Flood Protection Measures" of the Flood Insurance
Study rupon for information on flood ondtoml strumures in the jurisdictions.
Bata nap information and geospatial date used to develop this FIRM were obtained from
various organiutions, including the participating local community(ml sate and folderolagencies, and/or over s,u,m The primary basis for this FIRM is aerial imagery acquired by
Johnston Count- The time period of collection for the imagery is 2001. Information and
geospatial data supplietl by the local communiMiesl that mat FEMA base map specifications
vvehEnaderetl the preferred source for development of the base map. See gaospatial
nmOdum for the associated digital FIRM for addhi,n,l inormatipn about base map
preparation.
Base map faawms shown on this map. such as corporate limits. are based on the
most ­W—dote data available at the time of publication. Changes In the corporate
limits may have ainurr,el since this map was published. Map users should
Oormuft the a official or to ve rent condition. of
PPropriate co unity city cu
jurisdictional boundaries and base m features. This me contain roads that were j map p may
not created
d ened h the hydraulic analysis to streams where no new hydraulic model was
created during the production of this ata[ewitle forme[ FIRM.
This map reflects more d,Miled and up-Wo dhnm ,tree, ehennel emMig,ratlons than
those shown on the previous FIRM forchis jurisdiction. The floodplain, and flood sys
that were tmnsferred from the previous FIRM may, have been adjusted to conform to
these new stream channel configurations. As a sun, the Flood Profiles and FlooEv
9 ey
Data tables in the Flood Insurance SW ort which contains authoritative hydraulic
data) may reflect Stream channel disance�tha[ differ from what is showthis on t�i'lsremap.
Rease rater W the separately printed gap Ied,, for an overview map of the county
showing the layout of map panels. community map repository addresses, and a Listing Of
Communities table containing National Flood Insurance Program dates for such community
as well as a listing of the panels on which each is located.
If you have questions about this map, or questions concerning the National Flood
Insurance Progremin g-moll.plaase c,111-8n.FEM W (lam 7� 2627)orvishne
FEMA —bum at—fem
Ana Flood Insurance Stutl re rt Letter of Me Revision LOMR or Letter
accompanying ng v oo P 1 I
of Me Amendment LOM ortilin of this net and i g Program
s of this
p ( Nrevisin p Pa
FIRM maybe available. Visit ,the gent Carolina p Service Center t 1e80 wabsRe
fat owww.naflootlmeos.com, or contact the oFEMdid Yap Bone FIR Center at A Map 58 Serve.
for information on ,reach ed y Fea at associated with this FIRM. The FEMA Map Sewice
Center may also be reached Fax at 1�00-36fL9620 and its website at www.msc.fema.00v.
LEGEND
-SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS (SFFIM) SUB)ECT TO
INUNDATION BV THE 1 % ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOD
The 1 % annual chanty goad 800.year flood, also known as the base good, I. the flood
d,at has a % chance M he ngg equaled a exceeded m a z gwen year The sooner
rood Hazard Areas Na area ,+bled to flood r,g by the t% 1 dre ce flood. Areas
of Specal Food Hazard ndude Zar,es ti AE, AH, AO, R, A99, V, and VE. The Base
Flood Fkvaua, s the waver surface eleceuon of the 1% annual chance flood
ZONE a NoBase Flood Elevations demrm nod.
ZONE At Base Flood Elewtiom determined.
ZONE AN Flood tlep[W o! ined.1 to 3 feet Wsually areas of ponding); Base Flood!Elevations determ
ZONE AO Flood depth f 1 to 3 feet (teusually h Oow loping Tamar.);
verage depths dermined. For areazof alluvial !an fording velocities
also tlerermined.
ZONE As r..11 Flood Harard Area forme4ly pn—wd from the 1% an A
cd—nina�nebAR Jicst ma 1di,e i c, npmd twi s�yngem
being restored W provide protealon from tha 1% annual chance or
greater fired.
Arm ZONE Are Ato be protected from 11 annual chance good Federal
good protection .am under wn...on, r v Base FI Elevations
determined.
ZONE VE Coutai good zone an velocity, hazed Ovce action); Race flood Elevations
datannind.
® FLOO— AREAS IN ZONE AE
The floodway is the channel ofa stream plus any adjacent floodpOin am. that m,ut be
kept free of enaeaNment that the l% ann chance flood Fan be carried without
nfal increases in good heights.
OTHER FLOOD AREAS
ZONE X Areas of 0.2% annual chance flood; areas of 1% annual chance flood
with aserage depths of lea dean l foot a wkh drainage areas lea an
1 square mile; antl areas protected by kv«s from t %annual chance
good.
OTHER AREAS
ZONE R Areas detOnamd W he outride na 0.2% annual clurce Oaodplain.
ZONE D Aear in which flood hazadr are undetermined, but possible.
® COASTAL BARRIER RESOURCES SYSTEM (CBRS) AREAS
71 OTHERWISE PROTECTED AREAS (OPAE)
CBRS area and Olve are normally scaed W Nn or Wiacant, special Flood Hazand Haas.
1% annual chance foodpkln boundary
B.2% a meal danre floodplain boundary
Fkodway boundary
D soundary
CBRS and OPA boundary
Boundary dividing Special Flood Hazard Area Zones and
boundary dividing Spector Flood Hazard Areas of different
Base Flood Elevatlons, flood depou or Bond val-k-
-513^^ Base Flood Elevation line and value; elevation in feet'
(EL 5e7) Base Flood Elevation value where uniform within Zone,
elevation in feet•
'/R�eferercd to the Pic. Amerimn WrWal Detum of 19M
A:':/ _ Cros—I- line
-------
TranttR line
9T aT all , 32 23 3o paa,maof 19B3rNAD Bul 3)renced m th NoM American
2000hnaza Unhamal Tramwrse W.Wgrid tidu,zone 17
14T1 S00 FEET 3003NM -foot yyd values: OCaolins sdte Plann coadinae
system (FIPSMNE 3200, Sate Pkne NAD 83 feet)
BMESlO Noon Caroleeeddc survey bench mah (see explareuoo
% in the Dawm. Information ttdmn of this FIRM panel.
BM5510 Omar .ewknc survey�nch k tree expknanon in
® J1euDatum Information off tl,is DRM panell.
e M1.5 Rice. Mile
as cc I�l
GRID NORTH
NAP SCALE 1' - SOL (1 : 6,000)
1mFEET
£ ERa
1ae a fag 8m
EFFECDyE DATE OF FLOOD INSURAPEE RATE MAP PANEL
DMEMBER Zzma
EFFEUK DATE(S)OF REMSIOMSITO THIS PANEL
Formmmunrty lrevs.
historyror W remCommuni P
HisWy able p in thenFkmpran. Swdeort Ireicl
To detamine if good imu available in this mmmunity, copra¢ your iwmnce agent the
Nora Carolina Division olEme Ma nr or the I %,;I Flood Insurance atthe
following phone numbers or web�sBe Program
NC DMs.n of Emerganty Management National Flood Imuratma Program
Pir" EEND econool.om/ar, 1-000.f 39E620 www.lema.gMfrP
PANEL 1792J
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
NORTH CAROLINA
PANEL 1T92
(SEE LOCATOR DIAGRAM OR MAP INDEX FOR RRM
PANEL —led)
CONTAINS:
COMMUNITY CID No. PANEL SUFFIX
EFFECTIVE DATE
MAP NUMBER
DECEMBER 2, 2005
3720179200J
(a
i .
State of North Carolina
Federal Emergency Management Agency

