20171044 Ver 1_FINAL_MitigationPlan_WithAppendices_20200403

Mitigation Plan — FINAL
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project
Surry County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin: 03040101-110040
DMS Project ID No. 100020, DEQ Contract No. 7182, DEQ RFP #16-006993
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01503
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
March 2020

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
January 8, 2020
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Whittier Creek Mitigation Site / Surry
Co./ SAW-2017-01503/ NCDMS Project # 100020
Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Baumgartner:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Whittier Creek Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on November 30, 2019. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.
Sincerely,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Tyler Crum bley
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Matthew Reid, Paul Wiesner— NCDMS
Scott King —Michael Baker Engineering

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
CESAW-RG/Browning
MEMORANDUM FOR RECORD
December 23, 2019
SUBJECT: Whittier Creek Mitigation Site - NCIRT Comments during 30-day Mitigation Plan Review
PURPOSE: The comments listed below were received during 30-day comment period in accordance
with Section 332.8(g) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule in response to the Notice of NCDMS Mitigation Plan
Review.
NCDMS Project Name: Whittier Creek Mitigation Site, Surry County, NC
USACE AID#: SAW-2017-01503
NCDMS #: 100020
30-Day Comment Deadline: November 28, 2019
DWR Comments. Mac Hauat & Erin Davis.-
1 . Page 3-3, Section 3.1.1 - DWR would like to see the NCSAM and NCWAM scores included in
Tables 3.2 and 3.3 and/or a brief discussion in of the assessment results.
2. Page 4-1, Section 4 — What available planning documents were reviewed and/or local and state
agencies consulted for potential future land development projects in the surrounding area?
3. Page 4-1, Section 4.1
a. Are there any anticipated NCDOT roadway or culvert upgrades planned for Rock Hill Church
Road? What are the existing conditions of the culvert structures?
b. In order to reduce site fragmentation, can the proposed crossings on UT4 and UT5 be
relocated to the top of reaches near the roadway? Has outreach to the utility provider been
completed?
4. Page 6-5, Section 6.2 Reach R7 - Since establishment of vegetative cover and vigor can be a
challenge on Priority II restoration banks/benches, please include a discussion on how the soil
restoration will be addressed during construction and reference potential adaptive management.
5. Page 6-16, Section 6.5.2 — As per the 2016 Mitigation Update Guidance, planting should be
completed by March 15tn
6. Page 6-17, Table 6.7
a. DWR requests capping the proposed percentage of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) to
be planted at 5% since emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) has been detected in Surry
county and has the potential to impact long-term tree density and canopy cover.
b. Since black walnut is allelopathic, DWR would not recommend including it on the planting
list. Based on the target community, have species of elm, oak or hickory been considered?
7. Page 7-1, Section 7.1.1
a. Bankfull events should be documented on each reach, not only Reach R7.

b. Reach UT5 was identified in Table 3.1 as a perennial stream and as such the 30-day
consecutive flow requirement does not apply since continuous flow is expected (in a typical
weather year).
8. Page 8-3, Section 7.2
a. DWR does not support early termination of the vegetation monitoring period.
b. Rather than exclude willow oak and persimmon from the vigor performance standard, DWR
recommends use of the mountain counties height thresholds of 6 feet in year 5 and 8 feet in
year 7 (2016 Mitigation Update Guidance).
9. Page 8-4, Table 8.1
a. Please note that bankfull events are to occur in separate years.
b. Table 5.1 lists cross sectional surveys as the monitoring measurement tool for aquatic
habitat. Please confirm and make tables consistent.
c. Please include the vegetation vigor performance standard.
d. Note that only volunteer species that are included on the approved mitigation plan plant list
may count toward the vegetation performance standard.
10. Page 8-6, Table 8.2
a. DWR recommends quarterly inspection of stage recorders and flow gauges to reduce the
risk of data loss due to instrument malfunction.
b. DWR recommends treating invasives at a minimum annually rather than a "case -by -case"
basis.
c. Please also include visual monitoring photo locations at proposed crossings.
11. Page 11-1, Table 11 — There's a difference of 152 feet between restored and creditable stream
footage for Reach R7. What is the stationing number start of the creditable stream footage?
What is the proposed crossing width?
12. Figure 12 - Please show existing onsite wetlands on Figure 12, as well as future monitoring
report figures.
13.Sheet 1A
a. Please use consistent structure terms in the Stream Conventional Symbols and Details.
b. General Note #7 states that six inches of topsoil will be placed on bankfull benches; however,
Sheet 4-9 Note #6 states topsoil placement of at least eight inches. Please update for
consistency.
14. Sheet 2A — Is the outlet protection detail being proposed for this project?
15. Sheet 2C — What species are anticipated to be transplanted onsite?
16. Sheet 2F
a. DWR requests plugs be a minimum of 50 feet wide.
b. Please include a channel fill detail. If partial ditch filling is proposed, please include a separate
detail and indicate the maximum depth from top of bank to be filled.
17. Sheet 4
a. Similar to DMS' comment, DWR is concerned about the long-term stability of the first
meander, particularly since the easement boundary bisects the meander.
b. The Reach R7 easement break does not include a proposed ford or culvert structure. DWR
has concerns about long-term stability of this stream segment without a reinforced/ protective
crossing structure. If is ford will be proposed, please include a typical detail.
c. DWR is concerned about potential impacts from livestock crossings if the easement break is
not fenced.
18. Sheet 5 — As DMS noted, there is a large meander designed at the downstream end of UT4b as
it enters R7. DWR is concerned about long-term bank stability at this confluence.
19. Sheet 7
a. DWR recommends a 30-foot setback of the proposed easement from the road culvert to
avoid potential future transportation encroachment requests.
b. The UT4A utility easement break does not include a proposed ford or culvert crossing. DWR
has concerns about long-term stability of this stream segment without a reinforced/protective

crossing structure. Additionally, will the proposed live stake installation be considered an
access barrier by the utility provider?
20. Sheet 8 — The stream restoration design for UT4b and UT5 appears to impact wetlands W-B
and W-D. In the final mitigation plan please describe how the site's total wetland area will be
maintained and no net loss of wetland will be documented.
21. Sheet 15 & 16 — Section 6.5.2 notes the planting of adjacent wetland areas within the easement;
however, the planting plan does not currently indicate wetland planting. Please update the
planting plan to reflect wetland area planting.
22. Please include a fencing specific sheet showing existing and proposed fencing, as well as
anticipated locations of gates for site access by regulatory and stewardship staff.
23. For future site submittals, please show the plan view and corresponding profile on the same
design sheet.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. The correct USACE Action ID is SAW-2017-01503. Please correct the cover page.
2. Page 1-1: Please specify whether the 3,060 SMUs are cold, cool, or warm.
3. Please add a veg plot along UT413, near the confluence with UT5, in the existing wetland area.
4. Section 4.1: Please specify if a culverted crossing will be installed in the powerline crossing on
UT4A.
5. Section 6.5.2: Please add a description of how fescue will be treated.
6. Section 6.7: This section would benefit if it contained more details. Attached is an example of
project risks and uncertainties. I'm not suggesting that all of these will potentially affect your
project, but this is the type of detail requested.
7. Section 7.1.1: The four bankfull events in separate years must be documented on all reaches,
not just R7. 30-days consecutive flow only applies to intermittent streams. Near continuous
flow is expected on perennial streams.
8. Section 7.1.2: It may be beneficial to add a cross-section on UT5, north of the culvert crossing.
9. Section 7.1.2: Reach UT5 is described on page 6-9 as being a B-type channel. Please include
a statement that the Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 1.4 for all measured riffle
cross -sections on a given reach (for B channels). Please update Table 8.1 as well.
10. Section 7.1.3: Why are pattern measurements only being calculated on R7? It appears that
meanders/pattern are proposed on UT413.
11. Section 7.2: The vigor standard for mountain counties is 6' for monitoring year 5 and 8' for year
7. Since Table 6.7 indicates that Willow Oak and Persimmon will only account for 20% of the
planted stems, so these species should be averaged into the plot data.
a. Given that privet is heavy in some areas, please specify that invasive species will be
treated so that they compose no more than 5% of the easement area.
b. Vegetation monitoring must be conducted for 7 years. Please remove the statement
regarding monitoring may be terminated by year 5.
c. Individual plot data for volunteer species should be provided separately. Volunteers will
only be counted if they're on the approved planting list, and are present for at least two
growing seasons.
d. Please add a statement that any single species can only account for up to 50% of the
required number of stems within a veg plot, and stems in excess of 50% will not count
towards success.
12. Table 8.1: The Outcome of Reestablish forested riparian buffers-- Volunteers will only be
counted if they're on the approved planting list, and are present for at least two growing
seasons.
13.Appendix E: Please include maintenance of the culvert crossings and the ford.

14. The approach proposed on UT4A indicates that bank shaping will occur on 25% of the reach,
and some in -stream structures will be installed. Please add a statement regarding bedform
diversity in order to justify the functional uplift and a credit ratio of 1.5.1. Considering there is a
lot of sand and silt in this system, the addition of wood would be beneficial.
15. There is an existing wetland along UT5, south of the crossing. Will this entire wetland be within
the easement? If not, will this area be fenced out from livestock to prevent them from
wallowing in it and causing runoff into the easement?
16. The large meander on UT413 near the confluence with R7 is concerning. I understand the
reason for the tie-in at the riffle, but that much sinuosity in a flat area may cause overbank flow
during heavy rain events, and may form a more direct approach towards R7.
17. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be
cleared for the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
Regulatory Division

INTERNATIONAL
March 3, 2020
Kimberly Browning, Mitigation Project Manager
US Army Corps of Engineers — Wilmington District
69 Darlington Ave
Wilmington, NC 28403-1343
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Subject: Response to NCIRT Comments on Whittier Creek Mitigation Plan Review (dated 12/23/19)
Whittier Creek Mitigation Site, Surry County, NC (Yadkin River Basin: 03040101)
USACE AID# SAW-2017-01503, DMS Project #100020, DEQ Contract #7182
Ms. Browning:
Please find enclosed our responses to the NC Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) Mitigation Plan Review
comments dated December 23, 2019 in reference to the Whittier Creek — Option D project site. We have
revised the Draft document in response to the referenced review comments as outlined below.
DWR Comments. Mac Hauat & Erin Davis:
1. Page 3-3, Section 3.1.1 - DWR would like to seethe NCSAM and NCWAM scores included in Tables 3.2
and 3.3 and/or a brief discussion in of the assessment results.
Response: Baker added the NCSAM and NCWAM ratings in Tables 3.2 and 3.3 and provided a brief
mention of the scores in the relevant text sections.
2. Page 4-1, Section 4 — What available planning documents were reviewed and/or local and state agencies
consulted for potential future land development projects in the surrounding area?
Response: Baker reviewed all of the applicable planning documents available from DMS including the
Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (2009 revision), the Ararat River & Upper
Yadkin Local Watershed Plan documents (2008), as well as DWR's 2008 Yadkin -Pee Dee River Basin
Basinwide Water Quality Plan, and 2009 Integrated Analysis Report of Water Quality for the Ararat
River Watershed. Specific future land development projects in the immediately surrounding area of
the restoration site itself were not addressed.
3. Page 4-1, Section 4.1
a. Are there any anticipated NCDOT roadway or culvert upgrades planned for Rock Hill Church Road?
What are the existing conditions of the culvert structures?
Response: Baker is unaware of any NCDOT upgrades planned for Rock Hill Church Rd. The existing
culverts are in good condition with stable rock outlets and outfall pools. They are clearly not perched
and are set fairly deep such that the bottoms of each culvert have some basic stream bed features with
rock and sediment within them.
b. In order to reduce site fragmentation, can the proposed crossings on UT4 and UT5 be relocated to the
top of reaches near the roadway? Has outreach to the utility provider been completed?

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Response: The conservation easement has already been purchased, though from recent conversations
with the IRT Baker understands the emphasis being placed on site fragmentation reduction and will
work to reduce such easement breaks in the future.
3. Page 6-5, Section 6.2 Reach R7 - Since establishment of vegetative cover and vigor can be a challenge on
Priority II restoration banks/benches, please include a discussion on how the soil restoration will be
addressed during construction and reference potential adaptive management.
Response: Baker is certainly aware of the particular challenges in establishing vegetation with this
approach. The extent of benching and the especially good topsoil present on site will fortunately help
with this effort as it will provide significantly greater topsoil (in both quantity and quality) than usual
for placement onto new stream benches and banks. Extensive soil testing will be conducted on the
deeper soil horizons where planting will ultimately occur after benching, and all recommended soil
amendments will be put out at various stages during construction as appropriate. As requested, text
discussion has been added to the report to elaborate on these measures.
4. Page 6-16, Section 6.5.2 —As per the 2016 Mitigation Update Guidance, planting should be completed
by March 15th.
Response: Baker has amended that section to state March 15t" completion date.
5. Page 6-17, Table 6.7
a. DWR requests capping the proposed percentage of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) to be planted at
5% since emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) has been detected in Surry county and has the potential
to impact long-term tree density and canopy cover.
Response: Green ash will be reduced to 5% of the planted species as requested.
b. Since black walnut is allelopathic, DWR would not recommend including it on the planting list. Based
on the target community, have species of elm, oak or hickory been considered?
Response: Baker is happy to add American elm (Ulmus americana) and overcup oak (Quercus lyrata) to
the planted species list, but we have had very high mortality rates with bareroot planted hickories (a
common observation we are told) and do not wish to plant them post -construction. However, we
routinely plant potted hickories in appropriate locations on sites in later years as part of supplemental
planting efforts. Also, as black walnut is list as being part of the plant community species and a few
specimens are present in the existing vegetation, Baker still wishes to include it as a planted species at
only 5% of the total.
6. Page 7-1, Section 7.1.1
a. Bankfull events should be documented on each reach, not only Reach R7.
Response: Text revised as requested.
b. Reach UT5 was identified in Table 3.1 as a perennial stream and as such the 30-day consecutive flow
requirement does not apply since continuous flow is expected (in a typical weather year).
Response: The text was revised in this section as per the comment.
Page 8-3, Section 7.2
a. DWR does not support early termination of the vegetation monitoring period.
Response: Baker understands that DWR does not support early termination but wishes to keep the
language in the document to allow for that option in the event that DWR changes their mind. The text

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
only provides an opportunity for a potential request, which can be denied by any of the agencies at
their discretion.
b. Rather than exclude willow oak and persimmon from the vigor performance standard, DWR
recommends use of the mountain counties height thresholds of 6 feet in year 5 and 8 feet in year 7 (2016
Mitigation Update Guidance).
Response: Baker has revised this section to use the mountain county thresholds as recommended.
However, we still maintain that any understory/shrub species planted would not be expected to obtain
those heights and should be excluded from the average calculation. Baker also notes that the oaks and
the persimmon are traditionally slower growing and would hope that a certain leniency might be
applied to their height requirements in the future.
Page 8-4, Table 8.1
Please note that bankfull events are to occur in separate years.
Response: Revised as recommended.
b. Table 5.1 lists cross sectional surveys as the monitoring measurement tool for aquatic habitat.
Please confirm and make tables consistent.
Response: Cross -sectional surveys will be used to monitor the stability of the newly created pools and
riffles; to confirm that pools are maintaining an appropriate depth and that riffles are not aggrading
with sediment and burying the rock or wood substrate (i.e. that each of these distinct habitat features
are being properly maintained).
C. Please include the vegetation vigor performance standard.
Response: The mountain vegetation vigor performance standards have been added to the text in
Section 7.2 and to Table 8.1.
Note that only volunteer species that are included on the approved mitigation plan plant list may
count toward the vegetation performance standard.
Response: This statement was added to the text, though in previous conversations with the IRT it had
been stated that other species might be also allowed at the IRT's discretion provided they were
considered appropriate for the vegetative community.
10. Page 8-6, Table 8.2
a. DWR recommends quarterly inspection of stage recorders and flow gauges to reduce the risk of data
loss due to instrument malfunction.
Response: Baker agrees and in practice routinely inspects and downloads all gauges during quarterly
site walkovers.
b. DWR recommends treating invasives at a minimum annually rather than a "case -by -case" basis.
Response: Baker will inspect for invasives at every site visit and will treat annually and as needed.
C. Please also include visual monitoring photo locations at proposed crossings.
Response: Baker will include visual inspections and photos at all crossings.

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
11. Page 11-1, Table 11—There's a difference of 152 feet between restored and creditable stream footage
for Reach R7. What is the stationing number start of the creditable stream footage? What is the
proposed crossing width?
Response: While the restoration work on Reach R7 begins at the very top at Station 10+00, the
credited stream section begins at the easement boundary at Station 11+39.62, while the crossing width
is 12 ft. Thus, the 152 ft difference between restored and creditable lengths.
12. Figure 12 - Please show existing onsite wetlands on Figure 12, as well as future monitoring report
figures.
Response: The existing wetlands have been added to Figure 12 and will be shown in future monitoring
report figures.
13. Sheet 1A
Please use consistent structure terms in the Stream Conventional Symbols and Details.
Response: Baker has revised structure terms for consistency.
b. General Note #7 states that six inches of topsoil will be placed on bankfull benches; however, Sheet
4-9 Note #6 states topsoil placement of at least eight inches. Please update for consistency.
Response: Topsoil will be placed out onto benches at a depth of 8 inches. The 'General Notes' on
Sheet 1A was revised accordingly.
14. Sheet 2A — Is the outlet protection detail being proposed for this project?
Response: There is an outlet protection structure located on lower Reach R7 at Station 23+00 at a
point of concentrated runoff from the adjacent field.
15. Sheet 2C — What species are anticipated to be transplanted onsite?
Response: Tag alder is present in the small wooded pocket on upper Reach UT4B that Baker
anticipates being able to transplant onsite.
16. Sheet 2F
a. DWR requests plugs be a minimum of 50 feet wide.
Response: The channel plugs are a minimum of 25 ft wide, as that is the width of the channel they are
plugging, but are much wider in numerous locations on the project as appropriate. The plugs are
located in the old channel at locations where the new alignment departs from the old channel
alignment. But to be clear, the entire channel will be filled. Baker is confident that the channel plugs
are appropriate as designed.
b. Please include a channel fill detail. If partial ditch filling is proposed, please include a separate detail
and indicate the maximum depth from top of bank to be filled.
Response: Partial filling of the old channel is not being proposed here. It will be completely filled. A
separate channel detail seems unnecessary and wouldn't show much useful information anyway, but
an additional note has been added to the channel plug detail stating that the remainder of the channel
will be completely filled. If this question is due to concern that deep pools are the design intention (as
has been commented on during recent IRT meetings), that is not the case here.

INTERNATIONAL
17. Sheet 4
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
a. Similar to DMS' comment, DWR is concerned about the long-term stability of the first meander [on R7],
particularly since the easement boundary bisects the meander.
Response: The first meander at the top of Reach R7 is located in a transitional section and is being
elongated to create a more gentle bend from its current sharp -angled alignment, and has significant
benching being established on the right bank. The new sinuosity designed here is in line with that rest
of this reach. This section also has rock cross vane at the top to hold grade and a log vane at the start
of the bend, and the meander is being heavily planted with a geolift that will establish thick root mass.
These are all being done outside the easement to create a more stable, start to the credited section of
reach below. Baker is confident these stream features will stabilize and provide long-term benefit to
the project downstream. And of course it will be monitored for 7 years, giving us time to make any
adjustment to any issues that come up, but we believe we have designed a stable meander.
b. The Reach R7 easement break does not include a proposed ford or culvert structure. DWR has
concerns about long-term stability of this stream segment without a reinforced/ protective crossing
structure. If is ford will be proposed, please include a typical detail.
Response: Reach R7 is a sizeable stream and as such the riffle rock proposed here will contain a mix of
rock sizes (including some Class I stone), which should be more than adequate for any potential cattle
crossing located here. The landowners are not currently pasturing cattle in the field to northwest and
the crossing was added in the event that they do and thus need to rotate them down to the southern
pasture. The previously assumed crossing location for such a pasture rotation would have been at the
top of R7 outside the easement (the area discussed in the previous comment), which is within a bend
and not an ideal location for such activity. Baker will monitor this break for any instability and make
adjustments accordingly.
c. DWR is concerned about potential impacts from livestock crossings if the easement break is not
fenced.
Response: Reach R7 is a sizeable stream and any permanent fencing installed within the crossing is
certain to be periodically destroyed during significant rain events. This is an unfortunate side effect of
working on larger streams. Baker discussed this issue at length with the landowners and their family
who operate the farm (one of whom is an NRCS agent in Wilkes County) and they much prefer to use
temporary fencing for any future potential cattle crossings during pasture rotation efforts. Baker will
make sure the easement break boundary is clearly marked for this use.
18. Sheet 5 -As DMS noted, there is a large meander designed at the downstream end of UT4b as it enters
R7. DWR is concerned about long-term bank stability at this confluence.
Response: Baker acknowledges the concerns presented by reviewers but is confident that both the
meander size and its alignment before and at the confluence with R7 is necessary to the long-term
stability of the reach. As noted in the response to DMS, this meander falls on the cut floodplain of the
new mainstem and crosses the existing old (very wide) channel where it will be filled. The outer (pool)
bend of UT4b at Station -20+25 has been aligned perpendicular to the old filled channel and will have a
geo-lift structure installed for increased stability at this important location. The alignment of the
channel relative to R7 prior to the confluence, as well as the riffle tie-in location were deliberate
choices meant to increase stability of this confluence.

INTERNATIONAL
19. Sheet 7
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
a. DWR recommends a 30-foot setback of the proposed easement from the road culvert to avoid
potential future transportation encroachment requests.
Response: The conservation easement has already been purchased with the existing 15-foot setback
from the road. Based on recent conversations with the IRT, Baker will work to include greater setbacks
along roadways on future projects to help with DOT encroachment issues.
b. The UT4A utility easement break does not include a proposed ford or culvert crossing. DWR has
concerns about long-term stability of this stream segment without a reinforced/protective crossing
structure. Additionally, will the proposed live stake installation be considered an access barrier by the
utility provider?
Response: The section of UT4A located along the utility easement break has a lot of exposed bedrock
in the stream bed and should remain quite stable. Currently the stream banks here are fairly
vegetated and stable and so there's no reason to believe that with deliberate effort we couldn't get
them fully vegetated and stable after we excavate the bankfull bench. Baker has certainly established
livestakes along streams within utility easements on other projects.
20. Sheet 8 —The stream restoration design for UT4b and UT5 appears to impact wetlands W-B and W-D. In
the final mitigation plan please describe how the site's total wetland area will be maintained and no net
loss of wetland will be documented.
Response: The project as a whole is certainly expected to significantly increase the total area of
wetlands both from the raising of stream bed elevations in sections of Priority 1 restoration, and from
the extensive bench cutting in sections of Priority 2 restoration. The two largest wetlands on the
project, W-A and W-C, will have no permanent impacts to them, and all wetland areas not directly
impacted from the new stream alignment are currently fescue pasture and will be planted and
protected within the conservation easement.
The PCN will detail the exact extent and location of direct wetland impacts, but they'll be very minimal
at around 1,061 ft' (or 0.02 ac). That includes W-D and the lower portion of W-B, both of which are
located within the existing stream top -of -banks and appear to be old shallow stream benches that
have been pulverized by cattle into muck. It seems entirely likely that with cattle exclusion alone these
areas would naturally recover their form and likely lose JD features and their wetland status anyway.
21. Sheet 15 & 16 — Section 6.5.2 notes the planting of adjacent wetland areas within the easement;
however, the planting plan does not currently indicate wetland planting. Please update the planting plan
to reflect wetland area planting.
Response: Virtually all of the species in the planting list are entirely suitable for planting in these small
floodplain wetlands (black walnut being the only exception), and the total planted portions of the
wetlands are only about 3,000 ft' (0.07 acres). Thus, a separate planting plan seems unnecessary.
However, in practice, Baker routinely plants a number of different species in niche habitat locations on
projects during supplemental plantings during the monitoring years. For example: hickories, holly, and
hazelnut in isolated higher/drier areas, or buttonbush, yellow -root, and sweetspire in low/wet areas.
22. Please include a fencing specific sheet showing existing and proposed fencing, as well as anticipated
locations of gates for site access by regulatory and stewardship staff.
Response: The existing and proposed fencing is currently shown on the plan sheets. The existing fence
(shown in gray) is old and in disrepair, and only exists in broken sections along R7 and no longer

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
functions to exclude cattle from the stream. The proposed fence is shown in black. The location of
installed gates will be clearly marked in the as -built plan sheets for future reference.
23. For future site submittals, please show the plan view and corresponding profile on the same design
sheet.
Response: Baker will take that suggestion into consideration for future submittals.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
The correct USACE Action ID is SAW-2017-01503. Please correct the cover page.
Response: Cover page was corrected. Please be advised that the USACE JD documentation lists the
project as Action ID SAW-2018-00849, which is where the incorrect number came from.
2. Page 1-1: Please specify whether the 3,060 SMUs are cold, cool, or warm.
Response: The text now states that the project provides cool stream credits, but note that the original
RFP requested either warm or cool stream credits.
Please add a veg plot along UT413, near the confluence with UT5, in the existing wetland area.
Response: The area of that particular wetland (a linear drain swale) is only 600 ft' and is actually
smaller than a veg plot. However, temporary vegetation transects can easily be run here periodically,
and a random vegetation plot can be placed in this area for one of the monitoring years. Text was also
revised in Section 3.2.3 to specifically acknowledge visual vegetation monitoring will be conducted in
all pre -construction JD wetlands.
4. Section 4.1: Please specify if a culverted crossing will be installed in the powerline crossing on UT4A
Response: As explained above in DWR Question 19b, no culvert will be installed at this location and
the text was revised accordingly.
5. Section 6.5.2: Please add a description of how fescue will be treated.
Response: Fescue will be sprayed prior to or concurrent with construction, as appropriate. Text has
been revised accordingly.
Section 6.7: This section would benefit if it contained more details. Attached is an example of project
risks and uncertainties. I'm not suggesting that all of these will potentially affect your project, but this is
the type of detail requested.
Response: This section has been expanded as requested, though it appears most of these potential
risks and provider responses had been addressed in other sections of the report such as in the
Maintenance Plan found in Appendix E.
Section 7.1.1: The four bankfull events in separate years must be documented on all reaches, not just R7.
30-days consecutive flow only applies to intermittent streams. Near continuous flow is expected on
perennial streams.
Response: This section was revised as requested.
8. Section 7.1.2: It may be beneficial to add a cross-section on UT5, north of the culvert crossing.

Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Response: Reach UT5 is a fairly small stream and Baker is confident that visual monitoring of this
upper section will be adequate to confirm stability. Additional monitoring measures can be added
should it prove necessary.
9. Section 7.1.2: Reach UT5 is described on page 6-9 as being a B-type channel. Please include a statement
that the Entrenchment Ratio (ER) shall be no less than 1.4 for all measured riffle cross -sections on a given
reach (for B channels). Please update Table 8.1 as well.
Response: These sections were revised as requested.
10. Section 7.1.3: Why are pattern measurements only being calculated on R7? It appears that
meanders/pattern are proposed on UT413.
Response: This was an oversight and the text was revised to include UT4b as well.
11. Section 7.2: The vigor standard for mountain counties is 6' for monitoring year 5 and 8' for year 7. Since
Table 6.7 indicates that Willow Oak and Persimmon will only account for 20% of the planted stems, so
these species should be averaged into the plot data. Response: The revised species list now includes
the addition of another slower growing tree (overcup oak), which when added with the willow oak and
persimmon account for 25% of the planted species. Baker would consider that a significant enough
portion of the overall planted stems that we would still request that they be removed from the height
average assessment. The text was revised to simply acknowledge the slower growing species.
a. Given that privet is heavy in some areas, please specify that invasive species will be treated so that
they compose no more than 5% of the easement area. Response: Text revised as requested.
b. Vegetation monitoring must be conducted for 7 years. Please remove the statement regarding
monitoring may be terminated by year 5. Response: Baker opts to keep this statement here to provide
the IRT with the potential future option to terminate early. It implies no obligation on anyone's part.
C. Individual plot data for volunteer species should be provided separately. Volunteers will only be
counted if they're on the approved planting list, and are present for at least two growing seasons.
Response: The vegetation success tables provided in the monitoring reports do provide volunteer
species data separately from the planted species. Text was revised to acknowledge the caveats for
counting volunteers as well.
d. Please add a statement that any single species can only account for up to 50% of the required
number of stems within a veg plot, and stems in excess of 50% will not count towards success.
Response: Text revised as requested.
12. Table 8.1: The Outcome of Reestablish forested riparian buffers - Volunteers will only be counted if
they're on the approved planting list, and are present for at least two growing seasons.
Response: Table was revised.
13. Appendix E: Please include maintenance of the culvert crossings and the ford.
Response: Text revised as requested within the 'Farm Road Crossing' section.
14. The approach proposed on UT4A indicates that bank shaping will occur on 25% of the reach, and some
in -stream structures will be installed. Please add a statement regarding bedform diversity in order to
justify the functional uplift and a credit ratio of 1.5:1. Considering there is a lot of sand and silt in this
system, the addition of wood would be beneficial.

INTERNATIONAL
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
8000 Regency Parkway, Ste. 600 1 Cary, North Carolina 27518
Office: 919.463.5488 1 Fax: [phone]
Response: The discussion of the proposed enhancement of UT4a in Section 6.2 does mention the
installation of in -stream structures for the purpose of improving bedform diversity through the
promotion of pool formation. As the profile view for this reach shows, it's essentially one long riffle
and the structures will provide for several deep pools. Additionally, Baker intends to incorporate
woody debris in with the short sections of rock riffle to be built above the boulder step structures. This
was used very effectively on other recent projects (most notably at Lochill Farm).
15. There is an existing wetland along UT5, south of the crossing. Will this entire wetland be within the
easement? If not, will this area be fenced out from livestock to prevent them from wallowing in it and
causing runoff into the easement?
Response: Only about a quarter of this wetland is located within the easement. The remainder will
not be fenced, though this wetland area does not have standing water and livestock do no currently
congregate there, so it seems unlikely they would do so post -construction. Further, there is no
concentrated flow present from this wetland going into the adjacent stream and the restored buffer
should act as a treatment feature for any diffuse runoff from the adjacent pasture.
16. The large meander on UT413 near the confluence with R7 is concerning. I understand the reason for the
tie-in at the riffle, but that much sinuosity in a flat area may cause overbank flow during heavy rain
events, and may form a more direct approach towards R7.
Response: Please see the response to similar question #18 from DWR above. But to your direct
concern, during heavy rain events the dominant factor in any potential scouring or new channel
formation would be the flooding from the much larger Reach R7. As such, the alignment of the
meander on UT4B relative to both the old and new R7 channel locations provide it with improved
stability compared to other potential design options here.
17. When submitting the PCN, please include an estimate of the number of trees, or acres, to be cleared for
the NLEB 4(d) Rule.
Response: Baker will provide that estimate with the PCN submission (See Section F of the PCN Additional
Information form).
This letter serves as the formal response to the NCIRT comments and shall be submitted in conjunction with
the Final Mitigation Plan and the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) for the Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27
application approval. If you any additional questions concerning the Final Mitigation Plan, please do not
hesitate to contact me at 919-481-5731 or [e-mail]. As per DMS direction, we have
included with this submittal two (2) full hardcopy sets of both the revised Final Mitigation Plan with IRT
comments (including design plan sheets) and the completed PCN application, and will provide a full
electronic copy via flash drive as well.
Sincerely,
Scott King, LSS, PWS
Project Manager

Stream Mitigation Plan — FINAL
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project
Surry County, North Carolina
Yadkin River Basin: 03040101-110040
DMS Project ID No. 100020, DEQ Contract No. 7182, DEQ RFP #16-006993
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2017-01503
Prepared for:
NC Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ)
NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Prepared by:
I N T E R N AT 1 0 N A L
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 NCDMS operations and procedures for the delivery of
compensatory mitigation.
March 2020
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE II
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................1-1
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION......................................................................... 2-1
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 WATERSHED PROCESSES AND RESOURCE CONDITIONS............................................................................
3-2
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics..................................................................................................................
3-2
3.1.2 Land Use /Land Cover, Impacts, Historic, Current and Future.........................................................
3-5
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response.................................................................................................
3-6
3.2 REGULATORY REvIEw..............................................................................................................................
3-7
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion..........................................................................................................................
3-7
3.2.2 FEMA Regulated Floodplain Compliance...........................................................................................
3-7
3.2.3 Section 404/401Permitting ................................................................................................................3-7
4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL................................................................................................... 4-1
4.1 PROJECT CONSTRAINTS............................................................................................................................
4-1
4.2 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT SUMMARY...............................................................................................................
4-2
5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES...................................................................... 5-1
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN................................................................. 6-1
6.1 PROJECT DESIGN APPROACH....................................................................................................................
6-1
6.2 DESIGN MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS..................................................................................................
6-4
6.3 DESIGN DISCHARGE ANALYSIS...............................................................................................................
6-11
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge..................................................................................................................
6-11
6.3.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions) .....................................
6-11
6.3.3 Bankfull Discharge Summary and Conclusions.................................................................................
6-12
6.4 SEDIMENT TRANSPORT ANALYSIS..........................................................................................................
6-13
6.4.1 Sediment Competency Analysis..........................................................................................................
6-13
6.5 VEGETATION AND PLANTING PLAN........................................................................................................
6-16
6.5.1 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Characterization............................................................
6-16
6.5.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings..........................................................................................
6-16
6.6 PROJECT WORK PLAN.............................................................................................................................6-18
6.7 PROJECT RISKS AND UNCERTAINTIES.....................................................................................................
6-19
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS............................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1 STREAM MONITORING.............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions............................................................................................. 7-1
7.1.2 Cross Sections...................................................................................................................................... 7-1
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern......................................................................................................... 7-2
7.1.4 Visual Assessment................................................................................................................................ 7-2
7.2 VEGETATION MONITORING....................................................................................................................... 7-2
8.0 MONITORING PLAN............................................................................................................................... 8-3
9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN...................................................................................................... 9-1
10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN................................................................................................ 10-1
11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS........................................................................................................ 11-1
12.0 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................................... 12-1
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE III
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX A: (FIGURES, MAPS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION)
APPENDIX B: (SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT)
APPENDIX C: (CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE)
APPENDIX D: (FINANCIAL ASSURANCE)
APPENDIX E: (MAINTENANCE PLAN)
APPENDIX F: (DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS)
APPENDIX G: (NC-SAM AND NC-WAM ASSESSMENT FORMS)
APPENDIX H: (APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS)
APPENDIX I: (APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS)
APPENDIX J: (IRT CORRESPONDENCE)
APPENDIX K: (PLAN SHEETS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE IV
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1 Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
Table 3.2 Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Table 3.3 Summary of Field Investigations to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Table 3.4 Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
Tables 6.1a-b Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Tables 6.2a-d Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Table 6.3 NC Rural Regional Curve Equations
Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Table 6.6 Competence Analysis
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
Table 11.1 Project Components and Mitigation Credits
Table 11.2 Length and Area Summations by Mitigation Category
Table 11.3 Overall Assets Summary
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE V
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Watershed Planning Elements Map
Figure 3. Adjacent Planning Elements
Figure 4. Existing Conditions and Features
Figure 5. Geologic Map
Figure 6. Drainage Area and Land Use Map
Figure 7. Soils Map
Figure 8. FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 9A. Historical Aerial Image — 1950
Figure 913. Historical Aerial Image —1976
Figure 9C. Historical Aerial Image — 1993
Figure 10. LiDAR Map
Figure 11. USGS Topographic Map
Figure 12. Proposed Monitoring Features
Figure 13. Project Asset and Credit Map
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE VI
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

1.0 PROJECT INTRODUCTION
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project (project) is located on two abutting parcels of an
active cattle farm in Surry County, North Carolina, approximately 7 miles east of the Town of Dobson in
the Ararat community as shown on the Project Vicinity Map (Figure 1). To access the site from Raleigh,
take Interstate I-40 West to Winston-Salem. Take Exit 206 for I-40 Business/US 421 N toward
Kernersville/Winston-Salem Downtown. Continue to follow I-40 Business/US 421 N toward
Kernersville/Winston-Salem Downtown 12.4 miles. Take Exit 6B. Merge onto NC-8 N/US-11N/US-52
N toward Mount Airy/Smith Reynolds/Airport. Continue to follow US-52 N for 25.1 miles. Take Exit 134
toward S Key Street. At the first traffic circle, take the 3,d exit onto S Key Street. At the next traffic circle,
take the 1st exit onto NC-268 W/S Key Street. Continue to follow NC-268 W for 6.4 miles. Turn right
onto Eldora Road. Follow Eldora Road for 0.6 miles and turn left onto Nurse Road. Follow Nurse Road
for 1.8 miles and turn right onto Rock Hill Church Road. The project site will be located immediately on
the right just past the intersection on Rock Hill Church Road. Coordinates for the center of the project are
36.3779 N Latitude,-80.5999 W Longitude.
The project area lies within the Yadkin River Basin, Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040101-110040
(named the Bull Creek - Ararat River Watershed), which is identified as a Targeted Local Watershed (TLW)
in the NC Division of Mitigation Services'(DMS) 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration
Priorities (RBRP) report (Figure 2). The project is also located in the Division of Water Resources' (DWR)
Sub -basin 03-07-03. The project is located on the edge of the Piedmont Physiographic Region, within the
Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion. The project watershed drains into Whittier Creek, which flows into
Bull Creek, then into the Ararat River, which ultimately empties into the Yadkin River, which is a major
drinking water source for downstream communities, counties, and urban areas. Whittier Creek and its
tributaries are classified by NCDWR as Class "C" waters (NCDWR, 2019).
The project will restore 3,073 linear feet (LF) of existing stream and enhance 328 LF of existing stream
along a section of Whittier Creek and Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) to Whittier Creek in the Yadkin River
Watershed.
Historic agricultural use on the project site has been predominantly cattle and crop production. These
activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank stability along the project stream
and its tributaries. The resulting observed stressors include excess nutrient input, streambank erosion,
sedimentation, livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the loss of riparian buffers.
The outcomes of this project include:
• Establishment of geomorphically stable conditions along all project reaches,
• Address local water quality stressors by reducing nutrient and sediment inputs,
• Restoration of natural stream and floodplain interactions,
• Enhancement of riparian wetland functions,
• Restoration and protection of riparian buffer functions and corridor habitat,
• Improvement of in -stream aquatic habitat, and
• Establishment of a permanent conservation easement on the entire project.
The project is anticipated to generate a total of 3,060 cool stream mitigation credits (contracted for 3,000)
and the site will be protected by a 6.97-acre permanent conservation easement (Appendix B).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 1-1
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation project is located in Surry County within the Bull Creek - Ararat
River Watershed (03040101-110040) of the Yadkin River Basin (Figure 1), which is identified as a TLW (Figure
2) in DMS' 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP. The RBRP describes numerous aquatic stressors and habitat
degradation from environmental conditions within the watershed, including: naturally erodible soils, erosion from
land -disturbing activities (e.g. agriculture, logging, new home construction), excessive stormwater flow in urban
and suburban areas, turbidity and fecal coliform violations from agriculture, and nonexistent or degraded riparian
buffers along streams. The RBRP then outlines several primary watershed restoration goals to address these water
quality stressors and habitat degradation. The Whittier Creek project will address three of these stated goals: the
restoration of water quality and aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments; collaborative efforts with willing
landowners to implement new stream, riparian buffer, and wetland restoration, enhancement, and preservation
projects within TLWs; and the implementation of agricultural BMPs in order to limit inputs of sediment, nutrients
and fecal coliform to streams from active farming operations.
Additionally, the project is located within one of the ten watersheds identified in DMS' Ararat -Pilot Mountain Local
Watershed Plan (LWP). The 2013 Watershed Management Plan for the LWP identified five major stressors to
watershed functions: excess sediment in streams, lack of riparian buffers, excess stormwater runoff, excess nutrient
inputs, and fecal coliform bacteria. The report then provides a list of management recommendations for each
stressor. This project will implement several of those recommendations, including: stream, buffer, and wetlands
restoration/enhancement projects; implementation of agricultural BMPs (especially livestock exclusion); the
restoration and enhancement of riparian buffer corridors; and the protection of headwater streams.
Thus, the Whittier Creek project will directly and/or indirectly address several of the priority stressors identified in
the watershed planning documents discussed above, through the implementation of their recommended
management practices. The project will reduce erosion and sedimentation by stabilizing eroding stream banks and
reestablishing a floodplain to reduce scour pressure, will reduce nutrient and fecal coliform inputs through the
exclusion of all livestock from the streams, will improve riparian buffer habitat with the establishment of a minimum
30-foot wide forested riparian corridor, and will enhance and preserve several wetland areas located within the
floodplain. The entire project area will then be permanently protected through the establishment of a 6.97-acre
conservation easement.
In addition, the protection and restoration of the Whittier Creek site will assist in providing a geographical
connection with three existing DMS projects, several other designated conservation areas, and numerous NC
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) Significant Natural Areas, including the biodiversity priority area Pilot Mountain
State Park (Figure 3).
Therefore, the proposed project location aligns well with the overall goals and implementation needs outlined in
DMS' RBRP and LWP planning documents.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 2-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project is located in the Ararat community near the Town
of Dobson in Surry County, North Carolina, within the Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin. The following
sections will describe the existing conditions found on the project and include a description and history of
the surrounding landscape and overall watershed land use and conditions, as well as a discussion of the
specific environmental impacts and responses they have produced on the project.
Table 3.1 below provides a summary of the key project attributes and individual reach parameters for the
existing conditions on site. Existing stream lengths listed below include piped stream length.
Table 3.1. Project Attributes for Existing Conditions
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Project Information
Project Name
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project
County
Surry
Project Area (acres)
6.97
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36.3779 N,-80.5999 W
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Yadkin Pee -Dee
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-digit
1 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit
03040101-110040
DWR Sub -basin
03-07-03
Project Drainage Area (acres)
1,722 acres / 2.69 square miles (at downstream end of R7)
Project Drainage Area Percentage of
0.95% impervious area
Impervious Area
USGS National Land Cover Database
82% developed (predominantly rural residential), 41.6%
(NLCD) for 2011
cultivated crops and hay, 6.9% grass/pasture, 4.8% shrub/scrub,
and 38.3% forested.
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Reach R7
UT4a
UT4b
UT5
Existing length of reach (linear feet)
1,462
338
764
765
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
Unconfined
Moderately
Unconfined
Moderately
confined, unconfined
Confined
Confined
Drainage area (acres)
1,722
225
305
72
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C
C
C
C
Stream Classification (existing / proposed)
G4 & F4/C4
E4b/E4b
E4 &
B4 &
G4c/C4
E4b/C4b
IV—
IV —
Evolutionary trend (Simon)
Degradation
III—
Degradation
III —
and Widening
Degradation
and
Degrading
Widening
FEMA classification
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Zone X
Regulatory Considerations
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-1
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Does?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
Yes
PCN
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
Yes
PCN
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
I No
N/A
N/A
Notes:
3.1 Watershed Processes and Resource Conditions
3.1.1 Landscape Characteristics
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project (project) is located on an active cattle farm in Surry
County within the Bull Creek — Ararat River watershed of the Yadkin River Basin. The project is situated
on the edge of the Piedmont Physiographic Region, within the EPA's Level IV Ecoregion 45e: Northern
Inner Piedmont ecoregion (Griffith et al., 2002). This ecoregion tends to have higher elevations, more
rugged topography, and more monadnocks than other areas of the Piedmont. Vegetation is dominated with
pine forests on old field sites and pine plantations and mixed oak forests in more natural/less disturbed
areas. Unlike nearby Ecoregions 45b and 45c, this region tends to contain more Virginia Pine (P.
virginiana) and Chestnut Oak (Q. montana) and fewer shortleaf pines (P. echinata). Streams in this region
also tend to have higher gradients and contain many mountain -type macroinvertebrate species than those
found in the outer Piedmont, with cobble and gravel substrates more commonly observed. Elevations vary
dramatically across this region, from 360 feet in the eastern portion to 2,035 feet along the western boundary
with the Blue Ridge mountains, though this project is located in roughly the middle of that range at an
elevation of approximately 1,000 feet.
Field evaluations of intermittent/perennial stream status were conducted in the winter of 2016 and the spring
of 2018. Wetland delineations were conducted on the site in April 2018. Results from these field reviews
indicate that there are 3,329 linear feet of jurisdictional stream and approximately 0.153 acres of
Jurisdictional wetland located within the project boundary and surrounding vicinity. Wetlands are classified
as either headwater forest or bottomland hardwood forest (NC Wetland Functional Assessment Team,
2010). Differences between the two types of classifications are the result of the first and second -order
nature of their adjacent streams. Wetlands are located in the floodplain and/or along the toe of adjacent
slopes. Further information on the jurisdictional features can be found in Section 3.2.3 and in Appendix H.
Field evaluations were based on the NCDWQ (now NCDWR) Methodology for Identification of
Intermittent and Perennial Streams and Their Origins (v 4.11), the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (1987), and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual: Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (v2.0). Project Reach R7 is denoted as solid "blue -line"
stream on the USGS Topographic Map (Mount Airy South and Siloam Quadrangles). Due to the large
drainage area and obvious perennial status, a stream form was not completed for this reach. Table 3.2 and
3.3 present the assessed stream and wetland classifications for the project. See Figure 4 for a depiction of
the Jurisdictional Waters. Field assessments were confirmed by the USACE in the Preliminary JD received
on 6/27/2018 (See Appendix H). Copies of the completed classification forms are in Appendix F.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-2
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 3.2. Summary of Field Investigations to Determine Intermittent/Perennial Status
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Project
Existing
NCDWR Stream
NCSAM
Watershed
Stream Status
Reach
Project Reach
Classification
Rating
Drainage Area
Based on Field
Designation
Length (ft)
Score
(acres)'
Analyses
R7
1,462
-
Medium
1,722
Perennial
UT4 (a & b)
1,102
38
Low
305
Perennial
UT5
765
34.5
Low
72
Perennial
Note 1: Watershed drainage area was estimated using the online USGS StreamStats program, as well as topographic and
LiDAR information at the downstream end o each reach.
Table 3.3. Summary of Field Investigations to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project- NCDMS Project No. 100020
Existing Wetland Area
Classification
Project Wetland
Within
Designation
Total (ac)
Conservation
NCWAM
NCWAM
Easement (ac)
ClassificationCowardin
Rating
W-A
0.068
0.016
Headwater Forest
Low
PEMI
0.041
0.039
Bottomland
PEM1
W-B
Hardwood Forest
Low
W-C
0.039
0.029
Bottomland
Low
PEM1
Hardwood Forest
W-D
0.006
0.006
Headwater Forest
Low
PEM1
C Wetland Functional Assessment Team, 2010 & FGDC, 2013
Climatic Conditions
The Mt Airy 2W (Station ID 315890) weather station in Surry County is located approximately 11.5
miles northwest of project site. This Station lists the average annual rainfall for the surrounding area
as 49.05 inches, based on data collected from 1998 - 2018 as shown below in Table 3.4 along with the
monthly historic averages. This station, along with another nearby station (CoCoRaHS: NC-SR-2 -
Dobson 2.3 SE) will be used to determine departures from normal rainfall amounts throughout the
project. As reported in the Surry County Soil Survey, the growing season for the site is 200 days in
length and begins on April 8 and ends on October 26, using the 50% probability data for a temperature
of 28' F or higher (MRCS, 2007).
Table 3.4. Comparison of Monthly Rainfall Amounts for Project Site and Long-term Averages
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Month-
Year
Mount Airy Station Average
Monthly Precipitation (in)
30% Probability
Precipitation is less than
in
30% Probability
Precipitation is more
than in
January
3.68
2.41
4.42
February
2.70
1.81
3.23
March
3.96
2.84
4.68
April
4.24
2.96
5.03
May
4.54
2.84
5.49
June
4.79
3.21
5.74
July
5.35
3.56
6.41
August
4.77
3.32
5.67
September
4.53
3.41
5.29
October
3.33
2.20
1 3.99
November
3.11
1.82
1 3.78
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-3
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

December
4.06
2.99
4.76
SUM
49.05
43.77
53.29
Geology and Soils
Geologically, the Whittier Creek Site is located within the Sauratown Mountain Anticlinorium of the
Inner Piedmont Belt (NCGS,1985) as shown in Figure 5. This inner belt is the most intensely deformed
and metamorphosed portion of the Piedmont and contains highly metamorphic rock formations that
have been bent and folded into synclines and anticlines, while the Sauratown Mountain Anticlinorium
is a northeast -trending foliation arch composed of several smaller formations. The Whittier Creek site
is underlain by a formation consisting of metagraywacke (biotite gneiss) interlayered and gradational
with amphibolite and kyanite schist, along with minor ultramafic and granitic rock intrusions. Deeper
below the site a banded gneiss formation can be found interlayered with calc-silicate rock,
metaconglomerate, amphibolite, sillimanite-mica schist, and granitic rock.
The geology underlying a stream can influence its chemical composition, as a significant volume of
stream discharge originates as groundwater, especially during periods of low precipitation. The
groundwater originating from the biotite gneiss found beneath the Whittier Creek Site is generally
expected to be slightly alkaline with moderate levels of dissolved solids from the minerals in the
formation (Daniel and Dahlen, 2002).
The project site is located within the Felsic Crystalline Soil System of the Piedmont Soil Region of
North Carolina (Daniels et al., 1999), formed primarily in residium saprolite from the underlying
bedrock metamorphic or igneous parent materials. In this northwestern portion of the Piedmont, silty
to clayey saprolite and micaceous -clay to silty -clay saprolite are commonly found from the weathered
gneiss, schists, and amphibolite of the underlying bedrock. Topographically, broad gently sloping
uplands are common in this region with moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges
and steep valley slopes along branching, dendritic stream patterns. Finer -textured soils typically
dominate the uplands, while more coarse -loamy soils are commonly found throughout the floodplains.
The specific soils located on the Whittier Creek Site as determined though the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) Soil Survey for Surry County are dominated by Colvard fine sandy loam
(Typic Udifluvents) and Suches loam soils (Fluventic Dystrudepts) found throughout the floodplains
of the project (Figure 7). Both of these are common series consisting of very deep, well drained soils
more frequently found in the floodplains of the southern Appalachian Mountains, but certainly not
unusual to be found in the far western portion of the Piedmont. Neither series is an NRCS-listed hydric
soil for Surry County. The adjacent uplands are dominated by Fairview sandy clay loam soils (Typic
Kanhapludults), another common series consisting of very deep, well drained soils frequently
containing cobbles, found along the hills and ridges of the Piedmont uplands. Other upland soils found
adjacent to the site include the Rhodhiss-Bannertown complex and the Toast-Bannertown complex.
These soils are also deep, well drained loamy or coarse sandy loamy commonly found throughout the
Piedmont uplands.
Visual inspections of the stream substrate materials were conducted for the entire site, while bed
material sample collection and analysis was conducted along Reaches R7, UT4a, UT4b, and UT5 in
the locations of surveyed cross sections. The project streams consist primarily of a mix of fine to
medium sand to large cobble. The D50 values across the site range from 6.4 mm to 40.6 mm, with an
average D50 of 24.4 mm, as explained in further detail in Section 6.4. Due to channelization and the
resulting downcutting from headcut migration, Reach UT4a has bedrock knickpoint controlling the
channel grade and defines the reach break at UT4b.
Topography
The general topography within the project's 2.69 square mile drainage area is typical of much of the
western portion of the inner Piedmont. The surrounding terrain is rugged with steep hills and ridges
overlooking fairly narrow stream valleys. The average elevation of the drainage area is 1,130 feet,
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-4
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

with a minimum elevation of 987 feet and a maximum elevation of 1,310 feet. The topography of the
project site itself and its immediate surrounding area is very similar, with adjacent moderate to steeply -
sloped hills overlooking the project streams and floodplain. The project valley slope varies for each
reach valley as R7 (Whittier Creek) is fairly gentle with a 0.6% slope, while the valley slopes for UT4a,
UT4b, and UT5 are significantly steeper with 2.6%, 1.9% and 2.6% slopes respectively. The project
area within the easement has a high -point elevation of 1,016 feet and a low -point elevation of 987 feet.
Figures 10 and 11 depict the topography for the project site and the surrounding drainage area.
Existing Vegetation:
Vegetation on the project site itself has been heavily disturbed from years of use in agriculture.
Currently the site is predominantly managed as cattle pasture and some cropland and largely consists
of a range of typical pasture grasses (fescues and clovers) with scattered weeds and other common
herbaceous species present such as bittercress (Cardamine hirsute), docks (Rumex spp.), common violet
(Viola sororia), chickweed (Stellaria media), lyre sage (Salvia lyrata), plantains (Plantago spp.), and
dandelions (Taraxacum offciniale), with soft rush (Juncus effusus) and jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis) found in wetter areas. A very narrow buffer of trees is present along most of Reach R7
(Whittier Creek) and along a short section of Reach UT4b. The trees present on site consist primarily
of chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), and tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), along with some scattered black walnut (Juglans nigra), persimmon
(Diospyros virginiana), river birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Blackberry (Rubus spp.), multi -flora rose (Rosa
multiflora), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis) are found scattered throughout the understory as
well.
Looking farther out at the entire project drainage area, the existing vegetative community outside the
cultivated agricultural land is dominated by Dry-Mesic Oak -Hickory Forest (Schafale and Weakley,
1990) comprised of a mixture of white oak (Quercus alba), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black
oak (Quercus Velutina), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), red hickory (Carya ovalis), and pignut
hickory (Carya glabra), with various pines (Pinus spp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua) also found. Common understory species include Red maple (Acer
rubrum), American Holly (Ilex opaca), Blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood (Oxydendrum
arboreum), and American beech (Fagus grandifolia), along with various Viburnums and Vaccinium
shrub species. Along the warmer and drier south -facing slopes in the area, additional species may also
be found, including post oak (Quercus stellata), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), shortleaf pine (Pinus
echinata), white ash (Fraxinus americana), and red cedar (Juniperus virginiana).
Notable invasive species present on the site include Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora) found scattered along the banks and within
the riparian buffers of the project streams.
3.1.2 Land Use / Land Cover, Impacts, Historic, Current and Future
Relevant land use / land cover and their impacts were investigated for the project and surrounding
watershed through landowner discussions, a review of historic aerial photographs, GIS analysis using
historic datasets, and field reconnaissance.
Based on landowner conversations, historic agricultural uses on the project site itself included cattle
production and row crops. These activities have negatively impacted both water quality and streambank
stability along the project streams and their tributaries. The resulting stressors include excess nutrient
input, streambank erosion, sedimentation, livestock access to streams, channel modification, and the
loss of riparian buffers.
The USGS National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2011 shows that the entire 2.69 square mile
(1,722 acres) project drainage area was 8.2% developed (with 0.95% being impervious surface), 41.6%
cultivated crops and hay, 6.9% grass/pasture, 4.8% shrub/scrub, and 38.3% forested as shown in Figure
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-5
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

6. The 1992 NLCD data states that the area was 43.7% cultivated crops and hay, and 56.1% forested.
The percentage of all developed land -use categories combined was rated as 2.5% in the 1992 evaluation.
Thus, it appears that an increase in the clearing of forested land for development and agriculture
occurred over that 19-year period. For comparison, the 2009 Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee RBRP describes
the overall, Bull Creek — Ararat River watershed (16 square mile) as being similar with approximately
34% forested area and 44% in total agriculture, and 22% non -forested riparian areas. Thus, it appears
that the greater watershed is similar to the project drainage area, but with increased development at the
expense of forested land.
Historic aerial photographs from 1950, 1972, and 1993 were reviewed for the project and its
surrounding area (Figures 9A, 913, and 9C). They reveal a project area that has been cleared and streams
that have been straightened with consistent agricultural land use activities dating back to the earliest
photograph. The project area itself is readily identifiable in all historic aerials with little change over
the past sixty-nine years, other than R7 trying to reestablish a sinuous pattern and slight conversion of
various forested areas to individual agriculture fields. Based on these historical aerials, the lack of
sinuosity, and the level of channel incision throughout much of stream, it is highly likely that Reach
R7 (Whittier Creek) was channelized prior to 1950 and has lacked a wooded buffer since that time.
The tributaries to Reach R7 have also been historically impacted. These impacts range from the
removal of stream buffer, installation of culverts, and livestock impacts. These reaches have also likely
been straitened and moved to the edge of the valley. While the percent of forested land within the
watershed is decreasing and the percent of developed and agricultural lands are increasing, the
watershed as a whole did not show any dramatic changes in overall land use since the earliest photo
from 1950. It was, and remains, a predominantly rural area with slightly changing land uses over time.
The history of the land use and land cover of the site and surrounding watershed indicates that
significant impacts to water quality have occurred, certainly resulting in increases in erosion,
sedimentation, and nutrient inputs to the streams, and decreases in stream and riparian habitat and
function.
Currently, the project is an active farm with approximately 14.3 acres of crop production and 19 acres
of pasture. Livestock have unrestricted access to the entire length of UT5 and approximately 50% of
both R7 and UT4b. The upstream extents of each of the project reaches begins at a North Carolina
Department of Transportation culvert. Two overhead utility lines are located within the project area.
One of them runs parallel to Nurse Road and crosses Reach R7 at the upstream extent. The other
crosses UT4 at the reach break between UT4a and UT4b and then midway along UT5. However, their
locations lie either outside the easement boundary or within easement breaks and should not affect the
project.
The future for the project watershed will likely remain undeveloped and rural in nature with large
amounts of forested cover included in the agricultural landscape.
3.1.3 Watershed Disturbance and Response
The watershed disturbances are described above and include the removal of wooded buffers, livestock
impacts, channelization, ditching and installation of culverts. Whittier Creek (R7) has responded to
these disturbances by becoming severely incised and is laterally eroding as well. UT4 and UT5 have
also become unstable. The upstream extents of these reaches are not as incised as the downstream ends.
However, they still exhibit active bank erosion. Streambanks are mostly vertical with large areas of
scour and mass wasting exacerbated by cattle impacts. The lack of woody and deep rooting vegetation
along project reaches have allowed for accelerated bank migration. The channel incision and associated
decrease in overbank flooding frequency has likely resulted in a lowered water table.
The project reaches have been heavily impacted from historic land use practices, predominantly
livestock production and other agricultural uses. Within the project area, all of the reaches have
inadequate (less than 30 feet wide), low quality riparian buffers containing sparse, immature trees, and
invasive species. Figure 4 shows the most recent aerial photography with clearly narrow and/or absent
riparian buffers. Livestock hoof shear, lack of deep-rooted woody vegetation, and storm flow shear
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-6
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

stresses have severely impacted the stream banks along the project stream reaches. From visual
inspections both on the ground and from aerial photography, many of the streams within this watershed
are in a similar condition.
3.2 Regulatory Review
3.2.1 Categorical Exclusion
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision -making for actions that will have an impact on the environment. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical
Exclusion (Cat Ex) is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project. FHWA has also
determined that stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities; therefore, Parts 2
and 3 of the DMS Cat Ex checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental
regulations associated for this project are included.
The Cat Ex for the Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project was approved by FHWA and
NCDMS on February 5, 2018. The Cat -Ex summarized impacts to natural, cultural, and historical
resources and documented coordination with stakeholders and federal and state agencies. All
documentation for the Cat Ex is included in Appendix I.
3.2.2 FENU Regulated Floodplain Compliance
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation project is in FEMA Zone X as noted on the Surry
County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panels 3710592600J and 3710592400J (Figure 8). The topography
of the site and location in the upper watershed supports the design without creating the potential for
hydrologic trespass.
3.2.3 Section 404 / 401 Permitting
The proposed project area was reviewed for the presence of jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the
United States in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order 11990, the Clean Water Act, and
subsequent federal regulations and guidance. The areas in the project boundaries that displayed one or
more wetland characteristics were reviewed to determine the presence of wetlands. The wetland
characteristics include the prevalence of hydrophytic vegetation, permanent to periodic inundation or
saturation, and the presence of hydric soils.
Following a desktop review of the National Wetland Inventory (NWI), NRCS soil survey, and USGS
quadrangle maps, the project area was evaluated in the field for the presence of jurisdictional features.
Baker wetland scientists conducted field surveys of the project area on April 9, 2018 to investigate
potential wetlands, while field surveys had previously been conducted on December 12, 2016 to
confirm the perennial and intermittent status of jurisdictional streams in the project area. In total, the
field surveys confirmed the jurisdictional status of the three project streams (four reaches), along with
four separate jurisdictional wetland areas, which were subsequently flagged, surveyed, and mapped as
shown in the documentation found in Appendix H. All wetland areas have had impacts to vegetation
and are almost entirely devoid of trees, each scoring a `Low' rating in NCWAM. These jurisdictional
features were confirmed in the field by the USACE in May of 2018, and a Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination (PJD) letter was received on June 27, 2018. A copy of the PJD is provided in Appendix
H, along with all the associated USACE wetland data forms. The NCDWR stream identification forms
are provided in Appendix F.
The proposed mitigation design will enhance the identified jurisdictional wetlands areas through the
restoration of a more natural flooding regime, planting native wetland vegetation, and by raising their
water table. The design avoids or minimizes disturbance or impacts to the wetlands during project
construction wherever possible. Wetland credit is not being sought for this project. Any ecological
and/or hydrologic uplift to wetland features will be perceived solely as a positive outcome for the
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-7
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

overall project's success. Visual inspection of the pre -construction JD wetlands will be conducted
throughout the monitoring period to evaluate the success of the re-establishment of vegetation. A copy
of the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN) will also be provided with the Final Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 3-8
WHITTIERCREEKSITE- OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

4.0 FUNCTIONAL UPLIFT POTENTIAL
Current stream and watershed conditions within the project site as well as throughout the Whittier Creek
watershed described in previous sections allow for functional improvements at this site. Channel incision,
removal of riparian buffer, and livestock impacts are the predominant impairments within the project reaches
and have contributed to the overall degradation of the local ecosystem due to a lack of floodplain connectivity,
minimal bedform variation, and high amounts of sediment inputs from bank erosion.
The uplift for these project reaches will be achieved at the hydraulic and geomorphological functional levels.
Hydraulic improvements will come from reintroducing bankfull flows to the historic floodplain through Priority
I Restoration along UT4b and UT5, and by excavating a bankfull bench along R7 through a Priority II
Restoration. Reestablishing floodplain connectivity will allow stream flows to access the floodprone area more
frequently and return a hydraulic routing system through this stream corridor that will distribute flood flows
through a broader area instead of within a confined channel. Geomorphological functional uplift will be
achieved through channels sized to the bankfull flow, a planform and profile design emphasizing bedform
variation with high amounts of woody debris for bank protection and habitat, and the reestablishment of a
forested riparian corridor. As a result, bank migration and lateral stability will be restored to a sustainable level
and the banks and bed will accommodate design flows in a stable manner. Sediment inputs will decrease due
to reduced bank erosion and sediment transport can return to a stable level that will accommodate watershed
inputs. Riparian plantings will further support geomorphological functionality by increasing bank stability.
Consideration of future impacts to the area that could limit functional uplift opportunities is important when
assessing project potential. As mentioned in previous sections, the project exists within a rural area where
agriculture is the primary land use. Substantial changes to the surrounding area are not expected. The watershed
will experience minimal change in the future; therefore, the hydrology of the site will likely remain unchanged
as well.
4.1 Project Constraints
The principle constraints to achieving maximum uplift potential for the project are related to upstream and off -
site issues, as these existing upstream conditions within the project watershed will have significant impacts to
potential physicochemical and biological improvements. Examples of upstream water quality issues include
nutrient and sediment loading, and the presence of diverse biology near the site to repopulate the improved
habitat. Additional project constraints are the necessity of stream crossings and easement breaks. There are
two power line easements that transect the project. One crosses at the downstream extent of UT4a and mid -way
along UT5. Conservation easement breaks will be incorporated in these areas to allow for the exclusion of the
power line easement. In order to minimize additional breaks in the conservation easement, a culverted crossing
will be installed within the power line easement along UT5. This crossing will allow the landowners access to
different parts of their properties and rotate livestock without disturbing the restored stream or the riparian areas.
The crossing at UT4a is located in a section of stream with substantial bedrock present in the bed to help ensure
long-term channel stability. The other power line easement crosses R7 in the upstream extent just below Nurse
Road and will be also excluded from the conservation area. One ford crossing will be installed on R7 upstream
of the confluence with UT4b to allow for cattle rotation between pastures. Though no credit is being sought
for any of these breaks, restoration and enhancement measures will continue through these sections to ensure
the long-term success of the project. No additional crossings or conservation easement breaks are proposed.
Existing NCDOT culverts are located at the head of R7, UT4a, and UT5. In order to maintain aquatic passage
while allowing for the implementation of stabilization measures, Priority II transitions will be implemented to
tie the proposed streambed elevations into the existing elevations as appropriate.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

4.2 Functional Uplift Summary
Substantial functional uplift for the Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation project is expected and is
described in detail above. Improvements to site hydraulics and geomorphology will be clear and measurable
post -construction, while improvements to other functions such as physicochemical and biological may not be
as easily determined and can be greatly affected by offsite conditions. Since only the hydraulics and
geomorphology of the project streams are being directly measured, project goals are primarily linked to these
functions. While project vegetation will also be monitored and can be linked to biological and physicochemical
uplift these parameters are more difficult to directly measure. Table 5.1 summarizes the project goals and
objectives that will lead to functional improvements and the monitoring tools that will be used to track these
changes to the site.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 4-2
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