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
Meeting Minutes
Neuse 03020201 DMS Full-Delivery Project:
Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project (DMS Contract #7422, Proj. ID# 100042)
Subject: NCIRT Post-Contract Site Meeting
Date Prepared: March 31st, 2018
Meeting Date and Time: February 21, 2018 @ 0900
Meeting Location: On-site (Johnston County, NC)
Recorded By: Catherine Manner, Kayne VanStell, and Scott Hunt
Attendees: USACE: Henry Wicker (NCIRT), Ross Sullivan
NCDEQ DWR: Mac Haupt (NCIRT) and Katie Merritt
NCDEQ DMS: Jeff Schaffer
NCWRC: Travis Wilson (NCIRT)
WLS: Catherine Manner, Kayne VanStell, and Scott Hunt

These meeting minutes document notes and discussion points from the North Carolina Interagency
Review Team (NCIRT) Post-Contract Site Meeting for the Buffalo Creek Tributaries Mitigation Project
(Neuse River Basin, CU 03020201). This full-delivery project was contracted on January 11th, 2018, by the
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Mitigation Services (DMS), with
Water & Land Solutions, LLC (WLS), under RFP 16-007279. The project site is located in Johnston County,
near Wendell, North Carolina.
The meeting began at 0900 with introductions and a general summary of the overall project concepts.
After the project introduction and overview, attendees toured the project site to review existing
conditions and proposed mitigation types, strategies, and design concepts. The project site review notes
are presented below in the order they were visited.