5.0 MITIGATION PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The goals and objectives for the Whittier Creek Site project are detailed below in Table 5.1. They represent the
logical conclusion to the previous discussions of current site conditions and historic use, watershed disturbance
and response, and the functional uplift potential for the project. The listed goals are broad statements about
intended project accomplishments and are consistent with the identified watershed priorities as outlined in the
Watershed Approach and Site Selection discussion in Section 2. By comparison, the objectives and outcomes
are intended to be more specific and measurable, and represent direct steps towards accomplishing the
associated goal. The project objectives will have performance standards and success criteria associated with
them as described later in Section 7 of this report and will be evaluated throughout the monitoring phase of the
project.
Table 5.1 Mitigation Project Goals and Objectives
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Goals
Objectives
Functional Level
Monitoring Measurement
Tool
To raise channel beds or excavate
Reconnect
bankfull floodplains by utilizing
stream reaches
either a Priority I Restoration
Hydraulics
Flood Frequency
to their
approach, Priority II Restoration
floodplains
approach, or an Enhancement Level I
approach.
To construct streams of appropriate
dimensions, pattern and profile in
Improve stream
restored reaches, slope stream banks
Cross -Sectional Survey
stability
and provide bankf ill benches on
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
enhanced streams, and utilize bio-
engineering to provide long term
stability.
Construct an appropriate channel
morphology to all streams increasing
Improve
the number and depths of pools,
Cross -Sectional Survey
aquatic habitat
increasing the amount of woody
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
debris with structures including geo-
lifts with brush toe, log vanes/weirs,
root wads, and/or J-hooks.
Reestablish
Establish riparian buffers at a 30-ft
forested
nummum Width along all stream
Geomorphology
Vegetation Plots
riparian buffers
reaches, planted with native tree and
Visual Inspection
shrubspecies.
Establish a permanent conservation
Permanently
easement restricting land use in
protect the
perpetuity. This will prevent site
Geomorphology
Visual Inspection
project
disturbance and allow the project to
mature and stabilize.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 5-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Project Design Approach
The selection of project design criteria was based on a combination of approaches, including a review of
applicable streams from a reference database, regime equations, evaluation of monitoring results from
numerous past projects, and best professional judgment. Evaluating data from previous reference reach
surveys and the monitoring results from multiple NC Foothills projects provided the most pertinent
background information to determine the appropriate design parameters given the existing conditions and
overall site functional uplift potential. The design parameters for the site also took into consideration current
guidelines from the USACE and NCDMS.
While reference reach data can be a useful aid in designing channel dimension, pattern, and profile, there are
limitations in smaller stream systems. The flow patterns and channel formation for most reference reach
quality streams is often controlled by slope, 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. Reference reach data was used to provide additional confidence in
the design parameters chosen but not used as the only basis for design parameter selection.
Baker selected reference reaches from the NCDOT database. These reference reaches have successfully been
used on similar stream restoration projects within the low mountains and foothills of North Carolina.
Additionally, reference parameters from Baker's internal database based on successful past projects were
consulted and analyzed. The data shown on Table 6.1 helped to provide a basis for evaluating the project site
and determining the stream systems that may have been present historically and/or how they may have been
influenced by changes within the watershed.
The reference sites used for the design of this project are similar in landscape setting as the Whittier Creek
Project site. As with the Whittier Creek site, both the Basin Creek and Big Branch sites are situated close to
the border between the Piedmont and Blue Ridge ecoregions. More specifically, both Whittier Creek and Big
Branch are located within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion, while Basin Creek is within the Southern
Crystalline Ridges and Mountains ecoregion of the Blue Ridge. The Basin Creek site is in neighboring Wilkes
County and the Big Branch Site is in Surry County. These two reference sites were used to compare to the
Baker Composite Reference Data in determining design criteria for reaches R7, UT4b, and UT5.
Table 6.1a Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
Basin
Creek
gig Branch
Baker Composite
Reference Data
Min Max
Min Max
Min Max
County
Wilkes
Surry
Stream Type
C4
E4
C4
Drainage Area- square miles
7.2
1.9
Bankfull Width (wbkf) - feet
29.5
36.9
19.3
21.5
Bankfull Mean Depth dbkf - feet
1.9
2.2
1.8
2.1
Width/Depth Ratio (w/d ratio)
13.4
19.42
9.2
11.9
10.0 1 15.0
Cross sectional Area (Abkf) - SF
64.9
71.9
39.6
39.9
Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - fps
5.5
N/P
3.5 5.0
Bankfull Discharge bkf - cfs
375
N/P
Bankfull Max Depth dmbkf - feet
3.0 3.2
2.5 1 2.7
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.1a Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Pro ect - NCDMS Pro*ect No. 100020
Basin
Baker Composite
Big Branch
Parameter
Creek
Reference Data
Min I Max
Min Max
Min
Max
dmbkf / dbkf ratio
N/P
N/P
1.2
1.5
Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio
N/P
N/P
1.0
Floodprone Area Width wf a - feet
329
130
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
8.92
6.05
6.74
Meander length L„ - feet
350
185
260
Ratio of meander length to bankfull width
Lin/Wbkf
10.54
9.1
12.8
7.0
14.0
Radius of curvature (Re) - feet
40.1 1 69.3
42.3
63.1
Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull
width Re / Wbkf
1.54
2.1
3.1
2.0
3.0
Belt width (wbh) - feet
59
1 75
30.5
44
Meander Width Ratio (WbldWbkf)
1.78
2.26
1.5
2.2
3.5
8.0
Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley
N/P
1.1
1.2
1.4
Distance
Valley Slope - feet per foot
N/P
N/P
0.005
0.015
Channel Slope (Schannel) - feet per foot
.0144
0.009
Pool Slope (sp.) - feet per foot
.0019
N/P
Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Slope
0.13
N/P
0.00
0.20
(Spool / Schannel)
Maximum Pool Depth (d ooi) - feet
4.1
5.2
3.5
4.1
Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull
Depth d ool/dbkf
2.0
2.54
1.79
2.1
1.5
3.5
Pool Width wool -feet
35
68
19.7
18.5
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width
(W ool / Wbkf)
1.52
0.91
0.97
1.2
1.7
Pool Area (Apool) - square feet
89.3 T132.5
51
54.5
Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area
(A ool/Abkf)
1.6
1.33
Pool -to -Pool Spacing - feet
271
334
97.5
179.8
Ratio of Pool -to -Pool Spacing to Bankfull
Width - /Wbkf
8.16
10.06
4.78
8.81
3.5
T7.0
Riffle Slope (sniffle) - feet per foot
0.02
0.015
0.019
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope
(Sniffle/ Sbkf)
1.39
1.67
2.11
1.2
1.5
d16-min
0.17
0.13
d35 - min
29
0.3
d50 - min
58
1.9
dsa - min
180
50
d95 - min
300
100
Notes:
Basin Creek and Big Branch from NC Department of Transportation, Reference Reach Database
N/P: Data was not provided in the NCDOT reference reach database
Values in this chart were rounded and may differ very slightly from actual values.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-2
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Additionally, some profile reference reach parameters were taken from the Micky Reach site, which is a 134
stream type. While no project reaches will be designed as strictly B stream types, UT5 is designed as a C4b
and the facet slopes and pool to pool spacing for a B stream type are appropriate to use for a C4b. The Micky
Reach site is a tributary to the Mitchell River located in Surry County. Like the Whittier Creek site, Micky
Reach is also within the Northern Inner Piedmont ecoregion. It was a restoration site constructed in 2003.
The as -built field surveys for Micky Reach were completed in 2003 and the site was visited annually for
monitoring purposes until 2007, though periodic field visits have been made since. It was determined that the
site has remained stable and is a viable reference reach site. The survey data shown here were used to evaluate
the natural channel parameters describing the dimension, pattern, and profile of the reach for design parameter
consideration purposes.
Table 6.1b Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
Micky
Reach
Baker Composite Reference
Data
Min I Max
Min Max
County
Surry
Stream Type
134
134
Drainage Area- square miles
0.45
Bankfull Width (wbkf) - feet
11.7
21.7
Bankfull Mean Depth dbkf - feet
0.6
1.0
Width/Depth Ratio w/d ratio
10.7
17.0
12.0 18.0
Cross sectional Area (Abkf) - SF
13.1
16.2
Bankfull Mean Velocity (vbkf) - fps
N/P
4.0 6.0
Bankfull Discharge (Qbkf) - cfS
N/P
Bankfull Max Depth dmbkf - feet
0.9
2.5
dmbkf / dbkf ratio
1.1
1 3.1
1.2 1.3
Low Bank Height to dmbkf Ratio
1.0
1.0
Floodprone Area Width (wf a.) - feet
20.0
410.0
Entrenchment Ratio (ER)
1.7
32.0
Meander length L„ - feet
N/A
N/A
Ratio of meander length to Bankfull width (Lm/wbkf)
N/A
N/A
N/A N/A
Radius of curvature (Re) - feet
N/A
N/A
Ratio of radius of curvature to bankfull width (Re /
wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
Belt width (wbit) - feet
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio (wblU Wbkf)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sinuosity (K) Stream Length/ Valley Distance
1.19
1.1
1.3
Valley Slope - feet per foot
0.04
0.005
0.015
Channel Sloe Schannel - feet per foot
0.033
Pool Slope (spool) - feet per foot
0.00
0.005
Ratio of Pool Slope to Average Sloe (Spool / Schannel)
0.0
0.15
0.00 0.40
Maximum Pool Depth (d ool) - feet
2.2
2.5
Ratio of Pool Depth to Average Bankfull Depth
d ool/dbkf
2.0
4.0
2.0
3.5
Pool Width (w ool) - feet
14.3
14.6
Ratio of Pool Width to Bankfull Width (w ool / wbkf)
0.9
1.1 1.5
Pool Area (Apool) - square feet
14.8
15.9
Ratio of Pool Area to Bankfull Area A ool/Abkf
1.1
1.2
Pool -to -Pool Spacing - feet
48.0
231.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-3
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.1b Reference Reach Parameters Used to Inform Design
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Micky
Baker Composite Reference
Parameter
Reach
Data
Min
I Max
Min
Max
Ratio of Pool -to -Pool Spacing to Bankfull Width (p-
3.0
7.0
0.5
5.0
/wbkf
Riffle Slope s,iffle — feet per foot
0.006
0.063
Ratio of Riffle Slope to Average Slope (s,iff e/ sbkf)
0.2
1.9
1.1 1.8
d16 — min
5.6
d35 — min
14.3
d50 — min
30.8
dsa — min
88.4
d95 — min
110.0
Notes:
Micky Reach from NC Department of Transportation, Reference Reach Database
N/A: Channel had minimal meander geometry - no pattern measured
N/P: Data was not provided in the NCDOT reference reach database
Values in this chart were rounded and may differ very slightly from actual values.
After examining the assessment data collected at the site and exploring the potential for functional uplift,
specific approaches were developed for each reach that would address the restoration or enhancement of
stream functions within the project area. Prior to impacts from past channel manipulation, the topography,
vegetation, and soils on site indicate that the project area most likely functioned in the past as a Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest. Therefore, design approaches were formulated to best restore and/or enhance this
type of system. First, an appropriate stream type for the valley type, slope, and desired stream functions was
selected and designed for each reach. Then a design plan was developed to improve the hydrology,
geomorphology, and habitat of the project streams.
6.2 Design Morphological Parameters
For design purposes, the stream channels were divided into reaches as described previously in Table 3.1. The
selected design approaches chosen for each reach were based on the maximum potential for functional uplift
as determined during the site field assessments as previously described in Section 4. The specific design
parameters were developed based on those approaches so that appropriate planform geometry, cross-section
dimensions, and reach profiles could be accurately described for developing construction plan documents.
The overall design philosophy is to use these design parameters as conservative values for the selected stream
types and to allow natural variability in stream dimension, facet slope, and bed features to form over longer
periods of time under the processes of flooding, re -colonization of vegetation, sediment deposition, and other
watershed influences.
The following tables present the design stream morphology parameters proposed for restoration and
Enhancement Level I reaches as needed. The proposed stream design values and design criteria were selected
using existing conditions surveys and bankfull identification, sediment collection and analysis, regional curve
analysis, NCDOT reference reach data, and Baker's internal reference ratios proven to be successful on
numerous past projects. Following the initial application of the design criteria, Baker staff made detailed
refinements to accommodate the existing valley and channel morphology. This step minimizes unnecessary
disturbance of the riparian area and wetlands, makes adjustments around specific features in the field,
maximizes the uplift to the ecological resources, and allows for some natural channel adjustment following
construction.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-4
WHITTIER CREEK SITE — OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Reach R7 Restoration
Reach R7 is on Whittier Creek proper at the southern extent of the project area. The reach runs easterly across
the valley floor at a slope of 0.6%. R7 begins at the western property boundary of the Holcomb parcel just
downstream of Nurse Road and an existing power right-of-way. It has been historically impacted and altered
through the removal of riparian vegetation, channelization, and agricultural activities. As a result, the channel
is experiencing active erosion for well over 50 percent of the streambank length and is an extremely incised
(BHR > 2) and highly unstable G4/F4.
A Priority Level II Restoration approach was selected for R7 as there is not enough length along the reach to
raise the bed fully and reconnect to the historic floodplain. As such, bankfull benches will be excavated along
the entire length of R7 as the primary means of reestablishing an active floodplain. The stream bed itself will
only be very slightly raised. This reach is appropriate for a meandering riffle -pool morphology and will be
designed as a Rosgen C4 stream type. This reach lacks mature woody vegetation; however, any existing
isolated trees or shrubs will be protected or transplanted if possible. A new meandering channel will be
constructed, and the floodplain will be planted with a mix of native hardwood species. The abandoned channel
will be completely filled and/or plugged using suitable fill material excavated from construction of the newly
restored channels. Thorough soil testing will be conducted on the newly constructed floodplain benches,
which will have all the necessary soil amendments put out at various stages of construction as appropriate.
Additionally, the topsoil cut from the bench construction will be stored separately and placed out onto the
floodplain prior to permanent seeding and planting.
The design width -to -depth ratio for the channel will be 12, though over time the channel may narrow due to
deposition of sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Channel narrowing should not risk downcutting
because any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes (i.e., vegetation establishment, point bar
formation, etc.). The entrenchment ratio for the majority of R7 will range between 5.8 and 6.8 as the adjacent
flood -prone width allows, though in the lowermost transitional section where it connects back into the existing
channel that value lowers to 2.3. Channel banks will be graded to stable slopes, and bankfull benches will
provide floodplain access, promote stability, and provide sediment storage.
In -stream structures will be used to control grade, dissipate energy, protect stream banks, and eliminate the
potential for upstream channel incision. These structures will include rock cross vanes, grade control J-hook
vanes, grade control logjams, constructed riffles, and log/rock step pools for grade control and habitat, as well
as rock and log vanes for increased bank stability and habitat diversity. Bioengineering techniques such as
geolifts, toe wood, brush layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to
promote woody vegetation growth along the stream banks.
Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along all of R7. Invasive species found
scattered along the banks and within the riparian buffers of the reach will be removed and/or treated.
Additionally, permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock and reduce sediment, fecal coliform,
and nutrient inputs.
Table 6.2a Reach R7 Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Existing Stream
Design Stream Values
Reference Data
Parameter
Values
XS-6 or
XS-7 or
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
2.69
2.69
Stream Type (Rosgen)
G4\174
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
190
190
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
33.5
1 38.8
41.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-5
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
5.7
4.9
4.6
3.5
5.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
18.5
21.7
22.2
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.8
1.8
1.8
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
10.2
12.1
12.3
12
15
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
22.0
24.0
50
150
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
1.2
1.1
2.3
6.8
Riffle Max Depth g bkf, Dmax (ft)
2.2
2.3
2.3
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2
1.3
1.3
1.2
1.5
Max Depth g tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
6.9
6.4
2.3
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
3.2
2.8
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
61
188
160
200
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
2.8
8.0
6.3
12.6
7.0
14.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
25
53
36
60
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
1.2
2.3
1.6
3.1
2.0
3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
45
65
80
120
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
2.1
2.8
3.6
5.4
3.5
8.0
Sinuosity, K Sval/Schan
1.29
1.17
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0065
0.0065
0.0050
0.0150
Channel Slope
0.0051
0.0056
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
0.0030
0.0120
0.0057
0.0089
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
0.59
2.37
1.03
1.6
1.2
1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0020
0.0060
0.0000
0.0010
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.4
1.2
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
3.3
5.0
4.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
1.8
2.3
2.2
1.5
3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
17.0
26.0
30.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
0.8
1.1
1.4
1.2
1.7
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
36
172
78
155
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
1.5
7.4
3.5
7.0
3.5
7.0
Note: The Existing Stream Values columns represent two separate cross -sections or min/max values as applicable
Reach UT4a Enhancement Level I
Reach UT4a begins at an existing road side culvert along Rockhill Church Road within the Holcomb parcel.
The reach runs southeast and down valley for approximately 328 feet to a bedrock knickpoint near the
upstream side of a 40-foot wide power line right-of-way. This reach is classified as a E4b stream type. It has
no woody buffer and is exhibiting erosion on approximately 25 percent of its streambanks.
Work conducted along UT4a will implement Enhancement Level I practices to improve the bank stability and
bedform diversity of the channel. Baker proposes to excavate bankfull benches, slope streambanks, install in -
stream structures to promote scour pool formation and protect streambanks, mat and live stake the stream
banks, and plant a riparian buffer. All existing trees along this reach will be preserved to the maximum extent
possible. There is one break in the easement at the downstream extent of Reach UT4a at an existing power
line right-of-way. While no credit will be generated through this area, enhancement and restoration activities
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-6
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

will continue throughout this area. The downstream bedrock knickpoint will serve as the bed elevation to
begin Priority I restoration downstream along UT4b.
Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along all of UT4a and native vegetation
will be re-established in all disturbed areas. Permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock from the
project area. Invasive species treatment will also be conducted throughout the reach and the riparian buffer.
A full table of design morphology parameters is provided below. These are for reference only as the channel
geometry will mostly be changed through bench excavation, bank sloping, and installation of in -stream
structures and features.
Table 6.2b Reach UT4a Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
Existing Stream
Values
Design Stream
Values
Reference Data
MIN
I MAX
MIN
I MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.35
0.35
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E4b
E4b
C4B4'
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
50
50
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
9.9
10.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
5.0
5.0
4.0
6.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
7.3
11.0
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.4
0.9
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
5.4
12.2
10
15
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
20.0
30.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
2.7
2.7
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
1.60
1.20
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.2
1.3
1.2
1.5
Max Depth g tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
2.1
1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
1.3
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lin (ft)
N/A
N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/A
N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sinuosity, K Sval/Schan
1.1
1.1
1.1
1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0257
0.0257
0.0200
0.0390
Channel Slope, Schan (ft/ft)
0.0242
0.0242
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
0.0260
0.0430
0.0260
0.0430
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.07
1.78
1.07
1.78
1.1
1.8
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0040
0.0000
0.0040
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.00
0.17
0.00
0.17
0
0.4
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
1.14
2.77
2.0
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
0.84
2.04
2.2
2.0
3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
8.00
9.00
15.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-7
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.2b Reach UT4a Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
Existing Stream
Values
Design Stream
Values
Reference Data
MIN
MAX
MIN
I MAX
MIN
MAX
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.10
1.23
1.4
1.1
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
35.00
80.00
38.0
77.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
4.79
10.96
3.5
7.0
3.5
7
Note: 'Cross sectional geometry parameters are from C4 stream types while profile parameters are from B4 stream
types.
Reach UT4b Restoration
Reach UT4b begins at a bedrock knickpoint at the downstream extent of UT4a within a power line right-of-
way. The reach continues down valley for approximately 764 linear feet to its confluence with Reach R7
(Whittier Creek). The reach has been historically impacted and altered through channelization, the removal
of riparian vegetation and agricultural activities, and is actively eroding with cattle access to more than fifty
percent of the reach. This reach is classified as an incised E4 stream type in its upper extent and a G4 stream
type towards its confluence with R7.
A Priority Level I Restoration approach was selected for this reach. The restored channel will be designed as
a Rosgen C4 stream type. The channel will tie to the existing bedrock knickpoint which will facilitate bringing
the bed elevation up and tying the channel to its historic floodplain. This reach is also appropriate for a
meandering riffle -pool morphology sequence and will incorporate similar structures as R7. Channel banks
will be graded to stable slopes and the adjacent floodplain will be re -connected to promote stability and
improve ground water hydrology. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush
layers, and live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation
growth along the stream banks.
The design width -to -depth ratio for the channel will be approximately 13, though over time the channel may
narrow due to deposition of sediment and streambank vegetation growth. Channel narrowing should not risk
downcutting because any narrowing would be in response to stabilizing processes (i.e., vegetation
establishment, point bar formation, etc.). The entrenchment ratio will be greater than 2.2 as the adjacent flood -
prone width allows. Channel banks will be graded to stable, 2:1 or flatter slopes.
Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along all of UT4b and native vegetation
will be re-established in all disturbed areas and in the adjacent open pasture within the easement. Invasive
species treatment will also be conducted along the reach and within the riparian buffer. Permanent fencing
will be installed to exclude livestock from the project area.
Table 6.2c Reach UT4b Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Existing Stream
Design Stream
Reference Data
Parameter
Values
Values
XS-3 or
XS-4 or
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.48
0.48
Stream Type (Rosgen)
E4/G4
C4
C4
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
65
65
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
14.0
1 9.5
13.0
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-8
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
4.7
6.9
5.0
3.5
5.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
10.1
9.5
12.7
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
1.4
1.0
1.0
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
7.3
9.6
12.7
12
15
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
23
13
30
60
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
2.27
1.33
2.4
4.7
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
2.21
1.21
1.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.60
1.22
1.2
1.2
1.5
Max Depth g tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
4.71
2.40
1.2
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
2.13
1.98
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
N/A
N/A
119
165
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
9.4
13.0
7.0
14.0
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/A
N/A
25
77
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
2.0
6.1
2.0
3.0
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/A
N/A
45
50
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
3.5
3.9
3.5
8.0
Sinuosity, K Sval/Schan
1.13
1.32
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0186
0.0186
0.005
0.15
Channel Slope
0.0165
0.0141
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
0.0150
0.0400
0.0114
0.0249
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
0.9
2.4
0.8
1.8
1.2
1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0020
0.0000
0.0033
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.2
0.0
0.2
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
2.4
4.3
2.5
Pool Max Depth Ratio, Dmaxpool/Dbkf
2.4
4.3
2.5
1.5
3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
14.3
24.0
18.0
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.5
2.5
1.4
1.2
1.7
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
30.0
90.0
45.0
89.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
3.0
9.5
3.5
7.0
3.5
7.0
Note: The Existing Stream Values columns represent two separate cross -sections or min/max values as applicable
Reach UT5 Restoration
Reach UT5 begins at an existing culvert along Rockhill Church Road within the Meadow's parcel. The reach
runs southwest and down valley for approximately 765 feet to its confluence with Reach UT4b. Cattle have
access to this entire reach. In addition, the reach has no woody buffer and is exhibiting bank erosion on over
50 percent of its streambanks with multiple headcuts and areas of mass wasting. This reach is classified as a
134. An existing 40-foot power line right-of-way crosses this reach and a break in the conservation easement
has been incorporated at this location.
Like UT4b, a Priority Level I Restoration approach was selected for this reach, and the restored channel will
be designed as a Rosgen 134 stream type. However, as the stream nears its confluence with UT4b, the valley
opens up and the floodprone width increases which makes the entrenchment ratio higher than 2.2. This will
not cause any detrimental issues and the stream will function as designed. Due to the existing valley slope
and valley floor width, this reach will be restored with appropriate riffle -step -pool morphology. Pattern
adjustments will be incorporated to ensure stability and promoted diversity. A riffle -step -pool channel will
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-9
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

be constructed using boulder and log grade control structures and constructed riffles. Channel banks will be
graded to stable slopes and the adjacent floodplain will be re -connected to promote stability and improve
ground water hydrology. Bioengineering techniques such as geolifts, root wads, toe wood, brush layers, and
live stakes will also be used to protect restored stream banks and to promote woody vegetation growth along
the stream banks. One culvert stream crossing will be installed to coincide with the location of the power
easement along UT5.
Riparian buffers in excess of 30 feet will be restored and protected along all of UT5 and native vegetation will
be re-established in all disturbed areas. Permanent fencing will be installed to exclude livestock from the
project area. Invasive species treatment will also be conducted along the reach.
Table 6.2d Reach UT5 Stream Design Morphology Parameters
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
Existing Stream
Values
Design Stream Values
Reference Data
XS-I or
MIN
XS-2 or
MAX
MIN
MAX
MIN
MAX
Drainage Area, DA (sq mi)
0.11
0.11
Stream Type (Rosgen)
134
134
134
Bankfull Discharge, Qbkf (cfs)
20
20
Bankfull Riffle XSEC Area, Abkf (sq ft)
5.5
5.1
5.0
Bankfull Mean Velocity, Vbkf (ft/s)
3.6
3.9
4.0
4.0
6.0
Bankfull Riffle Width, Wbkf (ft)
8.0
7.8
8.1
Bankfull Riffle Mean Depth, Dbkf (ft)
0.7
0.7
0.6
Width to Depth Ratio, W/D (ft/ft)
11.8
11.8
13.0
12
18
Width Floodprone Area, Wfpa (ft)
19.1
15.4
14.0
20.0
Entrenchment Ratio, Wfpa/Wbkf (ft/ft)
2.4
2.0
1.7
2.5
Riffle Max Depth @ bkf, Dmax (ft)
1.3
1.6
1.2
Riffle Max Depth Ratio, Dmax/Dbkf
1.8
2.4
1.3
1.2
1.5
Max Depth g tob, Dmaxtob (ft)
2.8
2.3
0.8
Bank Height Ratio, Dtob/Dmax (ft/ft)
2.2
1.4
1.0
1.0
1.1
Meander Length, Lm (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Length Ratio, Lm/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Radius of Curvature, Rc (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Rc Ratio, Rc/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Belt Width, Wblt (ft)
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Meander Width Ratio, Wblt/Wbkf
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Sinuosity, K Sval/Schap
1.03
1.05
1.10
1.2
Valley Slope, Sval (ft/ft)
0.0256
0.0256
0.02
0.03
Channel Slope
0.0250
0.0244
Slope Riffle, Srif (ft/ft)
0.0260
0.0410
0.0130
0.0370
Riffle Slope Ratio, Srif/Schan
1.0
1.6
0.5
1.5
1.2
1.5
Slope Pool, Spool (ft/ft)
0.0000
0.0030
0.0000
0.0090
Pool Slope Ratio, Spool/Schan
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.4
Pool Max Depth, Dmaxpool (ft)
1.6
2.3
1.5
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-10
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Pool Max Depth Ratio, DmaxpooVDbkf
2.4
3.4
2.4
2.0
3.5
Pool Width, Wpool (ft)
8.0
14.0
10.5
Pool Width Ratio, Wpool/Wbkf
1.0
1.7
1.3
1.5
1.5
Pool -Pool Spacing, Lps (ft)
22.0
139.0
5.0
40.0
Pool -Pool Spacing Ratio, Lps/Wbkf
2.8
17.3
0.6
4.9
0.5
5.0
Note: The Existing Stream Values columns represent two separate cross -sections or min/max values as applicable
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
6.3.1 Bankfull Stage Discharge
Upon completion of the geomorphic field survey, identification of bankfull stages and corresponding
discharges were made at various locations along Reaches R7, UT4a, UT4b, and UT5. However, on incised
streams such as these, discernible indicators can be difficult to obtain, and the reliability of the indicators can
be inconsistent due to the altered condition of the stream channels. For this reason, regional curve relationships
(based on drainage areas) were also used to develop the bankfull discharge estimates for the project reaches.
The curve relationships were compared to stable representative cross sections on site to confirm the bankfull
field calls and to ultimately select an appropriate design discharge estimate.
6.3.2 Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships (Regional Curve Predictions)
Regional curves are available for a range of stream types and physiographic provinces. The published NC
Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman, 1999) and the unpublished NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Curve developed by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (Walker, 2012) were used for comparison
with other site -specific methods of estimating bankfull discharge. Baker has successfully implemented a
significant number of stream restoration projects in North Carolina using this curve data. The regional curve
equations developed from the studies are shown below in Table 6.3, while Table 6.4 compares the estimated
regional curve bankfull areas for the project reaches with those measured from bankfull indicators in the field.
For these reaches, accurately estimating the bankfull discharge and associate bankfull cross sectional area was
crucial in designing the correct bankfull geometry.
Table 6.3 NC Rural Regional Curve Equations
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve Equations
(Harman et al.,1999)
NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
Curve Equations - (Walker, 2012)
Qbkf - 89.04 Aw 0.72
Qbkf - 5 5.3 2 Aw 0.79
Abkf = 21.43 Aw 0.61
Abkf - 19.13 Aw 0.65
Wbkf - 11.89 Aw 0.43
Wbkf - 17.41 Aw 0.37
Dbkf - 1.5 Aw 032
Dbkf - 1.10 Aw 0.29
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-11
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.4 Comparison of Bankfull Areas
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Bankfull Area Estimates
Measured at Bankfull
Reach
DA (sq mi)
from 1999 / 2012 Regional
Indicator (sq ft)
Curves (sq ft)
R7
2.69
42.0 / 36.5
33.5', 38.82
UT4a
0.35
10.5 / 9.7
9.93
UT4b
0.48
12.9 / 11.8
9.53' 14.0
UT5
0.11
4.9 / 4.6
5.5, 5.1
Notes:
1. Cross section is above the confluence with UT4b.
2. Cross section is below the confluence with UT4b.
3. Cross section was taken above the confluence with UT5. This drainage area is closer to the drainage area for UT4a.
6.3.3 Bankfull Discharge Summary and Conclusions
As described above Rosgen's stream classification system (Rosgen, 1996) and Natural Channel Design
Methodologies depend on the proper field identification of consistent geomorphic features related to the active
floodplain. Although bankfull stage verification was sometimes challenging in the field for some sections of
the reaches under their current conditions, the cross-section data used for the above regional curve
comparisons are within an acceptable range of values and match closely with the regional curves.
Table 6.5 provides a bankfull discharge analysis based on the regional curves, the Manning's equation
discharges calculated from the representative cross sections for each reach, and the bankfull design discharge
estimation methods. Manning's roughness (n) was estimated using friction factor and relative roughness, and
by stream type (WARSSS, 2006). Design velocity estimates are based on the estimated bankfull discharge
and the design cross sectional area.
Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity
Bankfull
ft/sec
Discharge cfs
Reach R7
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
4.2
182
NRCS NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
2 8
120
Curvet
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method'
4.7
203
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative
5.4
234
roughness'
Manning's "n" from stream type'
2.9
125
Design Estimate
4.6
190
Reach UT4a
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
4.2
42
NRCS NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
2.4
24
Curvet
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method'
5.3
53
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative
5.9
58
roughness'
Manning's "n" from stream type'
4.8
47
Design Estimate
5.0
50
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-12
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.5 Bankfull Discharge Analysis Summary
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Estimating Method
Bankfull Velocity
Bankfull
ft/sec
Discharge cfs
Reach UT4b
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.7
52
NRCS NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
2 2
31
Curvet
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
4.7
66
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative
5.3
74
rou hness3
Manning's "n" from stream type
4.2
59
Design Estimate
5
65
Reach
UT5
NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve'
3.4
18
NRCS NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional
1.8
10
Curvet
Friction Factor to Relative Roughness Ratio method
5.8
21
Manning's "n" from friction factor and relative
5.9
21
rou hness3
Manning's "n" from stream type
4.3
1 15
Design Estimate
4.0
20
Notes:
'NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999).
2 Revised NC Rural Piedmont and Mountain Regional Curve developed by NRCS (Walker, 2012).
WWARSSS, 2006 spreadsheet. Bankfull discharge estimates vary based on Manning's Equation for
the riffle cross section.
6.4 Sediment Transport Analysis
For this project, a qualitative sediment supply analysis was conducted from visual inspections of the project
reaches themselves, from inspections upstream of the project reaches, and from aerial photography. Current
supply appears to be from both localized bank erosion and transported from upstream. Some livestock
operations exist within the watershed that likely cause accelerated bank erosion. The condition of the streams
within the agricultural areas within the watershed are similar to the condition to the project streams. Field
conditions also show that aggradation is not a significant problem; for example, the project stream channels
do not exhibit significant bar formations. Once the project is complete, on -site sediment sources from bank
erosion will be stabilized. Stream power was calculated but does not provide significant useful information
since a sediment rating curve has not been developed for the site. The primary emphasis of this project's
sediment transport analysis will focus on competency.
6.4.1 Sediment Competency Analysis
To conduct the sediment competency analyses, pavement (pebble count) and subpavement sediment samples
were taken on reaches UT4b, UT5, and R7 at surveyed riffle cross sections (see Appendix A). The sediment
samples were weighed to generate cumulative frequency plots. The sediment competence analysis was
conducted using the methodologies presented in WARSSS (2006). Design mean depth and slope were
checked against the predicted required depths and slopes to provide confidence that the design streams will be
able to transport their sediment supplies. Analysis was conducted using critical dimensionless shear stress
and dimensional shear stress methodologies where applicable. Dimensionless shear stress analysis provides
a critical depth and slope to entrain the largest particle in the sediment sample while the dimensional analysis
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-13
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

uses the Shield's curve to compare the shear stress value to the size particle able to be entrained by that shear
stress. The Modified Shield's curve based on Colorado field data (WARSSS, 2006) while the Shield's Curve
is based on laboratory and field data compiled from various sources (Leopold, Wolman, and Miller, 1964).
The Results from the analysis are presented below in Table 6.6.
Table 6.6 Competence Analysis
Whittier Creek Site - Option D Mitigation Project - NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parameter
R7
UT4b
UT5
Design Bankfull Slope (ft/ft)
0.0056
0.0141
0.0244
Design Mean Depth (ft)
1.8
1.0
0.6
D50 Pavement mm
25.6
26.4
20.5
D50 Subpavement (mm)
13.0
11.2
20.6
D100 Subpavement (mm)
81.0
71.0
74.0
Critical Dimensionless Shear'
N/A
0.0160
N/A
Required Mean Depth from Dimensionless
N/A
0.43
N/A
Analysis (ft)
Required Slope from Dimensionless
Analysis (ft/ft)
N/A
0.0061
N/A
Dimensional Design Shear Stress (lbs./s -ft)
0.55
0.78
0.82
Largest Movable Particle (mm) (Mod.
98
127
131
Shields Curve
Largest Movable Particle (mm) (Shield's
Curve)
42
60
63
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100
0.4
0.4
0.4
lbs./s -ft(Mod. Shield's Curve
Predicted Shear Stress to move D100
(lbs./s -ft) (Shield's Curve)
1.0
0.9
1.0
Predicted mean depth to move D100 (ft)
1.2
0.4
0.2
Mod. Shield's Curve
Predicted mean depth to move D100 (ft)
(Shield's Curve)
2.9
1.0
0.6
Predicted slope to move D100 (ft/ft) (Mod.
0.0038
0.0057
0.0100
Shield's Curve
Predicted slope to move D100 (ft/ft)
0.0092
0.0146
0.0254
(Shield's Curve)
'Listings of N/A means that the dimensionless shear equations were not valid based on
sediment size ratios.
The sediment transport analysis using the design geometry and profile matches well with the predicted values
lending confidence that the stream will move the bed load that is supplied. As can be seen from the figure
below, design shear stress values plotted against the measured D100 values match quite well within the scatter
of the data points. The results presented above in Table 6.6 show that the design bankfull slopes and mean
depth values generally fall between the predicted values from both the Shield's and Modified Shield's curves.
The design shear stress ranges from 0.55 to 0.82 pounds per square foot and the largest particles in the
subpavement samples range from 71 to 81 mm. The data points used to generate these individual curves have
significant scatter and overlap in these ranges of shear stress and particle size which can lend evidence that
the results that fall between the two curves applicable. These results show that the design values are within
an acceptable range to provide the correct sediment transport of the stream's sediment supply.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-14
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

H rr--irlrrrrrrrrirri
�111 �■■■ 111 ���■ ■■1�1
�111�■■■lll�l'71■■■�1�1
� WIC■■1111�1Yl6� �111
111�11■1■■■rl■1► MEN madomill
■Illl��� ♦ L W■■■:111
■=■11�11 " � � + I■��I
■■■II■I ! r IIoil
a I ■II ■II�IIII I<
_ n
V��i.�
°� M
0 0 0 0 0 01 92 .93.04 65 2 .3 A. r3 1 2 3 4 r3 1(]
tic= CRITICAL SHEAR STRESS Obs/ft'}
Laboratory and field data on critical shear stress required to initiate
movement of grains (Leopold, Wolman, & Miller, 1964). The solid line is the
Shields curve of the threshold of motion; transposed from the B versus Rg
form into the present form, in which critical shear stress is plotted as a
function of grain diameter.
i Leopold, Wolman & Miller (1964)
Colorado Data (Wildland Hydrology)
(Adapted from WARSSS, Figure 5-49, Rosgen 2009)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE — OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

6.5 Vegetation and Planting Plan
6.5.1 Existing Vegetation and Plant Community Characterization
Vegetation on the project site itself has been heavily disturbed from years of use in agriculture. Currently the
site is predominantly managed as cattle pasture and largely consists of a range of typical pasture grasses
(fescues and clovers) with scattered weeds and other common herbaceous species present such as bittercress
(Cardamine hirsute), docks (Rumex spp.), common violet (Viola sororia), chickweed (Stellaria media), lyre
sage (Salvia lyrata), plantains (Plantago spp.), and dandelions (Taraxacum ofciniale), with soft rush (Juncus
effusus) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) found in wetter areas. A very narrow buffer of trees is present
along most of Reach R7 (Whittier Creek) and along a short section of Reach UT4b. The trees present on site
consist primarily of chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), black willow (Salix nigra), and tulip poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), along with some scattered black walnut (Juglans nigra), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), river
birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Acer rubrum), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and black cherry (Prunus
serotina). Blackberry (Rubus spp.), multi -flora rose (Rosa mult flora), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis)
are found scattered throughout the understory as well. Existing wetland vegetation is highly disturbed and
dominated by fescues interspersed with soft rush (Juncus effusus), a mix of sedges (Carex spp.), and
Jewelweed (Impatiens capensis).
However, the riparian areas along the project reaches and wetlands of the project would naturally consist of
species more consistent with those of a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest (Schafale and Weakley
1990). These communities often include a mixture of bottomland and mesophytic trees in the canopy,
including river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styrac flua), American elm (Ulmus americana), southern sugarberry (Celtis
laevigata), black walnut (Juglans nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya
cordiformis), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), shingle oak (Quercus imbricaria), red maple (Acer rubrum),
white ash (Fraxinus Americana), and silverbell (Halesia tetraptera). Understory trees may include boxelder
(Acer negundo), southern sugar maple (Acer floridanum), red maple (Acer rubrum), pawpaw (Asimina
triloba), American holly (Ilex opaca), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). The shrub layer commonly
contains spicebush (Lindera benzoin), strawberry bush (Euonymus Americana), painted buckeye (Aesculus
sylvatica), fetterbush (Leucothoe recurva), hazelnut (Corylus cornuta), and silky dogwood (Corpus amomum).
As such, the restoration approach for the planted riparian buffers for the project will target many of these
species.
Notable non-native invasive species present on the site include Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and multi -flora rose (Rosa multiflora), found scattered along the banks and within the
riparian buffers of the project streams.
6.5.2 Proposed Riparian Vegetation Plantings
The vegetative components of this restoration project include streambank and riparian planting zones within
the buffer. These planting boundaries will be comprised of species found within native plant communities as
presented below in Table 6.7 and shown on the revegetation plan sheets in Appendix K. In addition to the
riparian buffer zones noted above, any areas of the site that lack diversity or were disturbed or adversely
impacted by the construction process will also be planted. Existing non-native grasses (such as fescue) within
the easement will be treated prior to or concurrent with construction, as appropriate.
Bare -root trees and live stakes will be planted within designated areas of the conservation easement, with the
objective of establishing a minimum 30-foot buffer along all proposed streambanks for all the stream reaches
within the project boundary. In many areas, the buffer width will be in excess of 30 feet along one or both
streambanks and will encompass adjacent jurisdictional wetland areas. In general, bare -root vegetation will
be planted at a total target density of 680 stems per acre. Planting will be conducted during the dormant
season, with all trees and shrubs installed between mid -November to March 15th.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-16
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Selected species for hardwood revegetation planting are presented in Table 6.7 and approximate those found
in the Piedmont / Low Mountain Alluvial Forest plant community described above. Riparian zone species
wetness tolerance will range from being at least somewhat tolerant of flooding (FACU) to tolerant (OBL).
Observations will be made during construction of the site regarding the relative wetness of areas to be planted
as compared to the revegetation plan, which will also incorporate the location of the jurisdictional wetlands to
facilitate the accurate planting of appropriate species in their correct planting zone.
Once the vegetative species are transported to the site, they will be planted within two days. Disturbed soils
across the site will be prepared by sufficiently loosening to a depth of four inches prior to planting as described
in the technical specifications. Heavily compacted soils (e.g., hardpans or areas that experienced heavy
equipment use) will be loosened to a depth of eight to ten inches by disking or ripping to prepare for tree
planting. In any areas where excavation depths exceed ten inches, topsoil shall be separated from rocks, brush,
or roots, stockpiled, and placed back over these areas to achieve design grades and create a soil base for
vegetation. Trees and shrubs will be planted by manual labor using a dibble bar, mattock, planting bar, or other
approved method. Planting holes for the trees will be sufficiently deep to allow the roots to spread out and
down without "J-rooting." Soil will be loosely compacted around trees once they have been planted to prevent
roots from drying out. Soil tests will be conducted in the riparian buffer areas at appropriate intervals, and
soil amendments such as fertilizer or lime may be added as recommended to improve growing conditions.
Live stakes will be installed at a minimum of 40 stakes per 1,000 square feet and stakes will be spaced two to
three feet apart in meander bends and six to eight feet apart in the riffle sections using triangular spacing along
the streambanks between the toe of the streambank and bankfull elevation. Site variations may require slightly
different spacing.
Permanent seed mixtures will be applied to all disturbed areas of the project site. Table 6.8 lists the species,
mixtures, and application rates that will be used. A mixture is provided that is suitable for streambank, riparian,
and wetland areas. Mixtures will also include temporary seeding (rye grain or browntop millet) to allow for
application with mechanical broadcast spreaders. To provide rapid growth of herbaceous ground cover and
biological habitat value, the permanent seed mixture specified will be applied to all areas within the
conservation easement from the toe of the stream banks to the easement boundary excluding areas that are
already forested. The species provided are deep-rooted and have been shown to proliferate along restored
stream channels, providing long-term stability.
Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to for approval prior to the
procurement of plant stock.
Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
wetland Tolerance
F I
All Buffer Plantings at 680 stems/acre using 8' X 8' spacing
Riparian Zone — Overstory Species
Betula nigra
River Birch
10%
FACW
Juglans nigra
Black Walnut
5%
FACU
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
15%
FACW
Liriodendron tulipifera
Tulip Poplar
15%
FACU
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Green Ash
5%
FACW
Quercus lyrata
Overcup Oak
10%
OBL
Quercus phellos
Willow Oak
10%
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
5%
FACW
Diospyros virginiana
Persimmon
5%
FAC
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-17
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 6.7 Proposed Bare -Root and Live Stake Species
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Species
Wetland Tolerance
r I
Riparian Zone — Understory/Shrub Species
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
5%
FACU
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
5%
FAC
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
5%
FAC
Acer negundo
Box Elder
5%
FAC
Streambank Live Stake Plantings
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
30%
OBL
Cornus amomum
Silky Dogwood
30%
FACW
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
20%
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
20%
OBL
Table 6.8 Proposed Permanent Seed Mixture
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Botanical Name
Common Name
% Planted by
Density
Wetland
Species
(lbs/ac)
Tolerance
Agrostis alba
Redtop
10%
1.5
FACW
Elymus virginicus
Virginia Wildrye
15%
2.25
FACW
Panicum virgatum
Switchgrass
15%
2.25
FAC
Tripsacum dactyloides
Eastern Gamma Grass
5%
0.75
FACW
Polygonum pennsylvanicum
Pennsylvania
5%
0.75
FACW
Smartweed
Schizachyrium scoparium
Little Blue Stem
5%
0.75
FACU
Juncus effusus
Soft Rush
5%
0.75
FACW
Bidens frondosa (or
Beggars Tick
5%
0.75
FACW
aristosa
Coreopsis lanceolata
Lance -Leaved Tick
10%
1.5
FACU
Seed
Dichanthelium
Tioga Deer Tongue
15%
2.25
FAC
clandestinum
Andropogon gerardii
Big Blue Stem
5%
0.75
FAC
Sorghastrum nutans
Indian Grass
5%
0.75
FACU
Total
100%
15.00
Note: Final species selection may change due to refinement or availability at the time of planting. If species
substitution is required, the planting Contractor will submit a revised planting list to Baker for approval prior
to the procurement of plant stock.
6.6 Project Work Plan
The project work plan is included in the plan sheet set for the project and provides a detailed description of
proposed construction timing and sequencing, specific in -stream structure and other construction element
designs, as well as a description of all grading and planting activities. All work will be conducted using
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-18
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

common machinery, tools, equipment, and techniques for the successful implementation of the project. The
complete plan sheets can be found in Appendix K.
6.7 Project Risks and Uncertainties
Due to the rural and primarily forested nature of the project watershed, the overall project risk for the Whittier
Creek Site is considered low. The anticipated potential project risks are described below:
Land Use Development: There is the potential for increased land use development within the project
watershed that could alter the watershed hydrology, particularly to runoff quantity and quality. These
changes would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: While any potential future development within the project watershed is out of
the control of the provider, the stream restoration and enhancement techniques being applied to the
project reaches will help protect them from further degradation and reduce downstream impacts usually
associated with watershed development.
Easement Encroachment: Any encroachment to the conservation easement including livestock access,
mowing, utility easement violations, culvert maintenance, etc.
Methods to Address: The landowners are fully aware of the land use restrictions associated with the
conservation easement. The easement boundaries will be clearly marked and any encroachments will
be appropriately remedied by the provider throughout the monitoring phase.
Drought and Floods: There is the potential for extreme climatic conditions during the monitoring phase
of the project. These conditions would be out of the control of the provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate measures to address any impacts to the project
caused by the extreme climatic conditions. Such measures may include vegetation replanting, channel
or structure repair, soil amendments, etc.
Beavers: While there is no evidence of beaver activity currently present on the site, there is the potential
for beavers to move onto the project during the monitoring phase. This would be out of the control of the
provider.
Methods to Address: The provider will take appropriate steps to remove the beaver from the project
during the monitoring phase and repair any damage they may have caused.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 6-19
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance standards and success criteria for the project will follow the NCIRT guidance document
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update dated October 24, 2016.
Monitoring activities will be conducted for a period of 7 years unless otherwise noted.
Based on the design approaches, different monitoring methods are proposed for the project reaches. Reaches
R7, UT4b, and UT5 will implement a Restoration design approach, while Reach UT4a will implement an
Enhancement Level I design approach with stream bed/bank stabilization and structure installation. For these
reaches, geomorphic monitoring methods are described below. Specific success criteria components and
evaluation methods are described below and report documentation will follow the NCDMS's templates As -
Built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Requirement (June 2017), and the
Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements, and Content Guidance (June 2017).
7.1 Stream Monitoring
Geomorphic monitoring of the proposed restoration reaches will be conducted annually following the
completion of construction to evaluate the effectiveness of the restoration practices. The methods used and
related success criteria for each monitored stream parameter are described below. Figure 12 shows the
approximate locations of the proposed monitoring devices throughout the project site.
7.1.1 Bankfull Events and Flooding Functions
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented using continuous stage
recorders (using pressure transducers) and photographs. The continuous stage recorders will be installed in
the channels of both Reach R7 and in the downstream portion of UT4b to collect flow depth and duration data
for near-overbank events as well as for overbank flood events. Additionally, an in -stream flow gauge will be
installed in Reach UT5 to record water depth and flow duration. Photographs will also be used to document
the occurrence of debris lines and sediment deposition on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
Four bankfull events must be documented, in separate years, for Reaches R7, UT4, and UT5 within the seven-
year monitoring period. Otherwise, monitoring will continue until the required four bankfull events have been
documented.
7.1.2 Cross Sections
Permanent cross sections will be installed at an approximate rate of one cross section per twenty bankfull
widths of restored stream, with approximately half of the cross sections located at riffles and half located at
pools. Eleven cross sections are proposed for this project; five in Reach R7, one in UT4a, three in UT4b, and
two in UT5. Each cross section will be marked on both streambanks with permanent monuments using rebar
cemented in place to establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for cross sections
and to facilitate easy comparison of year-to-year data. The cross section surveys will occur in years one, two,
three, five, and seven, and must include measurements of 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. Riffle cross sections will be
classified using the Rosgen Stream Classification System. The BHR cross section parameter will be calculated
following the technical workgroup guidance memo `Standard Measurement of the BHR Parameter' provided
by DMS in 2018, which will apply the as -built bankfull cross sectional area to the current monitoring year
channel to determine bankfull elevation. The Low Top of Bank (LTOB) depth will also be provided in the
monitoring data table.
There should be little change in as -built cross sections. 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
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

(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/depth ratio). Using the Rosgen Stream Classification
System, all monitored cross sections should fall within the quantitative parameters (i.e. BHR no more than 1.2
and ER no less than 2.2 for `C' stream types or 1.4 for `B' stream types) defined for channels of the design
stream type. Given the smaller channel sizes and meander geometry of the proposed steams, bank pins will
not be installed unless monitoring results indicate active lateral erosion.
Reference photo transects will be taken at each permanent cross section. Lateral photos should not indicate
excessive erosion or continuing degradation of the streambanks. The survey tape will be centered in the
photographs of the streambanks. Photographers shall try to consistently maintain the same area in each photo
over time.
7.1.3 Longitudinal Profile and Pattern
A longitudinal profile will be surveyed for the entire length of constructed channel immediately after
construction to document as -built baseline conditions. 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 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 profile will not be taken during subsequent monitoring years unless vertical channel instability
has been documented or remedial actions/repairs are deemed necessary.
Pattern measurements such as sinuosity, radius of curvature, and meander width ratio will be calculated on
newly constructed meanders on R7 and UT4b using the plan views from the as -built plan sheets and reported
in the as -built baseline document. Subsequent visual monitoring will be conducted annually, to document any
changes or excessive lateral movement in the plan view of the constructed channel.
7.1.4 Visual Assessment
Visual monitoring assessments of all stream sections will be conducted at least once per monitoring year
following the requirements described in the DMS monitoring guidance documents. Photographs will be used
to visually document system performance and any areas of concern related to streambank stability, condition
of in -stream structures, channel migration, headcuts, channel aggradation (bar formation) or degradation, live
stake mortality, impacts from invasive plant species or animal species, riparian vegetation success, the
condition of pools and riffles, and overall stream morphology assessment. All photo locations and any areas
of concern will be shown in the Current Condition Plan View (CCPV) figure in the baseline and annual
monitoring reports.
7.2 Vegetation Monitoring
Restoration of the riparian vegetation on a site is dependent upon the successful planting and establishment of
native woody species, along with the volunteer regeneration of the plant community. To determine if the
success criteria are achieved, vegetation monitoring plots will be installed and monitored across the restoration
site in accordance with the CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2 (Lee at al., 2008).
These vegetation plots shall consist of both permanent and random plots, totaling a minimum of 2% of the
planted portion of the site established within the planted riparian buffer areas per CVS Monitoring Levels 1
and 2. Four fixed plots and one random plot are proposed to monitor vegetation for this project. The size of
each individual plot will be 100 square meters. No plots will be established within the undisturbed wooded
areas within the project boundary.
Vegetation monitoring will occur in the fall, prior to the loss of leaves. Data from the permanent vegetation
plots will include: species, height, planted vs. volunteer, and age (based on the year the stem was planted, or
first observed if a volunteer). Data from the random plots will include only the species and height. Plot
densities will also be calculated for each plot. Individual plant stems will be marked such that they can be
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 7-2
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

found in succeeding monitoring years in the permanent plots. Mortality will be determined from the difference
between the previous year's living, planted stems and the current year's living, planted stems.
At the end of the first full growing season from baseline (MYO), after a minimum of 180 days, species
composition, heights, stem density, and survival will be evaluated formonitoring year one (MY1). Vegetation
plots shall subsequently be monitored in years 2, 3, 5 and 7 or until the final success criteria are achieved. The
interim measure of vegetative success for the site will require the survival of at least 320 stems per acre at the
end of the year 3 monitoring period. At year 5, density must be no less than 260 stems per acre. The final
vegetative success criteria will be the survival of 210 stems per acre at the end of the year 7 monitoring period.
However, if the performance standards are met by year 5 and stem densities are greater than 260 stem/acre,
then the vegetation monitoring may be terminated with approval by the USACE and the NCIRT. Volunteer
plants may count towards the vegetation performance standard if they are on the approved planted species list
and are present for at least two growing seasons, or at the discretion of the IRT. A single species should only
account for up to 50% of the required number of stems to meet success criteria.
Additionally, using the mountain counties requirement, the average height of the vegetation should be 6 feet
tall at year 5, and average 8 feet tall in year 7. Certain native species, which are appropriate to plant on -site
to provide a diverse vegetation community, do not typically grow to these heights in 7 years and will be
excluded from the height performance standard. For this project, these excluded species include all of the
understory/shrub species presented in Table 6.7. Baker would also like to note that the overstory planting list
contains the slower growing species Quercus phellos (willow oak), Quercus lyrata (overcup oak) and
Diospyros virginiana (persimmon) at a combined total of 25% of the planted stems.
While measuring species density and height is the current accepted methodology for evaluating vegetation
success on mitigation projects, species density and height alone may be inadequate for assessing plant
community health. For this reason, the vegetation monitoring plan may incorporate the evaluation of additional
plant community indices, native volunteer species, and the presence of invasive species vegetation to assess
overall vegetative success.
Required remedial action will be provided on a case -by -case basis, such as: replanting more wet/drought
tolerant species vegetation as appropriate, conducting beaver management/dam removal, and the treatment of
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. Invasive
species will be treated such that they compose no more than 5% of the easement area. 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.
Additionally, herbaceous vegetation, primarily native species grasses, will be seeded/planted throughout the
site. During and immediately following construction activities, all ground cover at the project site must follow
the NC Erosion and Sedimentation Control Ordinance.
8.0 MONITORING PLAN
The monitoring plan for the Whittier Creek Site — Option D project is outlined below in Table 8.1 and describes
the measurable connections between the previously stated goals and objectives to the performance standards
and expected functional uplift. The approximate post -construction monitoring feature locations can be found
in Figure 12.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-3
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Proect No. 100020
Goal
Treatment
Performance
Monitoring
Outcome
Likely Functional
Standards
Metric
Uplift
A dissipation of
Restore
bankfull
Four
damaging high
Reconnect
streams with
events during
s during
Continuous
Increased
flows during flood
stream
appropriate
the 7-year
stage recorders
bankfull events,
events, hydrologic
reaches to
channel
monitoring
used to record
restoring a
improvement of
their
dimensions
period (in
bankfull
more natural
adjacent wetlands,
floodplains.
and raise
separate
events.
flooding regime
and increased
stream bed
years).
. to the system
floodplain access
elevations.
for sediment
storage.
Restored
Restore
streams will
streams with
maintain
A reduction in
appropriate
bank -height-
sediment loss to
dimensions,
ratios of less
Cross section
Stable stream
streams from bank
pattern, and
than 1.2 and
surveys and
banks with
erosion, along with
Improve
profile,
entrenchment
visual
appropriate
the resulting
stream
stabilize
ratios greater
than 2.2 (C
inspections
channel
nutrient loss,
stability.
streambanks,
hype) or 1.4
with
dimensions and
increased woody
provide
(B type),
photographic
sediment
debris and organic
floodplain
provided
documentation.
transport.
material in stream
access, utilize
visual
resulting in
bio-
improved habitat.
inspections
engineering.
also reveal
stabilization.
Install a
variety of in-
Inventory
Increased
stream
comparisons of
number of
structures,
in -stream
pools and
An increase in the
Improve
increasing the
structures and
woody
quantity and
aquatic
debris
woody debri
N/A
N/A
from
structures and
quality of aquatic
habitat.
and the
existing
debris
habitat features for
habitat
number and
conditions and
compared to the
types of pools.
as -built project
and fish.
Reduce
surveys and
existing
sedimentation
assessments.
conditions.
within riffles.
Plant
Interim
At the end of
Improved riparian
appropriate
survival rates
Vegetation
monitoring, a
corridor habitat for
Reestablish
native
of 320
monitoring
vegetated
native species,
forested
hardwood tree
stems/acre at
plots (100 m2
riparian buffer
improved
riparian
and shrub
MY3 and 260
each covering
will be
stabilization of
buffers.
species on
steams/acre at
2% of the total
established at a
stream floodplain
streambanks
MY5, with
planted area).
minimum 30-
(reducing sediment
and in the
final rate of
foot width and
loss), increased
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-4
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.1 Monitoring Plan Overview
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Proect No. 100020
Goal
Treatment
Performance
Monitoring
Outcome
Likely Functional
Standards
Metric
Uplift
riparian buffer
210
at a minimum
woody and organic
at a 30-foot
stems/acre at
210 stems/acre
material in
minimum
MY7.
of native
buffer/stream
width in all
Average
species,
system.
areas within
heights of 6 ft
including
the
at MY5 and 8
volunteers (with
conservation
ft at MY7.
IRT approval).
easement
where
established
native trees
and shrubs do
not exist.
Establish a
Restored
The functional
Visual
streams,
uplift
Permanently
permanent
Conservation
inspections to
wetlands, and
improvements from
protect the
N/A
confirm no
buffers
the project are
project.
Easement
encroachments
protected from
maintained and
(CE) for the
into CE.
damaging
protected in
entire project.
encroachments.
perpetuity.
The as -built / baseline report will be submitted within 90 days of the completion of project construction (to
include complete as -built record drawings with all vegetation planted and monitoring devices installed) and
will follow the NCDMS As -Built Baseline Monitoring Report Format, Data, and Content Requirement (June
2017). The annual monitoring reports will follow the Annual Monitoring Report Format, Data Requirements,
and Content Guidance (June 2017), while the closeout report will follow the Closeout Report Template — ver.
2.2 (January 2016). There will be at least a minimum of 6 months between the submission of the As -Built
Baseline Report and the Year 1 Annual Monitoring Report.
The annual monitoring reports will provide the information defined below within Table 8.2 and will be
submitted to NCDMS by December 1st of the year during which the monitoring was conducted. The
monitoring reports will provide a project data chronology for NCDMS to document the project status and
trends, will assist with the population of NCDMS databases for analysis and research purposes, and will assist
in decision making regarding progress towards a successful 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 as directed by NCDMS and NCIRT.
Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Required
Parameter
Frequency
Number/Locations
Notes
Pattern measurements will be calculated
as part of the as-built/baseline report.
Baseline/As-
Additional pattern data, such as bank
X
Pattern
built (MYO)
Reach R7
erosion pins/arrays, will be collected
only if there are visual indications or
cross section survey data that suggest
si nificant chanes have occurred.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-5
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Table 8.2 Monitoring Requirements and Schedule
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Required
Parameter
Frequency
Number/Locations
Notes
11 cross sections. 5
Cross sections to be monitored over
Monitoring
within Reach R7, 1
seven (7) years and shall include
X
Dimension
Years 1, 2,
on UT4a, 3 on UT4b,
assessment of bank height ratio (BHR)
3, 5 and 7
2 on UT5. See
and entrenchment ratio (ER).
Figure 12
For the Restoration and Enhancement I
X
Longitudinal
Baseline/As-
Reaches R7, UT4a,
components of this project, the entire
Profile
built (MYO)
UT4b, and UT5
channel length will be surveyed as part
of the as -built record drawings.
1 continuous stage
Surface
recorder in Reach R7
The devices will be inspected on a
X
Water
Annually
channel, 1 in UT4b
quarterly/semi-annual basis to document
Hydrology
channel, and 1 in-
the occurrence of flow depth, duration,
stream flow gauge on
and bankfull events on the project.
Reach UT5
4 permanent
vegetation plots will
Monitoring
be established
Vegetation will be monitored using the
X
Vegetation
Years 1 2
throughout the
Carolina Vegetation Survey (CVS)
3 5 and 7 ,
planted area, with 1
protocols. Plots will be 100 m2 in size
'
additional random
and total 2% of the planted area.
plot each year (5
lots total annually)
Locations of exotic and nuisance
Exotic and
Annually
vegetation will be visually assessed,
X
Nuisance
and as
Project wide
photographed, and mapped. These areas
Vegetation
ad
needed
will be treated as needed. Beaver signs
and Animals
and damage will be noted and beaver
will be trap ed if discovered.
Representative photographs will be taken
to capture the state of the restored
Annually
stream, wetland, and vegetated buffer
X
Visual
and as
Project wide
conditions. Stream photos will be
Assessment
needed
preferably taken in the same location
when the vegetation is minimal to
document any areas of concern or to
identify trends.
Project
Complete easement
Locations offence damage, vegetation
X
Boundary
Annually
boundary
damage, boundary encroachments, etc.
will be photographed and mapped.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 8-6
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

9.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of site construction, the post -construction monitoring protocols previously defined in this
document will be implemented. Project maintenance will be performed as previously described in this
document. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site's ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will be notified of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective
Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may require
engineering and consulting services. Once the Plan of Corrective Action is prepared and finalized Michael
Baker will:
1. Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
2. Notify the NCDWR.
3. Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as necessary
and/or required by the USACE.
4. Obtain other permits as necessary.
5. Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
6. Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the extent and
nature of the work performed.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 9-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

10.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN
The NC Department of Environmental Quality's Stewardship Program currently houses DMS stewardship
endowments within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Stewardship Endowment
Account. The use of funds from the Endowment Account is governed by North Carolina General Statute GS
113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used only for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The NCDEQ Stewardship
Program intends to manage the account as a non -wasting endowment. Only interest generated from the
endowment funds will be used to steward the compensatory mitigation sites. Interest funds not used for those
purposes will be re -invested in the Endowment Account to offset losses due to inflation. The site -protection
instrument for the site is included in Appendix B.
The project site will be protected and managed under the agreed upon terms outlined in the recorded
conservation easement. The appropriate signage will be installed to mark the conservation easement
boundary. The long-term manager/steward will be responsible for inspecting the site easement and signage,
and for taking any corrective maintenance actions as needed. The landowner shall contact the long-term
manager/steward regarding any clarification about easement restrictions and is responsible for maintaining all
livestock -excluding fencing and/or permanent crossings. Should land use change in the future, the landowner
will be responsible for the installation and maintain of any additional fencing that might be required to fulfill
the conditions of the conservation easement.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 10-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

ct
� U
ct
U
ct
M [�
ct
ct
N �
r-! U
c H
U
2 i
U
� U
U
„O bA
�a
.o
O �
C4
�Q
U
Q ct
o.�
OC"t
U ct
O
x
U O
rr ll •� C,3
ct
O � �
i-r U
O � N
Ocn"C
O � O
U O LP;
H � �
c
O �
�U
d
on
l
L
O�
CC
�,
h
x
x
°
CC
N
--
00
^O O Qj
cn
M
O
iUi
O
o
w
�
O
z
U � !�
oo
00
O
CW
M
00
00
�
o
U
O
O 0000
O N
o0 N
O 0000
U I
.w
�
O
O�
M
N
U
O
GA a
U
GIJ G% a�
'~ O
00
W
32
c�
Q
C
l
U I
U �
�
y
O
O
^
�"
W
✓
✓
✓
U
V
V
V
�
A
T
O
a
z
O
a
0
z 0
(90
z�
W O J
zwa
(9
zwyz
af W
W J
Yafa
m U O
WWa
2 H 0
U=H

Q
U
un
z
U
�
�
M
O
0
�y
O
Y
I --I
rl
� y
� O
U O
H3a
N
U
cc
oQ
O O
CC
t
" to
C
C
�Q
� O
O
�`1
aka �
� cn
z
O
�aC
a�
a
W
W
W
u
w
on
F*
U
a
x a
U
W
0
a
z
0
a
c�
U�
z 0
00
z
wo—
w
wa
Z.�U-
zU)
af wyz
W J
Yafa
<oz
0
WWa
<F
U=H

12.0 REFERENCES
Arcement, G.J., and V.R. Schneider. 1989. Guide for Selecting Manning's Roughness Coefficients for
Natural Channels and Floodplains. United States Geological Survey Water -Supply Paper 2339.
hLtp://pubs.usgs.gov/wsp/2339/report.pdf
Bryant, Bruce and John C. Reed. 1970. Geology of the Grandfather Mountain Window and Vicinity, North
Carolina and Tennessee. Geological Survey Professional Paper 615. Dept. of the Interior — United
States Geological Survey.
Daniel III, Charles C. and Paul R. Dahlen. 2002. Preliminary Hydrogeologic Assessment and Study Plan for
a Regional Ground -Water Resource Investigation of the Blue Ridge and Piedmont Provinces of North
Carolina (Report 02-4105). Dept. of the Interior — United States Geological Survey.
Daniels et al. 1999. Soils Systems of North Carolina. Technical Bulletin 314. North Carolina State
University, Dept. of Soil Science. Raleigh, NC.
Dunne, T. and L.B. Leopold. 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W.H. Freeman and Company, New
York.
Espenshade, G.H., D.W. Rankin, K. Wier Shaw, and R.B. Neuman. 1975. Geologic Map of the Est Half of
the Winston-Salem Quadrangle, North Carolina -Virginia (Map I-709-B). Dept. of the Interior —
United States Geological Survey.
Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). 2013. Classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the
United States. FGDC-STD-004-2013. Second Edition. Wetlands Subcommittee, Federal Geographic
Data Committee and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Stream Restoration Working Group (FISRWG). 1998 (revised 8/7/01). Stream corridor
restoration: Principles, processes and practices. National Technical Information Service.
Springfield, VA.
Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Comstock, J.A., Schafale, M.P., McNab, W.H., Lenat, D.R., MacPherson, T.F.,
Glover, J.B., and Shelburne, V.B. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina, (color
poster with map, descriptive text, summary tables, and photographs): Reston, Virginia, U.S.
Geological Survey (map scale 1:1,500,000).
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. AWRA
Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings. Edited By: D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy. AWRA
Summer Symposium. Bozeman, MT.
Harman, W., R. Starr, M. Carter, K. Tweedy, M. Clemmons, K. Suggs, C. Miller. 2012. A Function -Based
Framework for Stream Assessment and Restoration Projects. US Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC EPA 843-K-12-006.
Lane, E. W. 1955. Design of stable channels. Transactions of the American Society of Civil Engineers.
Paper No. 2776: 1234-1279.
Lee, M., Peet R., Roberts, S., Wentworth, T. 2008. CVS-DMS Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version
4.2.
Leopold, L.B. 1994. A View of the River. Harvard University Press. Cambridge, MA.
Leopold, L.B. and T. Maddock, Jr. 1953. The Hydraulic Geometry of Stream Channels and Some
Physiographic Implications. Geological Survey Professional Paper 252. US Dept of Interior,
Washington, D.C.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12-1
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Leopold, L. B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P. Miller. 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. San Francisco,
CA. (151).
MRLC. 2011. National Land Cover Database. Available online at: https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd20l I.php.
National Resource Conservation Service (MRCS). 2007. Soil Survey of Surry County, North Carolina.
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north_ carol1na/NC17I/0/Surry_pdf
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA). 2018. Agricultural Applied Climate Information
System (AgACIS) for Surry County. WETS Station Mount Airy 2 W, NC FIP 37171. Website Cited
on April 5, 2018. http://agacis.rcc-acis.org/
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (DWR). 2008. Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Raleigh, NC. Available URL:
https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/plannin /bg asin-planning/water-resource-
plans/yadkin-pee-dee
2010. Methodology for Identification of Intermittent and Perennial Streams and their Origins, Version
4.11. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources. Raleigh,
NC.
Yadkin River Basin Classification Schedule. Viewed Sept. 2019. NC Department of Environmental
Quality. Raleigh, NC. Available at: hiips:Hdeg.nc.gov/river-basin-classlfcation-schedule
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. Reference Reach Database. In publication.
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services. 2013. Ararat -Pilot Mountain Local Watershed Plan —
Watershed Management Plan. NC Department of Environmental Quality. Raleigh, NC.
2009. Upper Yadkin Pee -Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities. NC Department of Environmental
Quality. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Floodplain Mapping Program. 2018. [Online WWW]. Available URL:
www.ncfloodmaps.com Also available as ArcGIS Server feature at:
hl!p://hazards.fema.gov/gis/nflil/services.
North Carolina Geological Survey, 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Geological Survey Section. Scale
1:500,000. Available for download as GIS feature at:
http:Hdata.nconemap.gov/downloads/vector/ eg ol.zip.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Data Explorer North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural
Resources, Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC. September 2017. Data Explorer
(hl!ps://ncnhde.natureserve.org
North Carolina Wetland Functional Assessment Team. 2010. North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method.
v4.1, October 2010.
Rosgen, D. L., 1994. A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology Books, Pagosa Springs, Colo.
2001. A Stream Channel Stability Assessment Methodology. Proceedings of the Seventh Federal
Interagency Sedimentation Conference, Vol. 2, pp. II - 18-26, March 25-29, 2001, Reno, NV:
Subcommittee on Sedimentation.
2006. Watershed Assessment of River Stability and Sediment Supply (WARSSS). Wildland Hydrology
Books, Fort Collins, CO. (648).
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 12-2
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