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
1. The group started with a discussion about which option was contracted for the project, it was
explained that ‘Option 1’ was selected. Mac stated that the NCIRT discouraged small stream
(<3,000ft) projects as well as projects that are unconnected hydrologically. However, the
combined footprint of all five (5) adjacent DMS restoration projects adds value to the site(s).
2. The group began the site visit at the top of the project boundary near MS-R1 and R3 (lower), then
walked up R3 (upper) to observe the head cut. Kayne and Travis discussed runoff from the school
road being a potential issue, but agreed that preservation was appropriate even though the buffer
is not in pristine condition. Overall the group agreed with WLS mitigation type/approach to R3
with a 10:1 ratio in the preservation section.
3. Group proceeded to walk along MS-R1 and generally agreed with WLS mitigation type/approach
along the entire reach. Travis noted the coarse substrate in the reach and expressed that the
design should incorporate gravel material for aquatic habitat, as opposed to just fine sand. Mac
noted the advantages of a Priority Level I restoration approach in this reach.
4. Before walking down valley, the group observed the BMPs on the school property on the edge of
the property boundary. Group discussed the excess erosion cause by overland flow…Katie noted
the feature might be jurisdictional, but that it was not treating any water. Ross stated that he
also thought it may be jurisdictional and WLS could potentially stabilize as a regenerative
stormwater conveyance (RSC). The group walked up to the school to get a better view of the
BMPs and outlets. Some in the group had concern with the BMPs being outside the easement
and WLS therefore not being able to control them. Kayne noted that WLS would coordinate
closely with the school and landowner to find a solution to the apparent stormwater drainage
issue.
5. The group generally agreed with WLS Enhancement Level I approach to return
intermittent/perennial flow back into R4. Ross and Katie noted the existing channel was currently
ephemeral, but likely supported increased flows prior to the school installing a BMP drainage
network.
6. The group then walked down MS-R1 towards the road culvert crossing. Mac and Travis had
concerns about the culvert capacity being blocked. Travis suggested lowering the pipe culvert
elevation on the right or it would stay blocked. Mac noted a bankfull bench should be excavated
and tied into the right floodplain. WLS agreed and noted the existing channel above the pipes
had a stable bed and would be incorporated into the design.
7. The group walked up the access road to the top of R5 (upper). Group discussed that WLS should
address areas of incision, as well as implementation of step-pools throughout the reach. It was
agreed that Enhancement Level I was an appropriate mitigation type/approach up until the head
cut, where the group agreed with a restoration approach. Travis suggested doing something to
address the nutrient runoff from the school sheep pen at the top of R5. WLS agreed and noted
they would coordinate with the school.
8. The group continued to walk down MS-R2 from the R5 (lower). Mac and Henry had some
concerns about where to relocate the channel in the upper section. Travis also expressed concern

waterlandsolutions.com | 10940 Raven Ridge Rd, Ste 200, Raleigh, NC 27614 | 919-614-5111
that the bed elevation is set at the culvert and if there will be enough slope transition. Scott stated
that WLS would reset the culvert elevation if necessary. Both Mac and Travis had concerns about
losing the slope of MS-R2 and therefore sediment/substrate.
9. Mac and Kayne had a discussion about bank height ratios in the lower section of MS-R2, Kayne
stated that WLS measured cross-sections with bank height ratio of >1.5 whereas Mac said it
appeared to be closer to 1.1. Overall the group did not think MS-R2 was as degraded as MS-R1,
but general agreed that improving wetland hydrology using a Priority Level I restoration was an
acceptable approach.
10. Lastly, Travis suggested that stabilization was needed along upper R6, he suggested leaving the
pond at the top of the reach if not mitigation credit was to be awarded. Katie stream called the
stream intermittent below the pond. Overall everyone agreed with WLS approach.
11. Ross had some concerns about W3 enhancement area, he thought it might be a smaller area and
will determine during the preliminary JD.
12. DMS and WLS discussed that no riparian buffer credit should be sought based on the lack of
restorable area and the presence of mature trees. WLS (Scott) agreed.

Concluding Comments
The above minutes represents Water & Land Solutions’ interpretation and understanding of the meeting
discussion and actions. If recipients of these minutes should find any information contained in these
minutes to be in error, incomplete, please notify the author with appropriate corrections and/or additions
within five (5) business days to allow adequate time for correction and redistribution.