Schafale, M. P., and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina,
third approximation. North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources, Natural Heritage
Program. Raleigh, NC.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
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.
2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. North Carolina
Interagency Review Team — October 24, 2016. Wilmington District.
2012. Regional Supplement to the Corps ofEngineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountains
and Piedmont Region Version 2.0. ed. J.F. Berkowitz, J.S. Wakeley, R.W. Lichvar, C.V. Noble.
ERDC/EL TR-12-9. Vicksburg, MS: US Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
.2003. Stream Mitigation Guidelines, April 2003, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wilmington District.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2017. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Surry County, NC. Available online at:
hLtp://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cniylist/sIM.html
2017. Official Species List. Whittier Creek, NC. Asheville, NC. ECOS-IPaC website. September 18,
2017. Consultation Code: 04EN1000-2017-SLE-0596.
United States Geological Survey. 2012. The StreamStats web program for North Carolina. Available online
at: hLtps://water.usgs.gov/osw/streamstats/north—carolina.html.
Walker, A. 2012. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve. Unpublished, NRCS. Personal
Communication.
Wolman, W.G., and L.B. Leopold. 1957. River Flood -plains — Some Observations on their Formation. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper 282C: 87-109
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC. PAGE 123
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX A: (FIGURES, MAPS, AND SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DIMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

1►'
77
Michael Baker

r
7A`>
%..,
k
te is ... . within
1, and within the
LWP
+, _ a
Michael Baker
x

' N
r y';
VIM—
tw, IL
•r
its. r '.l�l[ �'\f . •e�' �:
d f.
y
fir A;
fir. �1��r:. �9R�. ✓'�"�� �.-ri��; `�� i
A �¢¢
Beaver Creek Site
'.y V.L.\ ii"" '! F .G„ r.'-�•'�
r
fe
�l
Nq
IN
Ap
• * i - 7 IFO . • o ® • • • • . o o]a[l ]1L+� O�IYLtr91r �l�i'b�i
North Carolina
Michael Baker ' _ _ , , _ _ _ _ _

zQ
`a GJ
7MJ
c E o) �n 00
ci M �
N 0 0 0
� ca
� � L
_ s Q
r'
�'` L �n
It It
D>>
i p
Q
d0
U
� rr
C V
N L-
a
az
a
O
O am
, }}�' o
X 'i LL
Q
co
c O,F
04
N O
O 0 i
i-
ca Q 1
- _ (D Ui
O
r 4-
- N
O t
N �
c
c
0
E
U
c
a>
U)
m
LU
-0
O
O
O
(n
U
(0
—
O C1
J
—
U
E
O
0
c
z
E
O
0
0
o
_0
_0
o
o
U)
O
y
aEi
m 0
O
c
U)
O-6 m
o
U
o
U
_0
m
a> c
o
~
a
O
-0 O a)
f2
O
Q
Z
LU
w
y
0
I
0 ♦
O
�
Z
d

z
.:.
-
CL
fli
l
mCL
rn
NO
'L•i�
-
'1
_ 'O
L
�
c
is
_
N
�o
Q
4a
cY
N
N Q)
0)
CD
•�
ibr
�T•
Svc
�
�
rt
.
o
w
}z
CD
f.
u 0
C j r
m p z
CO
i
-•;c•..
N
CL
L7
p',
f
<
i
f
O�
0
(Y)
=
4i
CD
-
r
-
yltl
N�
CD
CD
rgp
f
c.
•F
0
pip
N Ln00
. "5::r f lgi :• ...
ui
N
a -I
01 00
+�'
> _
U
C)
m
`�
(6
(6
LO
J
ON
N
(U6 N
N N
r
41
�
O.
C E
C
i
a
�
U
m
Q
�
aO-+N
� ....
O.
Z=
U
� �
m
• Z
CA O
CA
w
Na>�
uma
'm�3°
L
,
�
H z

SMS
C4
�
m
LL.
§
�
LO $ Lo
a co � $ a
» \ \
$ r § § 7
c C \ \ 0 0 - {
6 & » 0 * * / CL
\ * E J J 0 f f Q- 0
S \ / / / f 000 °
j $ § § § { G G -0 0
e e e= U) U) o t
2 7 3 -0 -0 f §
# \ m = _ _ — §
$ % 2 7 § § § -0 0 S » Co
E/ 4. e 4 4 4 0 4® d
/®d\jjjj -0/_° r_aa a o
0 0 y y y®
}\�yy
a a a y a a R
e
_= g� o z z z» i i z a
0
C4
L6
7
DLL
D
?
o /
� §
m
D =
q
D
D
D
«
0
\
z
w
/

Z
o
(
Sf
5 =
a) CL
_£
�o
°
&2
£
°
��
0�
/'�o
�2
C2
w
_ %
� k
CU
§
\
0-
)
\
3
7.§
°
co
k v
\
.g S f
/
\20
�k
E
<
fe2
\\j
k\§
04
$§
2_,§0
/$k
v '§ § 2
o8
0 ._ a
§m
�
�
. �
. �
O
�
_
O
-
. i`..�
.. -
swing
`
, z
�_
�_ .�_■ � .
■
_
�

- - r -
z
i
I
ram.: -.. 41 f
Jr
4qpmw a mo _
Ja
U
co
0
to
x
a) Q
O a)
0
C L
-
N rr
U)
fC N
'o
E 0
E U
a) U E
a z
w (o
N O
o
a
CU
> 0—
a) 0 0)
�cu
_�cn
o
U co •0
•L
m
fo E
L
fo L
E • iO (o
U _O
N
i N
++
O
CL
Q
Q a%
L
~ ~ E
0 O U)
z a, a
004
�
N O
r
+ -Mir il-
m
C)
U)
O
4-1
._
O
Z
r
J
a
z
0
a
z
W
F
z

X M 0
c) a
0 (2) 0
N U) o V
a"' � N
E 0 E Eaz
co
� w Co Lc
o cow QUO
cm
0-
0co_ U
0 0)
L C V! i
0-
co 2 N fA
U co 'U tU L
L
CU cu E L as CL
(B 0 o (0 L Gl
• C 0 "O '++
�O
L O a)
Q 0 -o LL
L
O0U)
z0,a
0
# — - -
�o
�4-��
0
�oyz
U 'y 0
0 0 aM a
z
ML
�o
a�
L)
0
4-1
4-1
z
dor
J
� a
z
0
• , a
z
• LU
W
F
z

� � 2
o
E
2 CL
0
w
/ �0 z
/ �a
o _ <
,2 2
� o
/ d7o
2 '�§ p_ Cl)
kk� CO
B Fu M / z �
k
04
$§
0
a
� �§ § 2
z ._ a
§m
�
�
\
S
U-
_
/
§
�
g
� 2
.E
S
a
0
�
. a
� , o
.. -
w
. «
, z
■
_
I--
z

r�
F
a
CD
^o
E
W
C�Q
=0
2 c�
IM
w
�E�
2=,oU
CL
L
CD
cm
°ate c
C
0
f
O O +, O
a m c
U
CO
CD
coo��
o
�CO �d 3
ca.
",�iy
L
a
aaQU
� ++ L
iy 0O
EG
O
N
N O
O t,1 O
O�'��
O
O C COZ
U'y c
O 0 a
z co
0
oU-
c■
0
+ o
o
0
N
1
O
1
y �
5
T-
J
a
z
0
a
z
W
F
z

r�
N 0
N
� !Z
OO
L
� V
R '0-
o U
O a Z
r
t O o
O
= m N �U
Y
04
' N O 4- '
O N O
1 =0a�
O a) a
..... O LL
j. p
�F 7 _
N
f � t' r O
CD
O
(D
:Y
�N •�.
p N 0) _0) -O - J
W ,,use
o) C . O
o c > . � U ��
m 0 o E 0 o'
c E m Cn 0 U
0 m 0 to U)E r c � i
o OL
QZ m o
0 0
U U U w
0 0 ® Z

SMS
c
N �
E cL
w r
C: 0
O+ N
cc O E
m ca))
U
O ai c O
U E Ir w z
cc
i
.moo .aF �•.:�•~
L:
Y.
N
AR
m
rn
ri
00
�
rn
0
m
00
0
r-I
N
^
r4
`V
m
U
r
Os
w
ri
00
p
00
m
r
m
a
U
�A
0000
m
C
7
�
O
m
O
N
LL
O u
C
r, m
2
w
bbn
bn
'= a
o
r
a
O
—
C
LL
G
bA
O
s
Ln
Q
L
W
a0
a
=0
o U
Paz
�a
C 0 Y 3
CL °' y
� L
� L
N L d
O
C
N
U
C3 p
z N
Q
V! p
V p
a�i C ,�
oU a N z
z 0
0 0 0) a
z
O LL
■71 K..w
R
O
* -
(D
_. _.
R
NUrSe
T-
J
a
z
0
a
z
w
H
z

Whittier Creek Cross -Section Graphs
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
1
Riffle
I B4
1 5.49
1 8.05
0.68
1.26
1 11.8
2.2
2.38
92.62
93.17
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
1
Riffle
I B4
1 5.12
1 7.76
0.66
1.6
1 11.76
1.4
1.99
91.89
92.46

Whittier Creek Cross -Section Graphs
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I E4
1 13.96
10.13
1.38
2.21
1 7.34
2.13
2.28
190.65
193.18
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
B BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
G4
9.46
9.51
0.99
1.21
9.6
2.2 1.33 191.15
192.63

Whittier Creek Cross -Section Graphs
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I E4b
1 9.93
1 7.3
1.36
1.6
1 5.37
1.3
2.4
190.23
190.74
Feature
Stream
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
BKF
Depth
Max BKF
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
I G4
1 33.49
1 18.46
1.8
2.2
10.2
3.1
1.19
89.05
93.58
Whittier Creek Site
Cross -Section 6 (R7)
96
95
94
93
92
c91
----------------------------------------
90
w89
----------------------------------
88 -
As -built
87
-- --- Bankfull
86
-- --- Floodprone
85
0 10 20 30
40 50
Station (ft)

Whittier Creek Cross -Section Graphs
Stream
BKF
Max BKF
Feature
Type
BKF Area
BKF Width
Depth
Depth
W/D
BH Ratio
ER
BKF Elev
TOB Elev
Riffle
F4
38.77
21.68
1.79
2.3
1 12.11
3.0
1.11
189.71
194.39

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
�
0
o
H
� N
OD
� N
E
N
N fn
X d
N
N
o N
Ua
a
d c
w O
� aUi
d
a
00
0
O
U
W
O
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WOWOd angelnwno
C
O _
La7 E
H E
00 m N
H U
N
XV
Y O N
N y N
L L
D
w O d
tU
d
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IU03JOd SSPIO
a
L
(
M M (O 00 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
U 'IT 'IT 'IT 'IT (O O N In 'ITO 000 0 O O O O O O
- - �,.� � M M M M m m
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
0
0
0
a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O ca M M N (O N m In N O
UYG U
W
o m M N (O N m M M N (O (O I- In N O
F
N
.-I
0
W
U[° o w w
U � g
Ow
0
0
Vi W W F-I FCi

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
�
O
O
N
M •N
fA N
X V
N
o N
L �
L
R
Ua
a
d
71,
O
tU
d
a
00
0
N
o
U
W
O
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WOWOd angelnwno
C
O
Q 7
_
E
� N
N
O
N
M
U
CO
N
XU
N
N N
N
co
v
U
�
do
a
=U
� y
�m
m
d
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IU03JOd SSBIO
00
0
N
U
x
W
■
0
0
0
N
N
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N
O
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
ON
o
co
0
0
0
O
UYG
ca
N
I�
M
M
(O
(O
(0
N
U
W
(O
V
M
O
o0
M
(O
Ncq
O
F
v
p
7
�O
a.
.N.
N
O
7
.—I
4-i
�O
•ti
N
vi
•�
�i
�i
a
�
hi
m
7
�O
O1
N
oo
.
vi
.
�O
/�
�C
C�
�
0
�
O
oo
�
-�
N
.�
N
m
,�
W
U[°
o
w
w
F
j
W
U
W
W
U
j
j
�
g
Ow
0
0
Vi
W
W
F-I
FCi

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
�
O
O
R �
c0
E
N
La •N
fN N
X V
N
o N
L
Ua
a
o
tU
d
a
0
N
o
U
W
O
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WOWOd anl;elnwno
■
■
0
N
0
U
x
W
■
0
0
0
—
—
(O
"t
Nr
co
0
M
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
W
O
O
GC
In
W
m
00
V
O
UYG
U
�
W
In
M
M
O
rn
ao
c
o
F
4
_
0
W
U
�
g
Ow
0
0
Vi
W
W
F-I
FCi

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
�
O
O
N_
Op
IO N
N_
x
N
U f6
a
a
20
�U
d
d
a
00
0
N
o
U
W
O
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WOWOd anl;elnwno
C
O
7
_
E
E
� •N
N
Op
X R
N
yU
N
co
d �
�
— 0
d
tU
d
d
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
;u03aad SSBIO
00
0
N
U
x
W
■
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
0
0
N
o0
N
M
'IT
M
'IT
M
'IT
M
'IT
IIT
'IT
M
In
CO
CO
O
co
N
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
0
GC
o
0
o
M
0
M
0
V
0
co
0
V
0
0
N
o
M
o
In
O
O
UY
U
W
C
M
M
V
W
V
�
N
M
In
O
F
N
U
CG
.-I
m
N
N
O
O
O
N
N N
O
7
�O
O
N
Vi
7
O
al
00o
V�i
N
4 7
4-i
�O
•ti
N
vi
•�
�i
�i
a
�
hi
m
7
�O
O1
N
oo
vi
�O
/�
�C
C�
�
0
�
O
oo
�
-�
N
•�
N
m
,�
W
U[°
o
w
w
U
�
g
Ow
0
0
Vi
W
W
F-I
FCi

O
O
O
O
O
O
O
C
O
�
O
O
N_
O
n N
N_
X y
(A
a
20
�U
d
d
a
00
0
N
o
U
W
O
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
WOWOd angelmno
00
0
N
0
U
x
W
■
C
O _
7 E
E
� •N N
Op
CO
� N U
x N
yUmm N
i .Nco
V
D
0 d
tU
d
d
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IU03JOd SSBIO
C
O _
7 E
E
� •N N
Op
CO
� N U
x N
yUmm N
i .Nco
V
D
0 d
tU
d
d
a
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
IU03JOd SSBIO
0
0
0
0
(O
0)
a)
a)0��
�
a)
�
���
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
UYG
ca
(O
M
U
W
(O
m
F
v
s°.
oN
o
W
V
m
�O
•ti
N
Vi
•�
�i
�i
a
w
o
0
`O
(V
c�
m
-I
,
7
a
�O
o
O1
00
N
o
o7
w
vi
cc
�C
C�
a
0
O
oo
-�
N
W
U[°
o
w
w
F
j
W
U
W
U
j
j
�
g
Ow
0
0
ma5y
�/1
Vi
W
W
.
1517

Whittier Creek Existing Conditions Photographs
Upper UT5, upstream (8/3/18) Upper UT5 at XS-1, downstream (4/9/18)
Middle UT5, downstream (4/9/18) Lower UT5 at XS-2, upstream (4/9/18)
Lower UT5, upstream (12/12/17)
Lower UT5, downstream (12/12/17)

Whittier Creek Existing Conditions Photographs
Top of UT4a, downstream (12/12/17)
UT4a at XS-5, downstream (4/9/18)
Lower UT4a at bedrock, downstream (12/12/17)
UT4a, upstream (12/12/17)
UT4a, downstream (12/12/17)
Upper UT4b, left bank (12/12/17)

Whittier Creek Existing Conditions Photographs
Upper UT4b, downstream (12/12/17)
Lower UT4b, downstream (4/9/18)
Lower UT4b, downstream (4/9/18)
Middle UT4b, downstream (12/12/17)
Lower UT4b, upstream (4/9/18)
Upper R7, upstream (12/12/17)

Whittier Creek Existing Conditions Photographs
Upper R7, downstream (12/12/17)
Upper R7, downstream (12/12/17)
Middle R7, right bank (12/12/17)
Upper R7, downstream (12/12/17)
Upper R7, upstream (12/12/17)
Middle R7, downstream (12/12/17)

Whittier Creek Existing Conditions Photographs
Lower R7, downstream (4/9/18)
Lower R7, downstream (4/9/18)
Lower R7, downstream (4/9/18)
Lower R7, upstream (4/9/18)
Lower R7, left bank (4/9/18)

APPENDIX B: (SITE PROTECTION INSTRUMENT)
The land required for the construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed below in Table B.I. The conservation easement boundaries are shown in Figure
B.1, and copies of the recorded survey plat are provided below.
Table B.1 Site Protection Instrument Summary
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Parcel
Site
Deed Book
Acreage
Number
Landowners
PIN
County
Protection
and Page
Protected
Instrument
Numbers
Charles D.
Holcomb, Michael
Conservation
Book 1655,
CE-A
G. Holcomb, Elmer
592600804164
Surry
0.67
E. Holcomb, and
Easement
Pages 43-57
Wilma F. Holcomb
Charles D.
Holcomb, Michael
Conservation
Book 1655,
CE-B
G. Holcomb, Elmer
592600804164
Surry
Easement
Pages 43-57
0.57
E. Holcomb, and
Wilma F. Holcomb
Charles D.
Holcomb, Michael
Conservation
Book 1655,
CE-C
G. Holcomb, Elmer
592600804164
Surry
Easement
Pages 43-57
0.34
E. Holcomb, and
Wilma F. Holcomb
Charles D.
Holcomb, Michael
Conservation
Book 1655
CE-D
G. Holcomb, Elmer
592600804164
Surry
1.28
E. Holcomb, and
Easement
Pages 43-57
Wilma F. Holcomb
CE-E
Angela D. Key
592600901044
Surry
Conservation
Book 1655,
0.44
Easement
Pages 58-70
CE-F
Angela D. Key
592600901044
Surry
Conservation
Book 1655,
3,66
Easement
Pages 58-70
A conservation easement has been obtained and recorded from the current landowners for the entire project.
The easement and survey plat was reviewed and approved by NCDMS and State Property Office (SPO) and
is now held by the State of North Carolina. The easements were recorded into Deed Book 1655 Pages 43-70
and the surveyed plat was recorded into Plat Book 35 Page 166 at the Surry County Register of Deeds on
December 20, 2018. The secured conservation easement allows Baker to proceed with the restoration project
and restricts the land use in perpetuity.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

a
... 4Y �. Q
�0 y O
CD
N O
t
0 N IL
i (B 12)
ti.•.. � z � U O
N
V! O
O
LL c0
W c0
W ! g lC O
4—
. O O N C
- M tv pyZ
O p 0) CL
coca
-.e.-.
U
I i1 t
Mo,
-
O U-
O
U LO
U
C)
Ij .: —
o
0
N
O
0 c0
O
c
Q cu -- cu �_
U co
-r:
O
N
t
c�
_
U O O O O O
;`..
O
N
O O D U'
==
O
0 _ _ (�
(6
cB i c0 Ln
O
co
cu U
o
U
m
m
Rya d
a)
U
NUCSe
U)
a
w
z
0
o
�
o
U
~
U)
a
C
o
�
z
U
C
w
H
Z

�O r
U z
���
—_sue
W
FgFzgg
net
az4agF � � o
wa
�
�g
z
# _
�izS. 3
�LL,w'
55 g
m a
g
o o z W a
a g m
a_ o
®.o@
x�ULM
l l
1�1
VF €No 1
�aij�xi �YJ�
"HIE n ��
w°ta� mGgow�<om� LLs '� o �
s� �_ �� ..
z
0
0 z
�
m
s
§Ogq�
is o q sa�P
m =tea w€ g w zg�M o=m
�o�ga�
o�
-xs mg<s� No
ag
z y�
0 0
N0z y ass mmz
ZU
FY •' °w §x z
W
WI-U❑
N 0g¢=
w 3i? pbbJ q4 ..
a�}0J Z S� h bC�i aye � W41W� °
Lo <
r-wTm�$ x aV¢4
?�vt
W W O
0
0 Sty
0 0 LL r m
0
C o
� U
O
3 w
33
3
33333
3w
3
zzz�
z
_z!
mz
z-
zzz
.2z�
zzzzzzz
..
zzzzz
zzz
o
wwwww33
wwww33mw
w3w�;w�ww
m
zymm�+mz
mzzz
zv�mma
zcnmm

APPENDIX C: (CREDIT RELEASE SCHEDULE)
All credit releases will be based on the total credits generated as reported by the as -built survey of the mitigation
site. 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 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
Table C.1 as follows:
Table C.1 Stream Credit Release Schedule
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
Credit
ILF/NCDMS
Interim
Total
Release
Release Activity
Milestone
Release
Released
1
Site Establishment
0%
0%
2
Completion of all initial physical and biological
30%
30%
improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan
3
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
°
10 /°
°
40/°
stable and interim performance standards have been met
4
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
°
10 /°
°
50/°
stable and interim performance standards have been met
5
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
°
10 /°
°
60/°
stable and interim performance standards have been met
*
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
5%
65%
6
stable and interim performance standards have been met
(75%**)
7
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
°
10%
75%
stable and interim performance standards have been met
(85%**)
*
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
°
5 /°
80%
8
stable and interim performance standards have been met
(90%**)
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are
90%
9
stable, and performance standards have been met and
10%
roject has been approved for closeout
(100% )
* Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
ears unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
* * 10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

The following conditions apply to all the credit release schedules:
a. A reserve of 10% of a site's total stream credits will 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 is at the
discretion of the NCIRT.
b. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis, assuming that the
annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with Section IV (General Monitoring
Requirements) of the 2016 Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update, and
that the monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other
concerns have been identified on -site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written approval
from the USACE.
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a determination by
the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in the Mitigation Plan.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX D: (FINANCIAL ASSURANCE)
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the NC Division of Mitigation Services' In -Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality has provided the USACE-
Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by
NCDMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all mitigation projects implemented by the
program.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020,
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX E: (MAINTENANCE PLAN)
The site will be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site will be performed at least
once a year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance standards are met. These
site inspections may identify issues that require routine maintenance. Routine maintenance is most likely to
be expected in the first two years following site construction and may include the following components as
described below in Table E.1:
Table E.1 Routine Maintenance Components
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Mitigation Project — NCDMS Project No. 100020
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 streambank failures and head -cutting until vegetation becomes established.
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 invasive plant species control requiring herbicide application
will be performed in accordance with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and
regulations.
Site Boundary
Site boundaries will be demarcated in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries shall 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.
Fann Road Crossing
The farm road crossings within the site may be maintained only as allowed by the recorded
Conservation Easement, deed restrictions, rights of way, or corridor agreements. Culverts
and fords located at crossings outside of the easement will be maintained for stability and to
maintain flow whenever possible with respect to these restrictions.
Beaver Management
Routine maintenance and repair activities caused by beaver activity may include
supplemental planting, pruning, and dam breeching, dewatering, and/or removal. Beaver
management will be performed in accordance with US Department of Agriculture (USDA)
rules and regulations using accepted trapping and removal techniques only within the project
boundary.
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

APPENDIX F: (DWR STREAM IDENTIFICATION FORMS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

F�l44rN * I
(� UT S
NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 >, vi".,-, pe."j
Date: `'Z �'� { ��
ProjecVSite: t, � [
Latitude: 2(p
Evaluator: V. t
County: 7 f
Longitude: 8 0, Sl 8�
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent { (
Stream Determination (circle
Ephemeral Intermittent erenni
t
Other /N �1
Quad Name:
ifa 19 or perennial if? 30" `
e.g.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = L� - 5 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
,
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
D
z5Z5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
=
Yes = 3
- artiticial Mches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = q. c- )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
Cn
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
U. Bioloav (Subtotal = 1113
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks o
0
1
2
3
22. Fish �,,;hny „�, �� , ,,
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish G t Lti„ �,� .,�
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
0_0
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Pith& =
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:---
// (f
-=--�-�

2rA� UT�(
NC DWO Stream Identification Form VPrcinn 4.11
Date: Q l( Z (1 &
Project/Site: {
Latitude: 2( e . a
Evaluator: S K -
1
County: SJ fi
Longitude: _ ro l �
Total Points: `"
Stream is at least intermittent
3
Stream Determination (circle
Intermittent erennia
Other %� S�
Quad Name:
if? 19 or perennial if 2! 30"
IEphemeral
e.g.
A. Geornor holo (Subtotal = O }
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control ,�,�
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
es = 3
artinciai aucnes are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hvdroloav (Subtotal = 1
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
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?
No = 0
es =
C. Bioloov (Subtotal = 10
2 1 0
Lag 'J.,s�4
sty e s-
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 3
22. Fish 0 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians +J 0.5 1 1.5
25. Algae 0 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Cher = 0
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ((��
RO
Sketch: _� r
"SN! wt
UT L(

APPENDIX G: (NC-SAM AND NC-WAM ASSESSMENT FORMS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM R7 (Whittier Creek)
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): Whittier Creek
3. Applicant/owner name: Baker Engineering
5. County: Surry
7. River basin: Yadkin
Date of evaluation: 4/9/2018
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Ararat River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.3770,-80.5980
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): R7 (Whittier Creek) 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,598
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 21 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑AL 1 ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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
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.
OF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
®G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F CD
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y rC
❑1
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
®D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
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)

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
❑ ❑Stoneflylarvae (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 Whittier Creek Date of Assessment
4/9/2018
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
LOW
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
MEDIUM
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
MEDIUM
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
HIGH
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(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
MEDIUM
(3) Stream -side Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
MEDIUM

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Reach UT4
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): Whittier Creek
3. Applicant/owner name: Baker Engineering
5. County: Surry
7. River basin: Yadkin
Date of evaluation: 4/9/2018
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Ararat River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.3773,-80.5995
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT4 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,101
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑AL 1 ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ❑Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ®Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water —assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
❑B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
®C > 25% of channel unstable

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
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.
OF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
®G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F CD
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
®B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y rC
❑1
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
❑E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
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)

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Whittier Creek Date of Assessment
4/9/2018
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
MEDIUM
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(4) Channel Stability
LOW
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
MEDIUM
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
MEDIUM
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
MEDIUM
(2) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
LOW
(3) In -stream Habitat
HIGH
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
MEDIUM
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM Reach UT5
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): Whittier Creek
3. Applicant/owner name: Baker Engineering
5. County: Surry
7. River basin: Yadkin
Date of evaluation: 4/9/2018
Assessor name/organization:
Nearest named water body
on USGS 7.5-minute quad:
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Ararat River
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 36.3779,-80.5999
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT5 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 765
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2.5 ❑Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 11 13. Is assessment reach a swamp steam? ❑Yes ❑No
14. Feature type: ®Perennial flow ❑Intermittent flow ❑Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM CATEGORY INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ❑ Mountains (M) ® Piedmont (P) ❑ Inner Coastal Plain (1) ❑ Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic ❑AL 1 ®B
valley shape (skip for
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip ❑Size 1 (< 0.1 mi2) ®Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mil) ❑Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mil) ❑Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑Section 10 water ❑Classified Trout Waters ❑Water Supply Watershed (❑l ❑II ❑III ❑IV ❑V)
❑Essential Fish Habitat ❑Primary Nursery Area ❑ High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
❑Publicly owned property ❑NCDWR Riparian buffer rule in effect ❑Nutrient Sensitive Waters
❑Anadromous fish ❑303(d) List ❑CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
❑Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
❑Designated Critical Habitat (list species)
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? ❑Yes ®No
1. Channel Water — assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
®A Water throughout assessment reach.
❑B No flow, water in pools only.
❑C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
❑A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is severely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impoundment on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates, debris jams,
beaver dams).
®B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
®A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
❑B Not
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
®A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming, over
widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of these
disturbances).
❑B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
❑A < 10% of channel unstable
®B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
❑C > 25% of channel unstable

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
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.
OF Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
®G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
❑H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc)
❑I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
❑J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather — watershed metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a drought.
❑A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
❑B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
®C No drought conditions
9. Large or Dangerous Stream — assessment reach metric
❑Yes ®No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types — assessment reach metric
10a. ®Yes ❑No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach)
(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
❑A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
F, W
❑F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F CD
❑G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
❑B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Y
❑H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
Y rC
❑1
Sand bottom
❑C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r
❑J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
❑D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
❑K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
®E
Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. ❑Yes ®No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
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)

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

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

Draft NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Whittier Creek Date of Assessment
4/9/2018
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization
Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NO
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All
Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Flood Flow
LOW
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
LOW
(4) Floodplain Access
HIGH
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
LOW
(4) Microtopography
NA
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Channel Stability
MEDIUM
(4) Sediment Transport
HIGH
(4) Stream Geomorphology
LOW
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
NA
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(1) Water Quality
LOW
(2) Baseflow
HIGH
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
LOW
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Indicators of Stressors
YES
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
MEDIUM
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
NA
(1) Habitat
LOW
(2) In -stream Habitat
MEDIUM
(3) Baseflow
HIGH
(3) Substrate
HIGH
(3) Stream Stability
MEDIUM
(3) In -stream Habitat
LOW
(2) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Stream -side Habitat
LOW
(3) Thermoregulation
LOW
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(3) Flow Restriction
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
NA
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
NA
(2) Intertidal Zone
NA
Overall
LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM W-B and W-C
Accompanies user manual version 5.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Whittier Creek
Date of Evaluation
4/9/2018
Applicant/Owner Name
Baker Engineering
Wetland Site Name
W-B and W-C
Wetland Type
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Scott Kin / Kristi Suggs
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Ararat River
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Surry
NCDWR Region
Winston-Salem
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
36.3791.-80.6009
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ®C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
®C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
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 wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
®C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
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 disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
®Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ❑G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ®H < 5 feet

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

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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W-B, W-C, W-E, and W-F Date of Assessment 4/9/2018
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
LOW
Water Quality
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM W-A and W-D
Accompanies user manual version 5.0
USACE AID #
NCDWR#
Project Name
Whittier Creek
Date of Evaluation
4/9/2018
Applicant/Owner Name
Baker Engineering
Wetland Site Name
W-A and W-D
Wetland Type
Headwater Forest
Assessor Name/Organization
Scott Kin / Kristi Suggs
Level III Ecoregion
Piedmont
Nearest Named Water Body
Ararat River
River Basin
Yadkin -Pee Dee
USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit
03040101
County
Surry
NCDWR Region
Winston-Salem
I-1 Yes M No
Precipitation within 48 hrs?
Latitude/Lonaitude (deci-dearees)
36.3783.-80.5991
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub -surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear -cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations - Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes ❑No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area (PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (AEC) (including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HQW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any? (check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal, check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition —assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface (GS) in the assessment area and vegetation structure (VS) in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable (see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable, then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area (ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire -plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides, salt intrusion [where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity [if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
Surface and Sub -Surface Storage Capacity and Duration — assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration (Surf) and sub -surface storage capacity and duration (Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub -surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially (typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered (typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining, flooding, soil compaction, filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
Water Storage/Surface Relief — assessment area/wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water > 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ❑D Depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure — assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features (concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon < 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon >_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
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 wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
®C ®C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges (pathogen, particulate, or soluble) entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland (water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
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 disturbed.)
❑A >_ 50 feet
❑B From 30 to < 50 feet
❑C From 15 to < 30 feet
®D From 5 to < 15 feet
❑E < 5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water (no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ®No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered — adjacent open water with width < 2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed — adjacent open water with width >_ 2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area — wetland type/wetland complex condition metric (evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area (WT) and
the wetland complex at the assessment area (WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to < 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to < 80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to < 50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to < 40 feet
❑F ❑F From 15 to < 30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to < 15 feet
❑H ❑H < 5 feet

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

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

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name W-A, W-D, W-G, and W-H Date of Assessment 4/9/2018
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization Scott King / Kristi Suggs
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub -function Ratina Summa
Function
Sub -function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Surface Storage and Retention
Condition
LOW
Sub -surface Storage and
Retention
Condition
HIGH
Water Quality
Pathogen Change
Condition
HIGH
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Particulate Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Soluble Change
Condition
MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Physical Change
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Pollution Change
Condition
NA
Condition/Opportunity
NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Ratina Summa
Function
Metrics
Rating
Hydrology
Condition
MEDIUM
Water Quality
Condition
LOW
Condition/Opportunity
HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N)
YES
Habitat
Condition
LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

APPENDIX H: (APPROVED JD AND WETLAND FORMS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID: SAW-2018-00849 County. Surry U.S.G.S. Quad: Mount Airy South
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Property Owner: Scott Mn
Address: 8000 Rel4ency Parkway -_Suite 60.0
Cary, NC 27518
Telephone Number: 919-481-5731
Size (acres): 6 acres Nearest Town: Ararat
Nearest Waterway: Beaver Branch
River Basin/ HUC: Upper Catawba
Coordinates: 36.3779,-80.5999
Location description: 948 Rock Hill Church Rd. Ararat North Carolina
Indicate Which of the Followiniz Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
X There are waters, including wetlands, on the above described project area, that may be subject to Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands, have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently
accurate and reliable. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,
including determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory -mitigation
requirements, and other resource protection -measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat
all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional
waters of the U.S. This preliminary determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program
Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part 331). However, you -nay request an approved JD, which is an
appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
There are wetlands on the above described property, that may be subject to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). However, since the
waters, including wetlands, have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination may not be
used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is merely
an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction overall of the waters, including wetlands, at the project area,
which is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have
the waters of the U.S, on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the
Corps.
B. Approved Determination
There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described property subject to the permit requirements
of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33
USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
There are waters of the U.S, including wetlands on the above described property subject to the permit requirements of
Section 404 of the CIean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
We recommend you have the waters of the U.S. on your property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to
accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation
that can be verified by the Corps.
The waters of the U.S. including wetlands on your project area have been delineated and the delineation has been
verified by the Corps. If you wish to have the delineation surveyed, the Corps can review and verify the survey upon
completion. Once verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA and/or RHA

jurisdiction on your property which, provided there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years.
_ The waters of the U.S. including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat
signed by the Corps Regulatory Official identified below on . Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
_ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our
published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
_ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act
(LAMA). You should contact the Division of Coastal Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US and/or wetlands without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material,
construction or placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the
Army permit may constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). if
you have any questions regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact William Elliott at
828-271-7980, ext. 422S or [e-mail].
C. Basis for Determination:
See attached preliminary jurisdictional determination form.
The site contains wetlands as determined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the
Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual: Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Region (version 2.0). These wetlands are adjacent to stream channels located on the property that exhibit indicators
of ordinary high water marks. The stream channel on the property is an unnamed tributary (UT) to Beaver Branch
which flows into the Upper Catawba River.
D. Remarks: None
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps' Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the
particular site identified in this request. The delineation/determination 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 request a certified wetland determination from the local office of the
Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in
B. above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to
this determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you
will find a Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal
this determination you must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Jason Steele, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria
for appeal under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the
NAP. Should you decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by N/A (Preliminary -JD).

**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this
correspondence.*
Corps Regulatory Official:
William Elliott
Issue Date of JD: June 27, 2018 Expiration Date: NIA Preliminary JD
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 our Customer Satisfaction Survey, located online at
http://comsmqpu.tTsace,arniy.mil/cm apex/P12=136:4:0.
Copy furnished:
Angela Key, 948 Rock Hill Church Road, Ararat NC, 27007,
Wilma & Elmer Holcomb, 172 Jane Sowers Rd, Stateville, NC 28625

Applicant: Scott King ( File Number: SAW-SAW-2018-00849 ( Date: June 27, 2018
Attached is: I See Section below
U
INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
A
❑
PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission)
B
❑
PERMIT DENIAL
C
❑
APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
D
PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
E
�-gv�.3`,'i�^a"
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request that the
permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section 11 of this form and return the form to the district engineer. Your
objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will forfeit your right to appeal
the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your objections and may: (a) modify the
permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your objections, or (c) not modify the permit
having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After evaluating your objections, the district engineer
will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in Section B below.
B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your signature
on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the
permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you
may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form
and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of
this notice.
C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section lI of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer
within 60 days of the date of this notice.
D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION. You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the date of
this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers Administrative
Appeal Process by completing Section 11 of this form and sending the Form to the district engineer. This form must be received by
the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice,
E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the preliminary JD.
The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed), by contacting the Corps
district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the Corps to reevaluate the JD.

s
'�,^ "'`+.-=; "a'.'!s �" �`� �V ,-C� 'YkC.: � 3^� _''i,'a' Y � .4' " ✓,.' Emil
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the record
of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to clarify the
administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record. However, you may
provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative record.
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division,
Mr. Jason Steele, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn: William Elliott
CESAD-PDO
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10MI5
828-271-7980, ext. 4232
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to. -
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn.: William Elliott, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington,
North Carolina 28403
For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, ,South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Jason Steele,
Administrative Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PRELIMINARY JD: June 27, 2018
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PRELIMINARY JD:
Scott King
8000 Regency Parkway - Suite 600
Cary, NC 27518
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
CESAW-RG-A, SAW-2018-00849,
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND 1ACKGROUND INFORMATION:
948 Rock Hill Church Rd. Ararat, North Carolina
State: NC County/parisb/borough: Surry City:.Ararat
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): 36.3779,-80.5999
Universal Transverse Mercator: NIA
Name ofnearestwaterbody: Bull Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY). -
Office (Desk) Determination. Date: June 27, 2018
Field Determination, Date(s): 5/30/2018
Use the table below to document aquatic resources and/or aquatic resources at different sites
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION
Site
Centered Coordinates
Estimated Amount
Type of Aquatic
Geographic
Number
(decimal degrees)
of Aquatic Resource
Resources
Authority to Which
in Review Area
Aquatic Resource
Latitude Longitude
(linear feet or acre)
"May Be" Subject
Wetland
[] Section 404
Non -wetland Waters
Q Section 10/404
Please see tables
attached for
El Wetland
Q Section 404
Aquatic
Ej Nan -wetland Waters
E] Section 10/404
Resources
Wetland
Ej Section 404
Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
Q Wetland
[� Section 404
Q Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
El Wetland
Q Section 404
ED Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
El Wetland
Q Section 404
[[ Non -wetland Waters
0 Section 10/404
Ej Wetland
E] Section 404
Q Non -wetland Waters
Q Section 10/404
Ri

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requester 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 requestor:
Map:Vicinity Map, USGS, Soils, NHD/NWI, UDAR, FEMA, Drainage Areas
on 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: from GIS shapefiles
■❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUG maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: Mt Airy South Quad
FEW Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Surry County, 2007
■❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: from GIS Shapefiles
❑ State/local wetland Inventory map(s):
0 FEMA/FIRM maps: (See FEMA map for FIRM ID number)
■❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: project outside of zone x (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Q Aerial (Name & Date): NCOneMap Orthoimagery, 2014
or F] Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
Other Information (please specify): Surry County LiDAR map, Reach drainage area map
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later lurisdictional
determinations.
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,

O
l�
V

ra -i u,
V N N
N m t.D
ry n a)
w _ n
n o
N Y 00
H V
� �
Q
-0 -0 -o
rD rD m
CD
ro (D rn ro
a a a
a a a
�a x ;;oI
U.) w w
w co cow w w
"' �'Iz "I�
z z z
O O 0
� O �
to Cn l!}
rD rD rD
q Iq Pl
o'
a a a
ra ti �
0 0 0
a � a
O O 0
a a a
rD rD rD
!:t rr rr
ni su w
a n a
CL rz CL
Is
v
GI
R
rD
w
a1
n
y
w
r+
-t
rD
w
c-
h
0
m
c�
a
W
LA
ro
O
C
n
rD
r)
m

\ / E
3 * z ID%
/ CL /
© > &
/ CL 2rD
J ) \ UJ )
/ e E / 7
° y CL® 7
/ 0- ° \
In
) \
& \ @ \ ƒ
° m ± n c
d % = k (A\/\�
h § /
/ k r ®
» _ D- &
\ \ C %
0 2 m
/ / / G
2 / } )
k 2
\ § -
7 / \
\
2ƒ/7
\ / \
0 c
� % e
E m =
q E
f /
\ / /
CL
w /
) ƒ R
E §
* m
M /
2 §
\ �
%
c
0 0 0 01/
E S / / �
e m w « n
)
0
\
\
I
9
I
/
\
CL/
2
�
k
/
Cu
&
E
\
»
2
/
§
0
n
tn
/
/
I
/
/
/
-
-
/
0
s 0
m m m m
2 E 2 « m
e e w w a
E
LU �
w
w
m m
R
@
'r;
w w
« «
w
«
w
w
_
-
& e
o
=
o
m
»
r
n
m
w e
�
#
rD
r+
Ln m
e
o
g
.
0
}
\
\ 00 o
\
\
0
01
G a
y
e■
« o
E o
o
o
E
m
-
r
m m
# »
CD0
o
«
CL
m
» a
#
»
¥
cr
fD
I%j
£
�
CD
n
�
�
2
/
m
0
�
M
�
\
k
_
MW

F
e
•0
°{Q, '.nF
_ _
y
o
r
r
S
y
� �
LL
CC�
6
G
U
i
0 L
Jra.
y
O LL
L
CD
L
J
a
z
a
z
w
z

WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
ProjecUSite: _ r t CitylCounty: ��I �t� ^-mot `1 Sampling Date: 't 1
ApplicantlOwner: %rkiNJ
c .� ___64 ke., state: NC Sampling Point: in/ —
Investigator(s): i ra ru q !!!!!! '''�,,,,'''� Section, Township, Range: /
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): ov 4 ��S cal relief (concave, convex, none): i h� 4v,eo w Slope
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): l Lat: 3G . ,� Long: U . Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: v' NWI classification:
Are climatic I hydrolo is conditions on the site typical for t is time of year? Yes � No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes -1k- 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes � No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes k No
Remarks: /
wI C rS k k a p�srtvrc ur � . AJj
1 i if.0 -�k i1.� p •rd f'. �/�'+�.J� S 1 it
o - de 74 A L. .16 4.e -.. - cL r e efti rl.fC'ia3is. �e LI
Wetland Hydrology indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two ree uired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that aooly)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
_ Surface Water (Al)"' _
_ High Water Table (A2) _
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
X Saturation (A3) _
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
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 (69)
_ Microtopographic Relief (134)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No � Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes No le Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes —)!� No Depth (inches): 3 ``
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes .' No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
04J M 41 C -
.t �i T IR ✓. IL
/r� h ( ►1 t Li .�'�{
r fh.'ty
S P v
sue,, W,
A 14� 1.17
,, IAt�` i'e1�I�h
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: W
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1. That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: r� (A)
2. Total Number of Dominant !
3- Species Across All Strata: II! (B)
6.
50% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: — )
1.
4.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: — }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
= Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: UU (A/B)
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiplyb r:
20% of total cover:
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 =
= Total Cover
20% of total cover: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size- S)
2. �� �,< f PA Cray
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.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Remarks: (tnclude photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
fGA it!>lyi MGfri $v ..
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

SOIL
Sampling Point: W — (
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) % Toe Loc Texture Remarks
I iZ 3 3 f 09 - J 4>A Sv f {
5 10 Y R 5/1 140 3 4D _ _ice M c
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils':
_ Histosol (Al)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
,Y Stratified Layers (A5)
— 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_ Sandy Redox(S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
_ Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
Type:
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
5�J $
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
— Other (Explain in Remarks)
31ndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

bw Pe>,�-t
�-2
` WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region (/ !
ProjecVSite: VN tt(V,- City/County: v (rk Sampling Date: ! !
Applicant/Owner; A, &i..1 Rw14,. Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): ; «; Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): LS IoJVw Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): 4
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): — i Lat: 3 , 3 a Long: �� (oU(�(J Datum: N SPL 1
Soil Map Unit Name: C 0 VA, ,Su ix s C) `� v s S NWI classification: -- J
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (if no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation Y, Soil or Hydrology �� significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes Z 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks:
S�po-� has I i I dl-,�J d ;P51�j �j iy` 454.
cj
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondarxndicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apt)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
High Water Table (A2)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (BB)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
_ Saturation (A3)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living
Roots (C3) _ Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soits (C6) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Drift Deposits (B3)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (CO)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (65)
�f Geomorphic Position (D2)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
_ Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAG -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
h
Water Table Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No
Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:iV^
ff
��tA4�, 4F
fl<
�;�• �� � �,,�,�„�,,, ,
�� � R,.,� -���
�5 sit � ,
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Sampling Point: A _ 2
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Soecies? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAG: (A)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: (B)
Percent of Dominant Species �l
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (AIB)
= Total Cover Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
LIPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A) (B)
5.
50% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
20% of total cover: _ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
_ 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
_ 3 - Prevalence Index is s3.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
f � � Tree —Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. erSl11C 50, (r ar✓ \ 43 C rA , (7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. h v S� Yr& Sapiing — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3._ cJ✓�.a c a Q(� L approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
! r than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
4. 5fs3t _K wet s-
5. Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
R approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
9.
10,
11.
Herb —All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
[ 2 z = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: 2 ��
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
= Total Cover Vegetation
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: Present?
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
ff
ra
Yes I No
ua IATMY Uorps oT tngineers tastem mountains ana rieamont — version 2.1J

SOIL
Sampling Point: � `2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
(inches)
Matrix
Redox Features
Texture Remarks
-as4
Color moist %
Color (moist) % Tvpe Loc
D-�
0 412 /Oo
i6M
`(-- I U
Iv Y 2
G / A
Iy Y-
iUVL q(2
to L _/`1
_�A Azai.j J
{5, Y i,
L
.s
'Type: C=Concentration, D=De letion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Dark Surface (S7)
_ 2 cm Muck (Al0) (MLRA 147)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (Al6)
_ 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 (Al 1)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
— Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ 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):
Remarks:
Hydric Soil present? Yes—L No
Aj
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont —Version 2.0

[Data-3
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site: Lk 41eli �!Lp City/County: IS'lu _ Sampling Date: 4 1 { 8
ApplicantlOwner: { NJ State: NC— Sampling Point:
Investigator(s): 7 Kim SLX4r.1 Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etic�.): Local
ll}relief (concave, convex, none): J tsks6 E,h to K. Slope m:1 p ►�
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): I' 3 Lat: 26, 1�1'+ l Long: - 20- 066 Datum:
Soil Map Unit Name: AS.�u 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 X 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 Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No within a Wetland? Yes —Oe�L No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remarks/ l j[f
9*, a. S i� � y,�� p !t �T S "rl! /�c r s V-.%Q -e IT t,r
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two reauired)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
_ Surface Soil Cracks (136)
— Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (B14)
— Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
High Water Table (A2)
_ Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
Water Marks (131)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table {C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (132)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (CS)
Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_ Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (B5)
_'j� Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (1217)
— Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No Depth (inches):
�
Water Table Present? Yes
No k Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes _-�' No Depth (inches):_
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
,
(
I p
/
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
5.
6.
Data Point
Sampling Point: W-3
Absolute Dominant Indicator Dominance Test worksheet:
% Cover Skies? Status Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A)
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: }
1.
2.
3.
4_
6.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: )
I. 4s4 Iw. f�i rk 5
3.
4.
5.
6.
S- = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size: )
2. Zvyzw r, v �T V— rA
3. i Y
4.
5.
6.
7.
= Total Cover /fir
50% of totai cover: g 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: )
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(AIB)
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 53.0'
_ 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
Tree — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
Sapling — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
Shrub — Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
Herb — All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine — All woody vines, regardless of height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont— Version 2.0

SOIL
Data Point
W-3
Sampling Point:
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth
Matrix
Redox Features
finches) _
Color moist
%
Color (moist) % Tvoe
Loc _ Texture Remo-Eks_
rr
a
5U G
2— e
l v
A ., 4��.-� ...E�,'.k cr ct, `e
ICE L
c.�►, sa-.�.`
'Type C-Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. `Location: 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)
X 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 (Al2)
_ 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)
31ndicators 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 Laver (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
w 4Y�l� �rQ
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
rLj:, 41�� I'd ;:� (0 11
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont -Version 2.0

Data Point
W-4
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s): '' L� gl­
S
Landform (hillslope, terrace, erg.): fnq c�
Subregion (LRR or All — - 114% Lat:
A. _
Soil Map Unit Name: ' v ( f
Are climatic 1 hydrologic conditions on the site typical for
Are Vegetation, Soil , or Hydrology
Are Vegetation Soil , or Hydrology
rty ounty. / Sampling Date:
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site trap showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Now Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No_,V_ within a Wetland? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Remar s:
L /I 14 541—e 4R
G Nil. c S S4 `AZ Gt �
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
— Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_ Surface Water (Al)
_ True Aquatic Plants (1314)
_ Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
_ High Water Table (A2)
— Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
_ Drainage Patterns (1310)
Saturation (A3)
_ Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_ Water Marks (91)
_ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_ Sediment Deposits (62)
_ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
_ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
_ Thin Muck Surface (C7)
, Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_ Algal Mat or Crust (134)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
i Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
_ Iron Deposits (135)
_ Geomorphic Position (D2)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
_ Microtopographic Relief (D4)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
— FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No c Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
Saturation Present? Yes
No k Depth (inches):
No Depth
(inches):
Wetland
Hydrology Present? Yes No
includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
I V v tv,/CiC�JfYrs
ay%4 b
II ��
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont - Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Data Point
W-4
Sampling Point:
Absolute Dominant indicator
dominance Test worksheet:
Tree Stratum (Plot size: — }
°o Cover Species? Status
Number of Dominant Species
1.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A)
2.
Total Number of Dominant
3.
Species Across All Strata:
(B)
4.
Percent of Dominant Species b
5.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
(A/B)
6.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
= Total Cover
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
OBL species x 1 =
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: — )
FACW species x 2 =
1.
FAC species x 3 =
2.
FACU species x 4 =
3.
UPL species x 5 =
4.
Column Totals: (A)
(B)
5
U. Prevaience Index = B/A =
= Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover: 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: — ) —2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1 _ 3 - Prevalence Index is 53.0'
2. 4 - Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
3. data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
_ Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
6. be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
= Total Cover Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
2C> (o of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Htrb Stratum (Plot size:
1. F.tu r
)
�;
��
4C
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. ` `M-,
T
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4. 'T
i
2
Al FA6U
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5. C9p rAt/6n A^4e&�eA
vn; n
2
FAt u
Shrub -Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
R
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
I v K = Total Cover
50% of total cover: 52 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: — )
1.
= Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
rs here or on a separate sheet.)
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
Woody vine -All woody vines, regardless of height.
l'C %mil I ole
i�IL,L (r(� fLL6 r
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No h
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont- Version 2.0

SOIL
to the depth needed to document the indicator or
Depth
(inches)
— �
Matrix
Color moist
j c> s f? 3 3
%
€ ty
_S-�
r
106)
2 - (2-
161 Y Q
l av
Imo? -If
5 Y (2
lad
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Redox Features
Color moist % Tvpe Loc
Data Point
W-4
Sampling Point:
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
f O�Grn r c>r•Z
RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Indicators for Problematic Hydric
_ Histosol (Al)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
_ Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (All)
_ Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR N,
MLRA 147, 148)
— Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
— Sandy Redox(S5)
_ Stripped Matrix (S6)
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
1
Dark Surface (S7)
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (59) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
— Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_, Redox Depressions (F8)
___, Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,
MLRA 136)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 136, 122)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147)
,4�
f/11014A,11r
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
(MLRA 147, 148)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
_ Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
'Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
unless disturbed or problematic.
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont — Version 2.0

APPENDIX L• (APPROVED FHWA CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION FORMS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

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.
Part
Project Name:
1: General Project Information
IWhittier Creek Site - Option D
County Name:
Surry
EEP Number:
100020
Project Sponsor:
FHWA
Project Contact Name:
Jake Byers, PE / Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Address:
797 Haywood Road, Suite 201, Asheville, NC
Project Contact E-mail:
JB ers mbakerintl.com
EEP Project Manager:
I Matthew Reid (matthew.reid(d)ncdenr.aov)
The Whittier Creek Site - Option D is located in Surry County near the town of Dobson, NC in the Ararat
community. The project site is located in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101) and the NC DMS Targeted
Local Watershed (TLW) 03040101110040. The site is located on two abutting parcels just southeast of
the intersection of Rockhill Church Road and Nurse Road.
The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands within the project area have been significantly
impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization used to promote
drainage and maximize agricultural acreage for cattle pastures. The project will involve the restoration
and enhancement of approximately 3,594 linear feet of perennial stream along Whittier Creek and
several UTs to Whittier Creek, which is a tributary to Bull Creek. A conservation easement will be
implemented along all project reaches with riparian buffers extending in an excess of 30 feet from the
top of bank. The conservation easement will protect the entire project area in perpetuity. Livestock
will be permanently excluded from the conservation easement with permanent fencing.
Reviewed By:
Date
Conditional Approved By:
Date
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
EEP Project Manager
For Division Administrator
FHWA
For Division Adrnin
FHWA
6 \/Arcinn I A R/1 RInt;

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
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
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
® N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit 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
® Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
® No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑ No
® N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑ Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
® No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
® N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ 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:
® Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/16/05

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑ Yes
Cherokee Indians? ® 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
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ 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
® Yes
listed for the county?
❑ 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
❑ Yes
Habitat?
® No
❑ N/A
4. Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the specie and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated Critical Habitat?
® 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

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
® No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
® N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
® 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
® Yes
important farmland?
❑ 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
® Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
® Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
® 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
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ 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 Treat 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
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
® N/A
10 Version 1.4, 8/16/05

Whittier Creek Site — Option D / Categorical Exclusion — Summary
Yadkin River Basin — CU# 03040101 — Surry County, NC
NCDMS Project ID No. 100020; NCDEQ Contract No. 007182
Proiect Backeround
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D stream restoration project is proposing to restore, enhance, and protect
approximately 3,594 linear feet of existing perennial streams along Whittier Creek and several UTs to
Whittier Creek in Surry County, NC for the purpose of obtaining stream mitigation credit for the NC
Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands within the
project area have been significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or
channelization used to promote drainage and maximize agricultural acreage for cattle pastures.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) requires agencies to use an interdisciplinary
approach in planning and decision -making for actions that will have an impact on the environment. The
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) have
determined that DMS projects will not involve significant impacts and therefore a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) is the appropriate type of environmental document for this project. FHWA has also determined that
stream restoration projects are considered land disturbing activities; therefore, Parts 2 and 3 of the DMS
CE checklist and a summary of the findings applicable to the environmental regulations associated for this
project are included. Supporting documentation is included in the Appendix.
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR) prepared the following reports: a Radius Map Report on
September 14, 2017. Based on this report, there are two properties on or adjacent to the project site had
been designated as commercial or industrial, John Flinchum's Grocery and Slate Sand Company, Inc.,
respectively.
John Flinchum's Grocery was located less than one-half mile from the project area and housed three on -
site underground storage tanks (UST) for fuel. In 1990, all three tanks were removed and the business was
closed; therefore, this property should not pose any hazardous waste risks to the project site.
The enclosed EDR report listed an active mining site located on one of the project parcels and is operated
by Slate Sand Company, Inc. However, these results did not concur with current county zoning parcel data,
historical aerial reviews, nor previous discussions with the current property owner. Based on these
investigations and discussions, the property in question has always been a zoned as rural and has been an
active farm since its purchase in 2006. Therefore, to verify these findings, Baker contacted Charles Turney,
the Vice President of Slate Sand Company, Inc., on October 2, 2017. On October 3, 2017, replied to our
request for verification about the project parcel stating that Slate Sand Company, Inc. has never done any
mining on the project site or within the surrounding town of Ararat, NC. A copy of this correspondence
and the EDR reports are included in the Appendix.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
DMS requested a review and comment from the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) on any possible
issues that might emerge with respect to architectural or archaeological resources from the restoration
project on August 9, 2017. SHPO's review of the project on August 23, 2017 found no historic resources
that would be affected by the project. All correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Act
Prior to signing the Option Agreement for the Conservation Easement, each property owner of the land
involved in the restoration project was notified that Baker does not have condemnation authority and as to
the fair market value of the land involved. Copies of the Option Agreement are included in the Appendix.
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration Project; DMS Project No. 100020
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) reviewed both the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists of federally protected animal and plant species and found
that the following four species are federally -listed in Surry County.
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
Glyptemys muhlenber ii
Bog Turtle
Threatened Similarity of Appearance (S/A)
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
Isotria medeoloides
Small whorled pogonia
Threatened
Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the NHP's Data Explorer (https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/)
on September 26, 2017 and found no known occurrences of the above referenced species within two miles
of the project site. However, the project is located within Surry County, a Northern long-eared bat (NLEB)
White Nose Syndrome (WNS) zone, and is therefore subject to the USFWS's Final 4(d) rule to maintain
section 7(a)(2) compliance. The following additional supporting documentation has been included for
reference: a Project Vicinity Map, a USGS Topographic Map, and a Project Site Map.
Based on our review, field surveys, and FHWA consultation, Baker has developed the following
determinations for the above referenced species.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) — Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Bog turtles live in the mud, grass and sphagnum mosses found in bogs, swamps, and marshy meadows
usually fed by cool surface springs. There are two distinct populations of the species, a northern population
and a southern population. The southern population which is found in western North Carolina, including
Alexander County, NC is listed as threated due to "similarity of appearance" as stated in the November 4,
1997, 62 FR 59605 59623. Because the southern population has not experienced the habitat loss of the
northern population, the southern population is not subject to Section 7 consultation requirements of the
Endangered Species Act. Therefore, the project will have 'No Effect".
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat)
In North Carolina, the NLEB occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal
plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is
not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern
North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically
>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves
of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant females give birth from late
May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for NLEB.
Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the WNS, the USFWS has issued the finalization of a
special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful
and incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone
and will include the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a
review of NCNHP records did not indicate any known NLEB populations within 2.0 mile of the study area;
therefore, the project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to meet
regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d) consultation.
To meet regulatory requirements, a letter requesting comment from the USFWS was sent on September 26,
2017. No response from the USFWS was received within the 30-day response period. Therefore, the
signing of the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form by the FHWA determines that this project
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration Project; DMS Project No. 100020
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d)
rule. A FHWA signed 4(d) consultation form and the correspondence associated with this determination
are included in the Appendix.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) — Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 6.5 feet in height with
purplish stems and produces small yellow flowers from late August until frost. This species is endemic to
the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, and the few sites where it occurs in relatively natural conditions
consist of Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power
lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland oak -
pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where
disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or
partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other
vegetation. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor,
clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. Because marginal to
suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along field edges and utility easements adjacent to the
project area, Baker conducted a field survey on September 25t1i, 2017. No populations or individuals were
documented during the on -site review; therefore, the project will have 'No Effect" on the species.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) — Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family. It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves
near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish -yellow flower. The plant occurs in
predominantly mature (2"d or 31d successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in the forest canopy. The species prefers
moist, acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to the small whorled pogonia include habitat
loss and degradation from urban expansion, forestry practices, recreational activities, and trampling. The
project site consists of open and active cattle pasture with a narrow line of predominantly first successional
woody vegetation along the top of the stream bank. Existing stream reaches, riparian corridors, and open
fields at the project site have been significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access.
Since habitat suitable for the species is not present within the project area, the project will have "No Effect"
on the species.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
On January 29, 2018, Baker submitted the AD-1006 form for the Whittier Creek Site — Option D to the
North Carolina State Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) Office. The NRCS responded on
January 29, 2018 with the determination that implementation of this restoration project would result in the
conversion of 4.8 acres of prime farmland soils. Baker submitted the completed AD-1006 form to the
NRCS Assistant State Soil Scientist January 29, 2018. The completed AD-1006 form and all
correspondence on this issue is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) and the USFWS on
September 26, 2017 requesting their comment and review on the Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration
Project. As of January 29, 2018, Baker has not received any comments from either the NCWRC or the
USFWS. Copies of all correspondence are included in Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
A letter was sent by Baker to the USFWS on September 26, 2017 requesting their comment and review on
the Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration Project in relation to migratory birds. As of January 29,
2018, Baker has not received any comments from the USFWS on this issue. All correspondence with the
USFWS is included in the Appendix.
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration Project; DMS Project No. 100020
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

APPENDIX
Whittier Creek Site — Option D Restoration Project; DMS Project No. 100020
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
CE Summary

Whittier Creek Site - Option D
Rockhill Church Road / Nurse Road
Ararat, NC 27007
Inquiry Number: 5050221.2s
September 14, 2017
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDW Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBF-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
15
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
GeoCheck - Not Requested
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2017 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5050221.2s

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13) or custom requirements developed for the evaluation of
environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
ROCKHILL CHURCH ROAD / NURSE ROAD
ARARAT, NC 27007
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
36.3789000 - 36' 22' 44.04"
80.6034000 - 80' 36' 12.24"
Zone 17
535573.8
4025846.8
1030 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
Southeast Map:
Version Date:
Southwest Map:
Version Date:
Northwest Map:
Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
6045899 MOUNT AIRY SOUTH, NC
2014
5947737 SILOAM, NC
2013
5947699 COPELAND, NC
2013
5947705 DOBSON, NC
2013
Portions of Photo from: 20140524
Source: USDA
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
ROCKHILL CHURCH ROAD / NURSE ROAD
ARARAT, NC 27007
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
1 SLATE SAND COMPANY I US MINES Lower 1 ft.
JOHN FLINCHUM'S GROC ROUTE 1 UST Higher 754, 0.143, NE
5050221.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA- Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA- Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA- Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCL/S
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST -------------------------- Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
IMD___________________________
Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS_________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER_______
PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
1,411N:TelUkiIQI.[C9k1:&�9NFA:0]1.1N*ffl0&1
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
UST: The Underground Storage Tank database contains registered USTs. USTs are regulated under
Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The data come from the Department of
Environment & Natural Resources' Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database.
A review of the UST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 09/30/2016 has revealed that there is 1 UST
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
site within approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
JOHN FLINCHUM'S GROC ROUTE 1 NE 1/8 - 1/4 (0.143 mi.) 2 12
Tank Status: Removed
Facility Id: 00-0-0000031662
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Other Ascertainable Records
US MINES: Mines Master Index File. The source of this database is the Dept. of Labor, Mine Safety
and Health Administration.
A review of the US MINES list, as provided by EDR, has revealed that there is 1 US MINES site within
approximately 0.25 miles of the target property.
Lower Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
SLATE SAND COMPANY 1 0 - 1/8 (0.000 mi.) 1 8
Database: US MINES, Date of Government Version: 02/08/2017
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5050221.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

OVERVIEW MAP - 5050221.2S
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1/4 1/2 1 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Upgradient Area
100-year flood zone Hazardous Substance
500-year flood zone Disposal Sites
National Wetland Inventory
El State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Whittier Creek Site - Option D CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Rockhill Church Road / Nurse Road CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Ararat NC 27007 INQUIRY #: 5050221.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.3789 / 80.6034 DATE: September 14, 2017 4:15 pm
Copyright �o 2017 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 Tom Tom Rel. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5050221.2S
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
i
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /9 1 /4 1 /2 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
100-year flood zone Disposal Sites
500-year flood zone
National Wetland Inventory
El State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Whittier Creek Site - Option D CLIENT: Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
ADDRESS: Rockhill Church Road / Nurse Road CONTACT: Kristi Suggs
Ararat NC 27007 INQUIRY #: 5050221.2s
LAT/LONG: 36.3789 / 80.6034 DATE: September 14, 2017 4:23 pm
Copyright �o 2017 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 Tom Tom Rel. 2015.

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1
> 1
Plotted
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Proposed NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
NPL LIENS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SEMS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-SQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
RCRA-CESQG 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
Federal institutional controls /
engineering controls registries
LUCIS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US ENG CONTROLS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
US INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Federal ERNS list
ERNS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS 1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
0
State and tribal landfill and/or
solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
OLI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
TC5050221.2s Page 4

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Total
Database (Miles) Property
< 1 /8
1/8- 1 /4
1/4- 1 /2
1/2- 1
> 1
Plotted
LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN LUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
LUST TRUST 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
UST 0.250
0
1
NR
NR
NR
1
AST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
INDIAN UST 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
State and tribal institutional
control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
VCP 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
M QQIN9us] ill Ie10=Iill 191:i67ill lkvil=11ill III ril00**Q0IR
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid
Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
HIST LF 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
INDIAN ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
DEBRIS REGION 9 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
ODI 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
IHS OPEN DUMPS 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
Local Lists of Hazardous waste /
Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
US CDL TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
IMD 0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 90 TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
SPILLS 80 TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
0
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR 0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
0
TC5050221.2s Page 5

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance Target
Database
(Miles) Property
< 1 /8
1/8- 1 /4
1/4- 1 /2
1/2- 1
> 1
FUDS
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
DOD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
SCRD DRYCLEANERS
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
US FIN ASSUR
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
EPA WATCH LIST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
2020 COR ACTION
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
TSCA
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
TRIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
SSTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
ROD
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
RMP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
RAATS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
PRP
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
PADS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
ICIS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
MLTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
COAL ASH DOE
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
COAL ASH EPA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
PCB TRANSFORMER
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
RADINFO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
HIST FTTS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
DOT OPS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
CONSENT
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
INDIAN RESERV
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
FUSRAP
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
UMTRA
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
LEAD SMELTERS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
US AIRS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
US MINES
0.250
1
0
NR
NR
NR
ABANDONED MINES
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
FINDS
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
DOCKET HWC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
ECHO
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
UXO
1.000
0
0
0
0
NR
FUELS PROGRAM
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
COAL ASH
0.500
0
0
0
NR
NR
DRYCLEANERS
0.250
0
0
NR
NR
NR
Financial Assurance
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
NPDES
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
UIC
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR
NR
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP 1.000
EDR Hist Auto 0.125
EDR Hist Cleaner 0.125
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS TP
0 0 0 0 NR
0 NR NR NR NR
0 NR NR NR NR
Total
Plotted
Is
NR NR NR NR NR 0
TC5050221.2s Page 6

MAP FINDINGS SUMMARY
Search
Distance
Target
Total
Database
(Miles)
Property
< 1/8
1/8-1/4
1/4-1/2
1/2 - 1 > 1
Plotted
RGA LF
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR NR
0
RGA LUST
TP
NR
NR
NR
NR NR
0
- Totals --
0
1
1
0
0 0
2
NOTES:
TP = Target Property
NR = Not Requested at this Search Distance
Sites may be listed in more than one database
TC5050221.2s Page 7

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
Site
< 1/8
SURRY (County), NC
1 ft.
US MINES:
Relative:
Mine ID:
Lower
SIC code(s):
Entity name:
Actual:
Company:
996 ft.
Status:
Status date:
Operation Class:
Number of shops:
Number of plants:
Latitude:
Longitude:
MAP FINDINGS
3101989
144200 000000 000000 000000 000000 000000
SLATE SAND
SLATE SAND COMPANY INC
1
20031105
non -Coal Mining
0
0
36 22 44
080 35 57
Violations Details:
Violation Number:
6130886
Date Issued:
12/14/2006
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
12/14/2006
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
60.00
Paid Penalty:
60.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
60.00
Year:
2006
Violation Number:
6130887
Date Issued:
12/14/2006
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
12/27/2006
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
60.00
Paid Penalty:
60.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
60.00
Year:
2006
Violation Number:
6127810
Date Issued:
11/05/2003
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
11/05/2003
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
60
Paid Penalty:
60
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
US MINES 1016953103
N/A
TC5050221.2s Page 8

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
SLATE SAND COMPANY INC (Continued) 1016953103
Assessment Status code: Closed
Assess. Case Status code: Proposed
Assessment Amount: 60
Year: 2003
Violation Number:
6510618
Date Issued:
07/22/2009
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
07/22/2009
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2009
Violation Number:
6510619
Date Issued:
07/22/2009
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
07/23/2009
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2009
Violation Number:
6597163
Date Issued:
06/24/2010
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
07/15/2010
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2010
Violation Number:
6130308
Date Issued:
06/20/2006
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
06/22/2006
Citation/Order:
Citation
TC5050221.2s Page 9

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
SLATE SAND COMPANY INC (Continued) 1016953103
Sig and Sub Designation: Y
Proposed Penalty: 107.00
Paid Penalty: 107.00
Assessment Status code: Closed
Assess. Case Status code: Proposed
Assessment Amount: 107.00
Year: 2006
Violation Number:
6130309
Date Issued:
06/20/2006
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
06/20/2006
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
60.00
Paid Penalty:
60.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
60.00
Year:
2006
Violation Number:
6130307
Date Issued:
06/20/2006
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
06/22/2006
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
Y
Proposed Penalty:
144.00
Paid Penalty:
144.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
144.00
Year:
2006
Violation Number:
8719431
Date Issued:
05/03/2012
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
05/03/2012
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100
Paid Penalty:
100
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100
Year:
2012
Violation Number:
8637505
Date Issued:
04/28/2011
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
TC5050221.2s Page 10

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
SLATE SAND COMPANY INC (Continued) 1016953103
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
04/28/2011
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2011
Violation Number:
6084271
Date Issued:
04/17/2008
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
04/17/2008
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2008
Violation Number:
6105500
Date Issued:
02/09/2009
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
02/23/2009
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2009
Violation Number:
8725619
Date Issued:
01/28/2013
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
02/12/2013
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100
Paid Penalty:
100
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100
Year:
2013
Violation Number: 6516905
TC5050221.2s Page 11

Map ID MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance EDR ID Number
Elevation Site Database(s) EPA ID Number
SLATE SAND COMPANY INC (Continued) 1016953103
Date Issued:
01/19/2011
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
01/19/2011
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
100.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Proposed
Assessment Amount:
100.00
Year:
2011
Violation Number:
8810454
Date Issued:
01/17/2014
Mine Status:
Active
Status Date:
11/05/2003
Action Type:
104(a)
Date Abated:
02/03/2014
Citation/Order:
Citation
Sig and Sub Designation:
N
Proposed Penalty:
100.00
Paid Penalty:
0.00
Assessment Status code:
Closed
Assess. Case Status code:
Vacated
Assessment Amount:
0.00
Year:
2014
2
JOHN FLINCHUM'S GROCERY
UST 0000831449
NE
ROUTE 1
N/A
1/8-1/4
ARARATI, NC 27007
0.143 mi.
754 ft.
Relative:
UST:
Higher
Facility Id:
00-0-0000031662
Contact:
HARRELL OIL CO OF MOUNT AIRY
Actual:
Contact Address1:
PO BOX 1947 / 814-16 FORREST DR
1079 ft.
Contact Address2:
Not reported
Contact City/State/Zip:
MOUNT AIRY, NC 27030-1947
FIPS County Desc:
Surry
Latitude:
0
Longitude:
0
Tank Id:
1
Tank Status:
Removed
Installed Date:
01/01/1964
Perm Close Date:
04/30/1990
Product Key:
3
Product Name:
Gasoline, Gas Mix
Tank Capacity:
550
Root Tank Id:
Not reported
Main Tank:
No
Compartment Tank:
No
Manifold Tank:
Not reported
Commercial:
Yes
Regulated:
Yes
TC5050221.2s Page 12

Map ID
MAP FINDINGS
Direction
Distance
EDR ID Number
Elevation
Site
Database(s) EPA ID Number
JOHN FLINCHUM'S GROCERY
(Continued) 0000831449
Tank Construction:
Single Wall Steel
Piping Construction:
Single Wall Steel
Piping System Key:
Unknown
Other CP Tank:
Not reported
Overfill Protection Key:
1
Overfill Protection Name:
Unknown
Spill Protection Key:
1
Spill Protection Name:
Unknown
Leak Detection Key:
-1
Leak Detection Name:
Unknown
Decode for TCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PSYS KEY:
Unknown
Tank Id:
2
Tank Status:
Removed
Installed Date:
01/01/1964
Perm Close Date:
04/30/1990
Product Key:
3
Product Name:
Gasoline, Gas Mix
Tank Capacity:
550
Root Tank Id:
Not reported
Main Tank:
No
Compartment Tank:
No
Manifold Tank:
Not reported
Commercial:
Yes
Regulated:
Yes
Tank Construction:
Single Wall Steel
Piping Construction:
Single Wall Steel
Piping System Key:
Unknown
Other CP Tank:
Not reported
Overfill Protection Key:
1
Overfill Protection Name:
Unknown
Spill Protection Key:
1
Spill Protection Name:
Unknown
Leak Detection Key:
-1
Leak Detection Name:
Unknown
Decode for TCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PSYS KEY:
Unknown
Tank Id:
3
Tank Status:
Removed
Installed Date:
01/01/1964
Perm Close Date:
04/30/1990
Product Key:
8
Product Name:
Kerosene, Kero Mix
Tank Capacity:
275
Root Tank Id:
Not reported
Main Tank:
No
Compartment Tank:
No
Manifold Tank:
Not reported
Commercial:
Yes
Regulated:
Yes
Tank Construction:
Single Wall Steel
TC5050221.2s Page 13

Map ID
Direction
Distance
Elevation
MAP FINDINGS
Site
JOHN FLINCHUM'S GROCERY (Continued)
Piping Construction:
Single Wall Steel
Piping System Key:
Unknown
Other CP Tank:
Not reported
Overfill Protection Key:
1
Overfill Protection Name:
Unknown
Spill Protection Key:
1
Spill Protection Name:
Unknown
Leak Detection Key:
-1
Leak Detection Name:
Unknown
Decode for TCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PCONS_KEY:
Single Wall Steel
Decode for PSYS KEY:
Unknown
EDR ID Number
Database(s) EPA ID Number
0000831449
TC5050221.2s Page 14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
To maintain currency of the following federal and state databases, EDR contacts the appropriate governmental agency
on a monthly or quarterly basis, as required.
Number of Days to Update: Provides confirmation that EDR is reporting records that have been updated within 90 days
from the date the government agency made the information available to the public.
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL: National Priority List
National Priorities List (Superfund). The NPL is a subset of CERCLIS and identifies over 1,200 sites for priority
cleanup under the Superfund Program. NPL sites may encompass relatively large areas. As such, EDR provides polygon
coverage for over 1,000 NPL site boundaries produced by EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center
(EPIC) and regional EPA offices.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
NPL Site Boundaries
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Sources:
EPA's Environmental Photographic Interpretation Center (EPIC)
Telephone: [phone]
EPA Region 1
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 3
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 4
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 5
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 10
Telephone [phone]
EPA Region 6
Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 7
Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 8
Telephone:[phone]
EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Proposed NPL: Proposed National Priority List Sites
A site that has been proposed for listing on the National Priorities List through the issuance of a proposed rule
in the Federal Register. EPA then accepts public comments on the site, responds to the comments, and places on
the NPL those sites that continue to meet the requirements for listing.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
NPL LIENS: Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Superfund Liens. Under the authority granted the USEPA by CERCLA of 1980, the USEPA has the authority
to file liens against real property in order to recover remedial action expenditures or when the property owner
received notification of potential liability. USEPA compiles a listing of filed notices of Superfund Liens.
Date of Government Version: 10/15/1991
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/02/1994
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/30/1994
Number of Days to Update: 56
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/15/2011
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/28/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC5050221.2s Page GR-1

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL: National Priority List Deletions
The National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (NCP) establishes the criteria that the
EPA uses to delete sites from the NPL. In accordance with 40 CFR 300.425.(e), sites may be deleted from the
NPL where no further response is appropriate.
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Federal CERCLIS list
Source: EPA
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FEDERAL FACILITY: Federal Facility Site Information listing
A listing of National Priority List (NPL) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAG) sites found in the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) Database where EPA Federal Facilities
Restoration and Reuse Office is involved in cleanup activities.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 92
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
SEMS: Superfund Enterprise Management System
SEMS (Superfund Enterprise Management System) tracks hazardous waste sites, potentially hazardous waste sites,
and remedial activities performed in support of EPA's Superfund Program across the United States. The list was
formerly know as CERCLIS, renamed to SEMS by the EPA in 2015. The list contains data on potentially hazardous
waste sites that have been reported to the USEPA by states, municipalities, private companies and private persons,
pursuant to Section 103 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA).
This dataset also contains sites which are either proposed to or on the National Priorities List (NPL) and the
sites which are in the screening and assessment phase for possible inclusion on the NPL.
Date of Government Version: 02/07/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/19/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 16
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
SEMS-ARCHIVE: Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
TC5050221.2s Page GR-2

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SEMS-ARCHIVE (Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive) tracks sites that have no further interest under
the Federal Superfund Program based on available information. The list was formerly known as the CERCLIS-NFRAP,
renamed to SEMS ARCHIVE by the EPA in 2015. EPA may perform a minimal level of assessment work at a site while
it is archived if site conditions change and/or new information becomes available. Archived sites have been removed
and archived from the inventory of SEMS sites. Archived status indicates that, to the best of EPA's knowledge,
assessment at a site has been completed and that EPA has determined no further steps will be taken to list the
site on the National Priorities List (NPL), unless information indicates this decision was not appropriate or
other considerations require a recommendation for listing at a later time. The decision does not necessarily mean
that there is no hazard associated with a given site; it only means that. based upon available information, the
location is not judged to be potential NPL site.
Date of Government Version: 02/07/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/19/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 16
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
CORRACTS: Corrective Action Report
CORRACTS identifies hazardous waste handlers with RCRA corrective action activity.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-TSDF: RCRA - Treatment, Storage and Disposal
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Transporters are individuals or entities that
move hazardous waste from the generator offsite to a facility that can recycle, treat, store, or dispose of the
waste. TSDFs treat, store, or dispose of the waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Federal RCRA generators list
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-LQG: RCRA - Large Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Large quantity generators (LQGs) generate
over 1,000 kilograms (kg) of hazardous waste, or over 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC5050221.2s Page GR-3

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
RCRA-SQG: RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Small quantity generators (SQGs) generate
between 100 kg and 1,000 kg of hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
RCRA-CESQG: RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generators
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Conditionally exempt small quantity generators
(CESQGs) generate less than 100 kg of hazardous waste, or less than 1 kg of acutely hazardous waste per month.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Federal institutional controls /engineering controls registries
LUCIS: Land Use Control Information System
LUCIS contains records of land use control information pertaining to the former Navy Base Realignment and Closure
properties.
Date of Government Version: 12/28/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/04/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93
Source: Department of the Navy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/10/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/27/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US ENG CONTROLS: Engineering Controls Sites List
A listing of sites with engineering controls in place. Engineering controls include various forms of caps, building
foundations, liners, and treatment methods to create pathway elimination for regulated substances to enter environmental
media or effect human health.
Date of Government Version: 02/13/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2017
Number of Days to Update: 101
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/30/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US INST CONTROL: Sites with Institutional Controls
A listing of sites with institutional controls in place. Institutional controls include administrative measures,
such as groundwater use restrictions, construction restrictions, property use restrictions, and post remediation
care requirements intended to prevent exposure to contaminants remaining on site. Deed restrictions are generally
required as part of the institutional controls.
Date of Government Version: 02/13/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2017
Number of Days to Update: 101
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/30/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-4

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Federal ERNS list
ERNS: Emergency Response Notification System
Emergency Response Notification System. ERNS records and stores information on reported releases of oil and hazardous
substances.
Date of Government Version: 09/26/2016 Source: National Response Center, United States Coast Guard
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/11/2016 Last EDR Contact: 06/28/2017
Number of Days to Update: 43 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
HSDS: Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
Locations of uncontrolled and unregulated hazardous waste sites. The file includes sites on the National Priority
List as well as those on the state priority list.
Date of Government Version: 08/09/2011 Source: North Carolina Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/08/2011 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/05/2011 Last EDR Contact: 07/26/2017
Number of Days to Update: 27 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS: Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State Hazardous Waste Sites. State hazardous waste site records are the states' equivalent to CERCLIS. These sites
may or may not already be listed on the federal CERCLIS list. Priority sites planned for cleanup using state funds
(state equivalent of Superfund) are identified along with sites where cleanup will be paid for by potentially
responsible parties. Available information varies by state.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 09/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 81 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF: List of Solid Waste Facilities
Solid Waste Facilities/Landfill Sites. SWF/LF type records typically contain an inventory of solid waste disposal
facilities or landfills in a particular state. Depending on the state, these may be active or inactive facilities
or open dumps that failed to meet RCRA Subtitle D Section 4004 criteria for solid waste landfills or disposal
sites.
Date of Government Version: 11/17/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 06/29/2017
Number of Days to Update: 70 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
OLI: Old Landfill Inventory
Old landfill inventory location information. (Does not include no further action sites and other agency lead
sites).
Date of Government Version: 08/08/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/17/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 04/14/2017
Number of Days to Update: 50 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-5

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST: Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
A listing of leaking aboveground storage tank site locations.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LUST: Regional UST Database
This database contains information obtained from the Regional Offices. It provides a more detailed explanation
of current and historic activity for individual sites, as well as what was previously found in the Incident Management
Database. Sites in this database with Incident Numbers are considered LUSTs.
Date of Government Version: 11/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R5: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
Leaking underground storage tanks located on Indian Land in Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA, Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R1: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
A listing of leaking underground storage tank locations on Indian Land.
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R4: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Florida, Mississippi and North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 98
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN LUST R10: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R9: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Nevada
TC5050221.2s Page GR-6

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/06/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN LUST R6: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in New Mexico and Oklahoma.
Date of Government Version: 10/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R7: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Iowa, Kansas, and Nebraska
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN LUST R8: Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUSTs on Indian land in Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming.
Date of Government Version: 10/17/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LUST TRUST: State Trust Fund Database
This database contains information about claims against the State Trust Funds for reimbursements for expenses
incurred while remediating Leaking USTs.
Date of Government Version: 01/06/2017 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/12/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 07/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 53 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST: Underground Storage Tank Listing
A listing of all FEMA owned underground storage tanks.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/16/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/12/2010
Number of Days to Update: 55
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/14/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UST: Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
Registered Underground Storage Tanks. UST's are regulated under Subtitle I of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA) and must be registered with the state department responsible for administering the UST program. Available
information varies by state program.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-7

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
AST: AST Database
Facilities with aboveground storage tanks that have a capacity greater than 21,000 gallons.
Date of Government Version: 09/26/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/30/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 06/19/2017
Number of Days to Update: 66 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R10: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 10 (Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, Washington, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 10
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R8: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 8 (Colorado, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, Wyoming and 27 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/17/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 8
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
INDIAN UST R7: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 7 (Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and 9 Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 09/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R6: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 6 (Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Texas and 65 Tribes).
Date of Government Version: 10/01/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 6
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R5: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 5 (Michigan, Minnesota and Wisconsin and Tribal Nations).
TC5050221.2s Page GR-8

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 01/14/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 5
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R4: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee
and Tribal Nations)
Date of Government Version: 10/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/27/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 98
Source: EPA Region 4
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
INDIAN UST R1: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 1 (Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Vermont and ten Tribal
Nations).
Date of Government Version: 11/14/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
INDIAN UST R9: Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
The Indian Underground Storage Tank (UST) database provides information about underground storage tanks on Indian
land in EPA Region 9 (Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, the Pacific Islands, and Tribal Nations).
Date of Government Version: 10/06/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/26/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/05/2017
Number of Days to Update: 99
Source: EPA Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL: No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
A land use restricted site is a property where there are limits or requirements on future use of the property
due to varying levels of cleanup possible, practical, or necessary at the site.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 09/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 81 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
INDIAN VCP R7: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Lisitng
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 7.
Date of Government Version: 03/20/2008
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/22/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/19/2008
Number of Days to Update: 27
Source: EPA, Region 7
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/20/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/20/2009
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-9

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
INDIAN VCP R1: Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
A listing of voluntary cleanup priority sites located on Indian Land located in Region 1.
Date of Government Version: 07/27/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/29/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/18/2016
Number of Days to Update: 142
Source: EPA, Region 1
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/27/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
VCP: Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
Responsible Party Voluntary Action site locations.
Date of Government Version: 10/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/15/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 09/13/2017
Number of Days to Update: 83 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS: Brownfields Projects Inventory
A brownfield site is an abandoned, idled, or underused property where the threat of environmental contamination
has hindered its redevelopment. All of the sites in the inventory are working toward a brownfield agreement for
cleanup and liabitliy control.
Date of Government Version: 01/03/2017 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/06/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 59 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS: A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Brownfields are real property, the expansion, redevelopment, or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence
or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant. Cleaning up and reinvesting in these
properties takes development pressures off of undeveloped, open land, and both improves and protects the environment.
Assessment, Cleanup and Redevelopment Exchange System (ACRES) stores information reported by EPA Brownfields
grant recipients on brownfields properties assessed or cleaned up with grant funding as well as information on
Targeted Brownfields Assessments performed by EPA Regions. A listing of ACRES Brownfield sites is obtained from
Cleanups in My Community. Cleanups in My Community provides information on Brownfields properties for which information
is reported back to EPA, as well as areas served by Brownfields grant programs.
Date of Government Version: 03/02/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/02/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/20/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY: Recycling Center Listing
A listing of recycling center locations.
Date of Government Version: 11/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/05/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 05/01/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 08/14/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-10

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
HIST LF: Solid Waste Facility Listing
A listing of solid waste facilities.
Date of Government Version: 11/06/2006 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/13/2007 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/02/2007 Last EDR Contact: 01/19/2009
Number of Days to Update: 17 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
INDIAN ODI: Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
Location of open dumps on Indian land.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/1998
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/03/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/24/2008
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/01/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DEBRIS REGION 9: Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
A listing of illegal dump sites location on the Torres Martinez Indian Reservation located in eastern Riverside
County and northern Imperial County, California.
Date of Government Version: 01/12/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 05/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/21/2009
Number of Days to Update: 137
Source: EPA, Region 9
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
ODI: Open Dump Inventory
An open dump is defined as a disposal facility that does not comply with one or more of the Part 257 or Part 258
Subtitle D Criteria.
Date of Government Version: 06/30/1985
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/09/2004
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/17/2004
Number of Days to Update: 39
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/09/2004
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
IHS OPEN DUMPS: Open Dumps on Indian Land
A listing of all open dumps located on Indian Land in the United States.
Date of Government Version: 04/01/2014 Source: Department of Health & Human Serivices, Indian Health Service
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/06/2014 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015 Last EDR Contact: 08/29/2017
Number of Days to Update: 176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL: National Clandestine Laboratory Register
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations that have been removed from the DEAs National Clandestine Laboratory
Register.
Date of Government Version: 02/09/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/08/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/30/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC5050221.2s Page GR-11

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
US CDL: Clandestine Drug Labs
A listing of clandestine drug lab locations. The U.S. Department of Justice ("the Department") provides this
web site as a public service. It contains addresses of some locations where law enforcement agencies reported
they found chemicals or other items that indicated the presence of either clandestine drug laboratories or dumpsites.
In most cases, the source of the entries is not the Department, and the Department has not verified the entry
and does not guarantee its accuracy. Members of the public must verify the accuracy of all entries by, for example,
contacting local law enforcement and local health departments.
Date of Government Version: 02/09/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/08/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/09/2017
Number of Days to Update: 93
Local Land Records
Source: Drug Enforcement Administration
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/30/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
LIENS 2: CERCLA Lien Information
A Federal CERCLA ('Superfund') lien can exist by operation of law at any site or property at which EPA has spent
Superfund monies. These monies are spent to investigate and address releases and threatened releases of contamination.
CERCLIS provides information as to the identity of these sites and properties.
Date of Government Version: 02/18/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/18/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 37
Records of Emergency Release Reports
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/26/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
HMIRS: Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
Hazardous Materials Incident Report System. HMIRS contains hazardous material spill incidents reported to DOT.
Date of Government Version: 12/28/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 37
Source: U.S. Department of Transportation
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SPILLS: Spills Incident Listing
A listing spills, hazardous material releases, sanitary sewer overflows, wastewater treatment plant bypasses and
upsets, citizen complaints, and any other environmental emergency calls reported to the agency.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/16/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 09/08/2017
Number of Days to Update: 82 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
IMD: Incident Management Database
Groundwater and/or soil contamination incidents
Date of Government Version: 07/21/2006 Source: Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/01/2006 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/23/2006 Last EDR Contact: 07/01/2011
Number of Days to Update: 22 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/17/2011
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 90: SPILLS90 data from FirstSearch
Spills 90 includes those spill and release records available exclusively from FirstSearch databases. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded after 1990. Duplicate records that are
already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 90.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-12

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/27/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
SPILLS 80: SPILLS80 data from FirstSearch
Spills 80 includes those spill and release records available from FirstSearch databases prior to 1990. Typically,
they may include chemical, oil and/or hazardous substance spills recorded before 1990. Duplicate records that
are already included in EDR incident and release records are not included in Spills 80.
Date of Government Version: 06/14/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/03/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2013
Number of Days to Update: 62
Other Ascertainable Records
Source: FirstSearch
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 01/03/2013
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
RCRA NonGen / NLR: RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
RCRAInfo is EPA's comprehensive information system, providing access to data supporting the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments (HSWA) of 1984. The database
includes selective information on sites which generate, transport, store, treat and/or dispose of hazardous waste
as defined by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Non -Generators do not presently generate hazardous
waste.
Date of Government Version: 12/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 44
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
FUDS: Formerly Used Defense Sites
The listing includes locations of Formerly Used Defense Sites properties where the US Army Corps of Engineers
is actively working or will take necessary cleanup actions.
Date of Government Version: 01/31/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/08/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/13/2015
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/25/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DOD: Department of Defense Sites
This data set consists of federally owned or administered lands, administered by the Department of Defense, that
have any area equal to or greater than 640 acres of the United States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/10/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 62
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/12/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FEDLAND: Federal and Indian Lands
Federally and Indian administrated lands of the United States. Lands included are administrated by: Army Corps
of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, National Wild and Scenic River, National Wildlife Refuge, Public Domain Land,
Wilderness, Wilderness Study Area, Wildlife Management Area, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management,
Department of Justice, Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/06/2006
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/11/2007
Number of Days to Update: 339
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/14/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: N/A
TC5050221.2s Page GR-13

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
SCRD DRYCLEANERS: State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
The State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners was established in 1998, with support from the U.S. EPA Office
of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. It is comprised of representatives of states with established
drycleaner remediation programs. Currently the member states are Alabama, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Kansas,
Minnesota, Missouri, North Carolina, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin.
Date of Government Version: 01/01/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/03/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 63
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/27/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US FIN ASSUR: Financial Assurance Information
All owners and operators of facilities that treat, store, or dispose of hazardous waste are required to provide
proof that they will have sufficient funds to pay for the clean up, closure, and post -closure care of their facilities.
Date of Government Version: 02/13/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/15/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 86
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
EPA WATCH LIST: EPA WATCH LIST
EPA maintains a "Watch List' to facilitate dialogue between EPA, state and local environmental agencies on enforcement
matters relating to facilities with alleged violations identified as either significant or high priority. Being
on the Watch List does not mean that the facility has actually violated the law only that an investigation by
EPA or a state or local environmental agency has led those organizations to allege that an unproven violation
has in fact occurred. Being on the Watch List does not represent a higher level of concern regarding the alleged
violations that were detected, but instead indicates cases requiring additional dialogue between EPA, state and
local agencies - primarily because of the length of time the alleged violation has gone unaddressed or unresolved.
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 06/17/2014
Number of Days to Update: 88
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
2020 COR ACTION: 2020 Corrective Action Program List
The EPA has set ambitious goals for the RCRA Corrective Action program by creating the 2020 Corrective Action
Universe. This RCRA cleanup baseline includes facilities expected to need corrective action. The 2020 universe
contains a wide variety of sites. Some properties are heavily contaminated while others were contaminated but
have since been cleaned up. Still others have not been fully investigated yet, and may require little or no remediation.
Inclusion in the 2020 Universe does not necessarily imply failure on the part of a facility to meet its RCRA obligations.
Date of Government Version: 04/22/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/03/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/09/2015
Number of Days to Update: 6
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TSCA: Toxic Substances Control Act
Toxic Substances Control Act. TSCA identifies manufacturers and importers of chemical substances included on the
TSCA Chemical Substance Inventory list. It includes data on the production volume of these substances by plant
site.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2012
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/15/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/29/2015
Number of Days to Update: 14
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/21/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2017
Data Release Frequency: Every 4 Years
TC5050221.2s Page GR-14

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
TRIS: Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
Toxic Release Inventory System. TRIS identifies facilities which release toxic chemicals to the air, water and
land in reportable quantities under SARA Title III Section 313.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 133
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/23/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
SSTS: Section 7 Tracking Systems
Section 7 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act, as amended (92 Stat. 829) requires all
registered pesticide -producing establishments to submit a report to the Environmental Protection Agency by March
1st each year. Each establishment must report the types and amounts of pesticides, active ingredients and devices
being produced, and those having been produced and sold or distributed in the past year.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/10/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/25/2011
Number of Days to Update: 77
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ROD: Records Of Decision
Record of Decision. ROD documents mandate a permanent remedy at an NPL (Superfund) site containing technical
and health information to aid in the cleanup.
Date of Government Version: 11/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/12/2013
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/24/2014
Number of Days to Update: 74
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RMP: Risk Management Plans
When Congress passed the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, it required EPA to publish regulations and guidance
for chemical accident prevention at facilities using extremely hazardous substances. The Risk Management Program
Rule (RMP Rule) was written to implement Section 112(r) of these amendments. The rule, which built upon existing
industry codes and standards, requires companies of all sizes that use certain flammable and toxic substances
to develop a Risk Management Program, which includes a(n): Hazard assessment that details the potential effects
of an accidental release, an accident history of the last five years, and an evaluation of worst -case and alternative
accidental releases; Prevention program that includes safety precautions and maintenance, monitoring, and employee
training measures; and Emergency response program that spells out emergency health care, employee training measures
and procedures for informing the public and response agencies (e.g the fire department) should an accident occur.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/09/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 57
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RAATS: RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
RCRA Administration Action Tracking System. RAATS contains records based on enforcement actions issued under RCRA
pertaining to major violators and includes administrative and civil actions brought by the EPA. For administration
actions after September 30, 1995, data entry in the RAATS database was discontinued. EPA will retain a copy of
the database for historical records. It was necessary to terminate RAATS because a decrease in agency resources
made it impossible to continue to update the information contained in the database.
Date of Government Version: 04/17/1995
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/03/1995
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/07/1995
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 06/02/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 09/01/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
TC5050221.2s Page GR-15

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
PRP: Potentially Responsible Parties
A listing of verified Potentially Responsible Parties
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/17/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 3
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
PADS: PCB Activity Database System
PCB Activity Database. PADS Identifies generators, transporters, commercial storers and/or brokers and disposers
of PCB's who are required to notify the EPA of such activities.
Date of Government Version: 01/20/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/28/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 127
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 04/10/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 07/24/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
ICIS: Integrated Compliance Information System
The Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) supports the information needs of the national enforcement
and compliance program as well as the unique needs of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program.
Date of Government Version: 11/18/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/23/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 79
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
FTTS tracks administrative cases and pesticide enforcement actions and compliance activities related to FIFRA,
TSCA and EPCRA (Emergency Planning and Community Right -to -Know Act). To maintain currency, EDR contacts the
Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009 Source: EPA/Office of Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009 Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017
Number of Days to Update: 25 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FTTS INSP: FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
A listing of FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) inspections and enforcements.
Date of Government Version: 04/09/2009
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/16/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/11/2009
Number of Days to Update: 25
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
MLTS: Material Licensing Tracking System
MLTS is maintained by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and contains a list of approximately 8,100 sites which
possess or use radioactive materials and which are subject to NRC licensing requirements. To maintain currency,
EDR contacts the Agency on a quarterly basis.
Date of Government Version: 08/30/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/08/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/21/2016
Number of Days to Update: 43
Source: Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/01/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
TC5050221.2s Page GR-16

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
COAL ASH DOE: Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
A listing of power plants that store ash in surface ponds.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2009
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/22/2009
Number of Days to Update: 76
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
COAL ASH EPA: Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
A listing of coal combustion residues surface impoundments with high hazard potential ratings.
Date of Government Version: 07/01/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/10/2014
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/20/2014
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 09/08/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
PCB TRANSFORMER: PCB Transformer Registration Database
The database of PCB transformer registrations that includes all PCB registration submittals.
Date of Government Version: 02/01/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/19/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2012
Number of Days to Update: 83
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/28/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/08/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RADINFO: Radiation Information Database
The Radiation Information Database (RADINFO) contains information about facilities that are regulated by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations for radiation and radioactivity.
Date of Government Version: 01/04/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/06/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/12/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
HIST FTTS: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
A complete administrative case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA regions. The
information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation of FI FRA
(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some EPA regions
are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing EPA Headquarters
with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that may not be included
in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2007
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
HIST FTTS INSP: FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Inspection & Enforcement Case Listing
A complete inspection and enforcement case listing from the FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System (FTTS) for all ten EPA
regions. The information was obtained from the National Compliance Database (NCDB). NCDB supports the implementation
of FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act) and TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act). Some
EPA regions are now closing out records. Because of that, and the fact that some EPA regions are not providing
EPA Headquarters with updated records, it was decided to create a HIST FTTS database. It included records that
may not be included in the newer FTTS database updates. This database is no longer updated.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-17

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 10/19/2006
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/01/2007
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/10/2007
Number of Days to Update: 40
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/17/2008
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 03/17/2008
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
DOT OPS: Incident and Accident Data
Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety Incident and Accident data.
Date of Government Version: 07/31/2012 Source: Department of Transporation, Office of Pipeline Safety
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/07/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/18/2012 Last EDR Contact: 08/01/2017
Number of Days to Update: 42 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
CONSENT: Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
Major legal settlements that establish responsibility and standards for cleanup at NPL (Superfund) sites. Released
periodically by United States District Courts after settlement by parties to litigation matters.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Justice, Consent Decree Library
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/18/2016 Telephone: Varies
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017 Last EDR Contact: 06/21/2017
Number of Days to Update: 77 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
BRS: Biennial Reporting System
The Biennial Reporting System is a national system administered by the EPA that collects data on the generation
and management of hazardous waste. BRS captures detailed data from two groups: Large Quantity Generators (LQG)
and Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/24/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/30/2015
Number of Days to Update: 218
Source: EPA/NTIS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/25/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Biennially
INDIAN RESERV: Indian Reservations
This map layer portrays Indian administered lands of the United States that have any area equal to or greater
than 640 acres.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2014
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/14/2015
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 546
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
FUSRAP: Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
DOE established the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program (FUSRAP) in 1974 to remediate sites where
radioactive contamination remained from Manhattan Project and early U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) operations.
Date of Government Version: 12/23/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/27/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/17/2017
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/03/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UMTRA: Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
Uranium ore was mined by private companies for federal government use in national defense programs. When the mills
shut down, large piles of the sand -like material (mill tailings) remain after uranium has been extracted from
the ore. Levels of human exposure to radioactive materials from the piles are low; however, in some cases tailings
were used as construction materials before the potential health hazards of the tailings were recognized.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-18

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2010
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/07/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 146
LEAD SMELTER 1: Lead Smelter Sites
A listing of former lead smelter site locations.
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/05/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: Department of Energy
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/22/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/16/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
LEAD SMELTER 2: Lead Smelter Sites
A list of several hundred sites in the U.S. where secondary lead smelting was done from 1931and 1964. These sites
may pose a threat to public health through ingestion or inhalation of contaminated soil or dust
Date of Government Version: 04/05/2001
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/27/2010
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/02/2010
Number of Days to Update: 36
Source: American Journal of Public Health
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 12/02/2009
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
US AIRS (AFS): Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem (AFS)
The database is a sub -system of Aerometric Information Retrieval System (AIRS). AFS contains compliance data
on air pollution point sources regulated by the U.S. EPA and/or state and local air regulatory agencies. This
information comes from source reports by various stationary sources of air pollution, such as electric power plants,
steel mills, factories, and universities, and provides information about the air pollutants they produce. Action,
air program, air program pollutant, and general level plant data. It is used to track emissions and compliance
data from industrial plants.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 100
US AIRS MINOR: Air Facility System Data
A listing of minor source facilities.
Date of Government Version: 10/12/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/26/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 100
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
US MINES: Mines Master Index File
Contains all mine identification numbers issued for mines active or opened since 1971. The data also includes
violation information.
Date of Government Version: 02/08/2017 Source: Department of Labor, Mine Safety and Health Administration
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/28/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/30/2017
Number of Days to Update: 38 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Semi -Annually
US MINES 2: Ferrous and Nonferrous Metal Mines Database Listing
This map layer includes ferrous (ferrous metal mines are facilities that extract ferrous metals, such as iron
ore or molybdenum) and nonferrous (Nonferrous metal mines are facilities that extract nonferrous metals, such
as gold, silver, copper, zinc, and lead) metal mines in the United States.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-19

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Date of Government Version: 12/05/2005
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/29/2008
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/18/2008
Number of Days to Update: 49
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/01/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
US MINES 3: Active Mines & Mineral Plants Database Listing
Active Mines and Mineral Processing Plant operations for commodities monitored by the Minerals Information Team
of the USGS.
Date of Government Version: 04/14/2011
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/08/2011
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/13/2011
Number of Days to Update: 97
Source: USGS
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/01/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
ABANDONED MINES: Abandoned Mines
An inventory of land and water impacted by past mining (primarily coal mining) is maintained by OSMRE to provide
information needed to implement the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 (SMCRA). The inventory
contains information on the location, type, and extent of AML impacts, as well as, information on the cost associated
with the reclamation of those problems. The inventory is based upon field surveys by State, Tribal, and OSMRE
program officials. It is dynamic to the extent that it is modified as new problems are identified and existing
problems are reclaimed.
Date of Government Version: 03/14/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/17/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/07/2017
Number of Days to Update: 21
Source: Department of Interior
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/07/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FINDS: Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
Facility Index System. FINDS contains both facility information and 'pointers' to other sources that contain more
detail. EDR includes the following FINDS databases in this report: PCS (Permit Compliance System), AIRS (Aerometric
Information Retrieval System), DOCKET (Enforcement Docket used to manage and track information on civil judicial
enforcement cases for all environmental statutes), FURS (Federal Underground Injection Control), C-DOCKET (Criminal
Docket System used to track criminal enforcement actions for all environmental statutes), FFIS (Federal Facilities
Information System), STATE (State Environmental Laws and Statutes), and PADS (PCB Activity Data System).
Date of Government Version: 04/04/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/07/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 35
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
DOCKET HWC: Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
A complete list of the Federal Agency Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Facilities.
Date of Government Version: 06/02/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/03/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 09/02/2016
Number of Days to Update: 91
UXO: Unexploded Ordnance Sites
A listing of unexploded ordnance site locations
Date of Government Version: 10/25/2015
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 01/29/2016
Date Made Active in Reports: 04/05/2016
Number of Days to Update: 67
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/24/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/11/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Source: Department of Defense
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-20

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
ECHO: Enforcement & Compliance History Information
ECHO provides integrated compliance and enforcement information for about 800,000 regulated facilities nationwide.
Date of Government Version: 03/19/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 03/21/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 52
Source: Environmental Protection Agency
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 09/06/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
FUELS PROGRAM: EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
This listing includes facilities that are registered under the Part 80 (Code of Federal Regulations) EPA Fuels
Programs. All companies now are required to submit new and updated registrations.
Date of Government Version: 02/22/2017
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/22/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/12/2017
Number of Days to Update: 79
Source: EPA
Telephone: [phone]
Last EDR Contact: 08/17/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
COAL ASH: Coal Ash Disposal Sites
A listing of coal combustion products distribution permits issued by the Division for the treatment, storage,
transportation, use and disposal of coal combustion products.
Date of Government Version: 12/14/2015 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/23/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/18/2016 Last EDR Contact: 07/31/2017
Number of Days to Update: 85 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
DRYCLEANERS: Drycleaning Sites
Potential and known drycleaning sites, active and abandoned, that the Drycleaning Solvent Cleanup Program has
knowledge of and entered into this database.
Date of Government Version: 04/04/2017 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/20/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 08/10/2017 Last EDR Contact: 06/20/2017
Number of Days to Update: 51 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/02/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
Financial Assurance 1: Financial Assurance Information Listing
A listing of financial assurance information for underground storage tank facilities. Financial assurance is intended
to ensure that resources are available to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures
if the owner or operator of a regulated facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 09/30/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 11/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/06/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 117 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/20/2017
Data Release Frequency: Quarterly
Financial Assurance 2: Financial Assurance Information Listing
Information for solid waste facilities. Financial assurance is intended to ensure that resources are available
to pay for the cost of closure, post -closure care, and corrective measures if the owner or operator of a regulated
facility is unable or unwilling to pay.
Date of Government Version: 10/02/2012 Source: Department of Environmental & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 10/03/2012 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/26/2012 Last EDR Contact: 06/23/2017
Number of Days to Update: 23 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/09/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-21

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Financial Assurance 3: Financial Assurance Information
Hazardous waste financial assurance information.
Date of Government Version: 09/14/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 09/16/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/05/2016 Last EDR Contact: 09/08/2017
Number of Days to Update: 19 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
NPDES: NPDES Facility Location Listing
General information regarding NPDES(National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits.
Date of Government Version: 02/17/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/19/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 05/03/2016 Last EDR Contact: 08/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 74 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
UIC: Underground Injection Wells Listing
A listing of uncerground injection wells locations.
Date of Government Version: 12/07/2016 Source: Department of Environment & Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 12/09/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 03/08/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/31/2017
Number of Days to Update: 89 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/18/2017
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP: EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
The EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plant Database includes records of coal gas plants (manufactured gas plants)
compiled by EDR's researchers. Manufactured gas sites were used in the United States from the 1800's to 1950's
to produce a gas that could be distributed and used as fuel. These plants used whale oil, rosin, coal, or a mixture
of coal, oil, and water that also produced a significant amount of waste. Many of the byproducts of the gas production,
such as coal tar (oily waste containing volatile and non-volatile chemicals), sludges, oils and other compounds
are potentially hazardous to human health and the environment. The byproduct from this process was frequently
disposed of directly at the plant site and can remain or spread slowly, serving as a continuous source of soil
and groundwater contamination.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
EDR Hist Auto: EDR Exclusive Historic Gas Stations
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
gas station/filling station/service station sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited
to those categories of sources that might, in EDR's opinion, include gas station/filling station/service station
establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were not limited to gas, gas station, gasoline station,
filling station, auto, automobile repair, auto service station, service station, etc. This database falls within
a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort presents
unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental concerns,
but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A
Source: EDR, Inc.
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: N/A
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
TC5050221.2s Page GR-22

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
EDR Hist Cleaner: EDR Exclusive Historic Dry Cleaners
EDR has searched selected national collections of business directories and has collected listings of potential
dry cleaner sites that were available to EDR researchers. EDR's review was limited to those categories of sources
that might, in EDR's opinion, include dry cleaning establishments. The categories reviewed included, but were
not limited to dry cleaners, cleaners, laundry, laundromat, cleaning/laundry, wash & dry etc. This database falls
within a category of information EDR classifies as "High Risk Historical Records", or HRHR. EDR's HRHR effort
presents unique and sometimes proprietary data about past sites and operations that typically create environmental
concerns, but may not show up in current government records searches.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: EDR, Inc.
Date Data Arrived at EDR: N/A Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: N/A Last EDR Contact: N/A
Number of Days to Update: N/A Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS: Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste database provides a list of SHWS incidents derived
from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled
from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/24/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 176 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RGA LF: Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Landfill database provides a list of landfills derived from historical databases
and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists. Compiled from Records formerly available
from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 01/13/2014 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 196 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
RGA LUST: Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
The EDR Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank database provides a list of LUST incidents
derived from historical databases and includes many records that no longer appear in current government lists.
Compiled from Records formerly available from the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources in North
Carolina.
Date of Government Version: N/A Source: Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/01/2013 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 12/20/2013 Last EDR Contact: 06/01/2012
Number of Days to Update: 172 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: N/A
Data Release Frequency: Varies
OTHER DATABASE(S)
Depending on the geographic area covered by this report, the data provided in these specialty databases may or may not be
complete. For example, the existence of wetlands information data in a specific report does not mean that all wetlands in the
area covered by the report are included. Moreover, the absence of any reported wetlands information does not necessarily
mean that wetlands do not exist in the area covered by the report.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-23

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
CT MANIFEST: Hazardous Waste Manifest Data
Facility and manifest data. Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through
transporters to a tsd facility.
Date of Government Version: 07/30/2013 Source: Department of Energy & Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 08/19/2013 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 10/03/2013 Last EDR Contact: 08/18/2017
Number of Days to Update: 45 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/27/2017
Data Release Frequency: No Update Planned
NJ MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/11/2017 Telephone: N/A
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/27/2017 Last EDR Contact: 07/10/2017
Number of Days to Update: 107 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/23/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
NY MANIFEST: Facility and Manifest Data
Manifest is a document that lists and tracks hazardous waste from the generator through transporters to a TSD
facility.
Date of Government Version: 01/30/2017 Source: Department of Environmental Conservation
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 02/01/2017 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 02/13/2017 Last EDR Contact: 08/03/2017
Number of Days to Update: 12 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 11/13/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
PA MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2015 Source: Department of Environmental Protection
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 07/22/2016 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 11/22/2016 Last EDR Contact: 07/17/2017
Number of Days to Update: 123 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 10/30/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
RI MANIFEST: Manifest information
Hazardous waste manifest information
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2013 Source: Department of Environmental Management
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 06/19/2015 Telephone: [phone]
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/15/2015 Last EDR Contact: 08/21/2017
Number of Days to Update: 26 Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/04/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
WI MANIFEST: Manifest Information
Hazardous waste manifest information.
Date of Government Version: 12/31/2016
Date Data Arrived at EDR: 04/13/2017
Date Made Active in Reports: 07/14/2017
Number of Days to Update: 92
Source: Department of Natural Resources
Telephone: N/A
Last EDR Contact: 09/11/2017
Next Scheduled EDR Contact: 12/25/2017
Data Release Frequency: Annually
Oil/Gas Pipelines
Source: PennWell Corporation
Petroleum Bundle (Crude Oil, Refined Products, Petrochemicals, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty
Gases (Miscellaneous)) N = Natural Gas Bundle (Natural Gas, Gas Liquids (LPG/NGL), and Specialty Gases
(Miscellaneous)). This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information
is provided on a best effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant
its fitness for any particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
Electric Power Transmission Line Data
Source: PennWell Corporation
This map includes information copyrighted by PennWell Corporation. This information is provided on a best
effort basis and PennWell Corporation does not guarantee its accuracy nor warrant its fitness for any
particular purpose. Such information has been reprinted with the permission of PennWell.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-24

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
Sensitive Receptors: There are individuals deemed sensitive receptors due to their fragile immune systems and special sensitivity
to environmental discharges. These sensitive receptors typically include the elderly, the sick, and children. While the location of all
sensitive receptors cannot be determined, EDR indicates those buildings and facilities - schools, daycares, hospitals, medical centers,
and nursing homes - where individuals who are sensitive receptors are likely to be located.
AHA Hospitals:
Source: American Hospital Association, Inc.
Telephone: [phone]
The database includes a listing of hospitals based on the American Hospital Association's annual survey of hospitals.
Medical Centers: Provider of Services Listing
Source: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Telephone: [phone]
A listing of hospitals with Medicare provider number, produced by Centers of Medicare & Medicaid Services,
a federal agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Nursing Homes
Source: National Institutes of Health
Telephone: [phone]
Information on Medicare and Medicaid certified nursing homes in the United States.
Public Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on elementary
and secondary public education in the United States. It is a comprehensive, annual, national statistical
database of all public elementary and secondary schools and school districts, which contains data that are
comparable across all states.
Private Schools
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Telephone: [phone]
The National Center for Education Statistics' primary database on private school locations in the United States.
Daycare Centers: Child Care Facility List
Source: Department of Health & Human Services
Telephone: [phone]
Flood Zone Data: This data was obtained from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It depicts 100-year and
500-year flood zones as defined by FEMA. It includes the National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) which incorporates Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) data and Q3 data from FEMA in areas not covered by NFHL.
Source: FEMA
Telephone: [phone]
Date of Government Version: 2003, 2015
NWI: National Wetlands Inventory. This data, available in select counties across the country, was obtained by EDR
in 2002, 2005 and 2010 from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
State Wetlands Data: Wetland Inventory
Source: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Telephone: [phone]
Current USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Map
Source: U.S. Geological Survey
TC5050221.2s Page GR-25

GOVERNMENT RECORDS SEARCHED /DATA CURRENCY TRACKING
STREET AND ADDRESS INFORMATION
© 2015 TomTom North America, Inc. All rights reserved. This material is proprietary and the subject of copyright protection
and other intellectual property rights owned by or licensed to Tele Atlas North America, Inc. The use of this material is subject
to the terms of a license agreement. You will be held liable for any unauthorized copying or disclosure of this material.
TC5050221.2s Page GR-26

Suggs, Kristi
From: Charles Turney <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2017 1:18 PM
To: Suggs, Kristi
Subject: Re: Slate Sand Company, Inc. - Location Verification for Sand Mine in Surry County, NC
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
We have never done any mining in Ararat, N.C.
You can not mine a creek with a dredge and pipe line.
Please to not contact us over this again.
Thank You,
Charles Turney VP
Slate Sand Inc.
Office:336-325-2182
Cell:336-374-0769
On Monday, October 2, 2017 2:07 PM, "Suggs, Kristi" <[e-mail]> wrote:
Dear Mr. Turney,
Last week I spoke with Beverly Largen, an employee at Slate Sand Company, Inc., in regards to a
land use data search that I had conducted on properties located within 1-mile of a current stream
restoration project on Whittier Creek, located off Rockhill Church Road in Surry County, NC. Results
from that data search listed the geographic coordinates (36.378889N,-80.599444W) of Slate Sand
Company, Inc. within one of the project parcels. Because these results did not concur with previous
discussions of from the current property owner nor coincide with historical aerial reviews, Baker
decided to contact Slate Sand Company and verify if the geographic coordinates from land use data
search were accurate. Upon discussion with Beverly Largen on 9/25/17, on your behalf, she stated
that Slate Sand Company, Inc. does not currently, nor in the past, has owned or operated the
company off Rockhill Church Road (36.378889N,-80.599444W) in Surry County, NC. In order for
me document this conversation, I am requesting an email reply from you to verify whether or not I
have correctly recorded the results from that conversation. Please confirm/or refute. Thank you very
much for your assistance!
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Kristi Suggs I Environmental Specialist II 1 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. a Michael Baker
International Company
9716-B Rea Road #56 Charlotte NC 28277 [O] 704-665-2206 [C] 704-579-4828
ksuggs(a�mbakerintl.com I www.mbakerintl.com

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Banos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
secretary Susi H. Hamilton
August 23, 2017
Office of Archives and History
Deputy secretary Kevin Cherry
Kimberly Browning [e-mail]
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Re: Whittier Creek Mitigation Site, Surry County, ER 17-1506
Dear Ms. Browning:
Thank you for your letter of August 9, 2017, concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by the
project. Therefore, we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or renee. leg dhill-
[e-mail]-v_. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above -referenced
tracking number.
Sincerely,
QLlu&-"
�r mona M. Banos
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 flail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the "Option") is made and
entered into this ixfl day of Dzc c.✓ cr iem Ag (the "Effective Date"), by and among
(the "Grantor"), and M CHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., a corporation
org nixed in the State of New York with offices at 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201, Asheville, North Carolina
28806 (`Baker").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Surry County, North
Carolina, containing 22.1 Z acres (PIN Sq9 6 - oo — yo -1 * V_�)> more or less, as more particularly
described on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, together with the
improvements thereon and all appurtenances thereto belonging and appertaining, and all creeks, streams,
rights -of -way, roads, streets and ways bounding said real property (collectively the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Baker, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B (the "Easement"), over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, Baker is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland, stream, and/or buffer restoration project over the lands covered by the Easement (the
"Work") in conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Baker has agreed to undertake such Work
with respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, Baker hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) Baker believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the Purchase Price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by Baker in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii)
Baker does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of
(the "Signing Date Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
l . Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto Baker, its successors and assigns, which shall
be limited to a third -party designated by Baker qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under
N.C.G.S. § 121-35(2), the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The term of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
TWENTY-FOUR (24) months after the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless extended by the parties, in
writing. A Memorandum of Option to Purchase Easement in the form attached as Exhibit D shall be
executed by both parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded at Baker's sole discretion and

expense in the county where the Property is located to provide record notice of this Option, in no event
shall this Option be recorded or filed in the public records.
3. Exclusivity of Option. Grantor covenants and agrees that it will take no action to sell or
transfer the Easement during the Term, and that Grantor will not encumber the Property in a manner that
would impair the intended use of the Easement hereunder, it being intended and agreed that the Option is
exclusive to Baker and Baker's successors and assigns.
4. Exercise, of Option. At any time prior to the expiration of the Term, Baker may exercise
this Option by giving Grantor no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of the date Baker desires to
consummate the purchase of the Easement under this Option (the "Closing"). Closing shall take place at a
time and place reasonably acceptable to both parties. The terms of the purchase and sale of the Easement
at Closing shall be as follows:
1. a. Purchase Price. The total Durchase Drice for the Easement shall be
er acre (the "Purchase
Price") included in the Easement as determined by the Survey prepared pursuant to
Paragraph 4(b), below. The Option Deposit shall be credited towards the Purchase Price
at Closing.
2. b. Survey. Prior to Closing, Baker shall obtain, at Baker's expense, a survey prepared
by a registered land surveyor duly licensed in the State of North Carolina showing the
boundary of the Easement as well as all easements, rights -of -way, encroachments and
improvements located thereon, and the exact acreage of the Easement (the "Survey"), and
that Baker shall have consulted with Grantor and taken in to account Grantor's concerns as
to the exact delineation of boundaries of the Easement. Following consultation with
Grantor and the completion of the Survey, a new legal description of the Easement shall
be prepared from the Survey. The new legal description shall be substituted for the
description currently attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all references contained herein to
the "Easement" shall be deemed to refer to the new description prepared from the Survey.
C. Prorations, Costs and Expenses of Closing. At Closing„ ad valorem taxes for the
current year for the Easement area shall be prorated, and Grantor shall remain responsible
for all other ad valorem taxes applicable to the remainder of the Property subsequent to
Closing. At Closing, Grantor shall pay any outstanding ad valorem taxes for prior years
on Grantor's real or personal property, any late list penalties, revenue stamps or transfer
taxes applicable to the Easement, and any mortgages or liens with respect to the Property.
At Closing, Baker shall pay any costs related to the Survey, any title examination expenses,
title insurance premiums, recording costs for the deed conveying the Easement, costs of
recordation of any recorded plats showing the Easement, as well as any engineering or site
plan costs. Each party shall bear its own accounting and attorney fees.
d. Closing Documents and Title. At Closing, Grantor shall deliver (i) a deed
substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit E (the "Deed") conveying the Easement
to Baker or to a legally qualified non-profit organization or government agency as
contained in N.C.G.S. § 121-35(2) designated by Baker, provided, that the final form of the
Deed shall be in form mutually acceptable to Baker and Grantor so long as such form is
consistent with the provisions of Article 4, The Conservation and Historic Preservation
Agreements Act as contained in N.C.G.S. §121-34 through 42. The Deed shall convey
good, marketable and insurable title to the Easement, free and clear from all mortgages,
liens, easements, covenants, restrictions and other encumbrances, except those previously
0

accepted by Baker in writing; (ii) lien affidavits warranting and holding harmless any title
insurance company insuring title to the Easement, from and against unpaid mechanics and
materialmen's liens; and (iv) any other documents and papers necessary or appropriate in
connection with the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Option.
At Closing, Baker shall deliver (i) a Settlement Statement setting forth each party's costs,
expenses, piorations and other financial analysis of the purchase and sale of the Easement
as contemplated hereby; (ii) the Note as defined in item 4(e), below; and (iii) any other
documents necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Option.
e. Payment. It is understood that funding for the purchase of the Easement shall be
provided by the State of North Carolina pursuant to the Division of Mitigation Services of
DEQ and that such funding is made subsequent to recording of the Easement and
subsequent to Closing. Therefore, at Closing, Baker shall deliver to Grantor a promissory
note in the amount of the Purchase Price, less the Option Deposit and closing costs,
mortgage pay-offs, expenses, and prorations applicable to Grantor, which promissory note
shall bear interest at Zero Percent (0%) per annum on the unpaid balance until paid or until
default and which promissory note shall be due and payable in full on the date ninety (90)
days after the Closing (the "Note"). At the time of Closing, Baker shall record the Deed
and any plat referenced in the Deed and deliver copies of the recorded documents to the
State Property Office for review and funding. The Note shall contain an express provision
that if the DEQ fails to fund the purchase of the Easement in the amount of the Purchase
Price thereby causing Baker to fail to pay the Note in full on or before the maturity date,
then Baker, as Grantor's sole remedy, shall be liable to Grantor for all reasonable costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, required to have the Easement removed and
the title to the Property returned to the condition it was prior to the imposition of the
Easement, at which point the Note, this Option, and all duties, responsibilities and liabilities
with respect thereto shall be null and void. Otherwise, Baker shall pay the Note in full
upon receipt of funding by the State of North Carolina.
f. Condition of Property, Intended Use. Prior to Closing, Grantor shall remove all
rubbish and trash, including any hazardous waste or harmful chemical substances, from the
Easement but shall otherwise keep the Property in the same condition as of the Effective
Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Grantor shall prevent and refrain from any use
of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would diminish the value of the
Easement or adversely affect Baker's intended use of the land for the Easement, which use
is to provide the Division of Mitigation Services within DEQ with wetland, stream, and/or
buffer mitigation credits. Grantor acknowledges that Baker will enter into an agreement
with DEQ to provide these credits, and Grantor agrees not to undertake or permit any
activities on the Property that would diminish Baker's ability to obtain such credits. If any
adverse change occurs in the condition of the Easement prior to Closing, whether such
change is caused by Grantor or by forces beyond Grantor's reasonable control, Baker may
elect to (i) refuse to accept the Easement at Closing; (ii) accept the Property at Closing, or
a portion thereof with a corresponding adjustment of the Purchase Price; or (iii) terminate
this Option and the transaction itself and declare this Option null and void.
g. Warranty of Title. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that, as of the
Effective Date and Closing: (i) Grantor is the sole owner(s) of the Property and is seized
of the Property in fee simple absolute; (ii) Grantor has the right and authority to convey
this Option and the Easement and Grantor will hold the grantee of the Easement harmless
from any failure in Grantor's right and authority to convey the Easement, including issues
3

of title; (iii) there is legal access to the Property and to the Easement; (iv) the Easement is
free from any and all encumbrances, except those accepted by Baker in writing; (v) Grantor
will defend title to the Easement against all lawful claims of other parties; (vi) that the
Property is free of any hazardous wastes.
5. Right of Entry and Inspections. Baker, and its agents and employees or other authorized
representatives, may enter upon the Property during the Term for the purpose of making surveys,
conducting soil, engineering, geological and other subsoil or environmental tests to determine the suitability
of the Property for the Easement. Baker shall repair or pay for any damage done to the Property caused
while such tests are being made. Baker shall advise Grantor at least twenty-four hours in advance of any
entry upon the Property for the purposes of surveying, testing or inspecting as set forth herein. Baker shall
be permitted during the Term to obtain land use permits or other approvals relating to any part of the
Easement, and Grantor agrees to execute such documents, petitions, and authorizations as may be
appropriate or required in order to obtain such land use permits and approvals. Grantor shall join with
Baker in applications and any non judicial or non -administrative proceedings to obtain such approvals if
necessary. After Closing, Baker reserves the right to perform periodic inspections of the Easement to ensure
compliance with easement restrictions contained in the Deed. If Baker does not duly exercise this Option
and purchase the Easement, Baker shall return the Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any
investigations undertaken by Baker, its agents, employees or contractors pursuant to this Option.
6. Permanent Access and Construction Easements. In connection with this Option and
delivery of the Easement, Grantor shall also:
(a) convey and grant to Baker, its successors, assigns, contractors and agents, a non-exclusive
temporary construction easement, the location of which shall be determined in the sole discretion
of Grantor, for ingress, egress and regress on, over and upon Grantor's Property, sufficient to
allow Baker, its agents and contractors to construct and restore the Easement area to stream and/or
wetland conditions required by DEQ, said temporary construction easement to include sufficient
access to allow heavy equipment to access the Property and the Easement, as necessary; and
(b) convey and grant to Baker, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive permanent easement
for ingress and egress to the Easement, the location of which shall be determined in the sole
discretion of Grantor, in order that Baker, its successors and assigns, may have a permanent means
of adequately accessing the area covered by the Easement. The permanent access easement
referred to herein shall be set forth in an accurate survey, the legal description of which shall be
included in a recorded permanent access easement which shall run with the land.
7. Indemnification. Baker agrees to indemnify and save harmless Grantor from and against
any loss, claim, damage, cost or expense (including reasonable attorney's fees) suffered or incurred by
Grantor by reason of any injury to person or damage to property on or about the Property to the extent
caused by Baker, its officers, employees, agents, invitees, contractors, or subcontractors entering or
conducting work upon the Property, except for any loss, claim, damage, cost or expense suffered or incurred
as a result of the negligence or intentional misconduct of Grantor or Grantor's employees, agents or
invitees.
8. Notices. Unless otherwise set forth, any notice or other communication required or
permitted hereunder shall be in writing and (a) delivered by overnight courier; (b) sent by facsimile
transmission, or (c) mailed by Registered or Certified Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows (or to
such other address for a party as shall be specified by like notice; provided that notice of change of address
shall be effective only upon receipt thereof);
4

If to Baker: Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
If to the Grantor: A nje-1 t
(,X f 70e 7
9. Miscellaneous.
a. This Option, together with the exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated
herein by reference, contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter contained herein. No amendment, modification, or discharge of this
Option, and no waiver hereunder, shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and
duly executed by the parties hereto.
b. Any provision of this Option that shall be found to be contrary to applicable law
or otherwise unenforceable shall not affect the remaining terms of this Option, which shall
be construed as if the unenforceable provision or clause were absent from this Option.
G. This Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns.
d. This Option shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina without application of its conflicts of laws provisions.
e. No act or failure to act by either party shall be deemed a waiver of its rights
hereunder, and no waiver in any one circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed
a waiver in other circumstances or of other provisions.
f. Grantor agrees to not mow or otherwise damage vegetation within Easement area
after Baker plants or replants the same. If Grantor or Grantor's agents or invitees damage
vegetation within the Easement, Grantor will replace the lost or damaged vegetation at their
expense.
g. Baker shall ensure that access to portions of the Grantor's property shall not be
impeded by the proposed.
j. This Option shall not be assignable by Baker, except to another entity acquiring at
least fifty-one percent (51%) interest in Baker or Baker's business or to an entity qualified
to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S § 121-35
h. &,/�Lr Shari 0) �,rcl V,­,tej►t— d—e--)ze__<1
5

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
GRANTOR:
By:�L-0 Z
Print Name: ANG E& A 1). 'etz
Title:
GRANTOR:
By:
Print Name:
MICHAEL B ENGINEERING, INC.:
By:
Pr' t Name:
Title: �C

OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT
THIS OPTION TO PURCHASE CONSERVATION EASEMENT (the "Option") is made and
entered into this day of (the "Effective Date"), by and among
_Elmer E Holcomb, Wilma F. Holcomb, Charles Dean Holcomb, and Michael Gene Holcomb (the
"Grantor"), and MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC., a corporation organized in the State of New
York with offices at 797 Haywood Rd., Suite 201, Asheville, North Carolina 28806 ("Baker").
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of that certain real property located in Surry County, North
Carolina, containing 24.44 acres (PIN 5926-00-80-4164), more or less, as more particularly described
on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, together with the improvements thereon
and all appurtenances thereto belonging and appertaining, and all creeks, streams, rights -of -way, roads,
streets and ways bounding said real property (collectively the "Property"); and
WHEREAS, Grantor has agreed to convey to Baker, an exclusive right and option to acquire a
conservation easement, as more particularly described on the attached Exhibit B (the "Easement"), over the
Property in accordance with the terms of this Option; and
WHEREAS, Baker is interested in acquiring the Easement in order to develop and construct a full
delivery wetland, stream, and/or buffer restoration project over the lands covered by the Easement (the
"Work") in conjunction with requests for proposals issued under the Division of Mitigation Services
(formerly the Ecosystem Enhancement Program and Wetlands Restoration Program) within the North
Carolina Department of Environmental Quality ("DEQ") and Balser has agreed to undertake such Work
with respect to the Easement in accordance with the scope of work set forth in Exhibit C, attached hereto;
and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970, Baker hereby notifies Grantor that: (i) Baker believes the fair market value of the
Easement is the Purchase Price, pursuant to Paragraph 4(a), together with the value of the environmental
improvements to be made to the Easement by Baker in performing the Work on the Easement; and (ii)
Baker does not possess the power of eminent domain;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the sum of (the
"Signing Date Option Deposit") and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency
of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Grant of Option. Grantor hereby grants unto Baker, its successors and assigns, which shall
be limited to a third -party designated by Baker qualified to be the grantee of a conservation easement under
N.C.G.S. §121-35(2), the exclusive right and option to purchase the Easement in accordance with and
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Option.
2. Term. The term of this Option shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire
TWENTY-FOUR (24) months after the Effective Date (the "Term"), unless extended by the parties, in
writing. A Memorandum of Option to Purchase Easement in the form attached as Exhibit D shall be
executed by both parties simultaneously with this Option and recorded at Baker's sole discretion and

expense in the county where the Property is located to provide record notice of this Option. In no event
shall this Option be recorded or filed in the public records.
3. Exclusivity of Option. Grantor covenants and agrees that it will take no action to sell or
transfer the Easement during the Term, and that Grantor will not encumber the Property in a manner that
would impair the intended use of the Easement hereunder, it being intended and agreed that the Option is
exclusive to Baker and Baker's successors and assigns.
4. Exercise of Option. At any time prior to the expiration of the Term, Baker may exercise
this Option by giving Grantor no less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of the date Baiter desires to
consummate the purchase of the Easement under this Option (the "Closing"). Closing shall take place at a
time and place reasonably acceptable to both parties. The terms of the purchase and sale of the Easement
at Closing shall be as follows:
1. a. Purchase Price. The total urchase price for the Easement shall be
per acre (the "Purchase Price") included in
the Easement as determined by the Survey prepared pursuant to Paragraph 4(b), below.
The Option Deposit shall be credited towards the Purchase Price at CIosing.
2. b. Survey. Prior to Closing, Baker shall obtain, at Baker's expense, a survey prepared
by a registered land surveyor duly licensed in the State of North Carolina showing the
boundary of the Easement as well as all easements, rights -of -way, encroachments and
improvements located thereon, and the exact acreage of the Easement (the "Survey"), and
that Baker shall have consulted with Grantor and taken in to account Grantor's concerns as
to the exact delineation of boundaries of the Easement. Following consultation with
Grantor and the completion of the Survey, a new legal description of the Easement shall
be prepared from the Survey. The new legal description shall be substituted for the
description currently attached hereto as Exhibit B, and all references contained herein to
the "Easement" shall be deemed to refer to the new description prepared from the Survey.
C. Prorations, Costs and Expenses of Closing. At Closing, ad valorem taxes for the
current year for the Easement area shall be prorated, and Grantor shall remain responsible
for all other ad valorem taxes applicable to the remainder of the Property subsequent to
Closing. At Closing, Grantor shall pay any outstanding ad valorem taxes for prior years
on Grantor's real or personaI property, any late list penalties, revenue stamps or transfer
taxes applicable to the Easement, and any mortgages or Iiens with respect to the Property.
At Closing, Baker shall pay any costs related to the Survey, any title examination expenses,
title insurance premiums, recording costs for the deed conveying the Easement, costs of
recordation of any recorded plats showing the Easement, as well as any engineering or site
plan costs. Each party shall bear its own accounting and attorney fees.
d. Closiniz Documents and Title. At Closing, Grantor shall deliver (i) a deed
substantially in the form of the attached Exhibit E (the "Deed") conveying the Easement
to Baker or to a legally qualified non-profit organization or government agency as
contained in N.C.G.S. §121-35(2) designated by Baker, provided, that the final form of the
Deed shall be in form mutually acceptable to Baker and Grantor so long as such form is
consistent with the provisions of Article 4, The Conservation and Historic Preservation
Agreements Act as contained in N.C.G.S. §121-34 through 42. The Deed shall convey
good, marketable and insurable title to the Easement, free and clear from all mortgages,
liens, easements, covenants, restrictions and other encumbrances, except those previously
accepted by Baker in writing; (ii) lien affidavits warranting and holding harmless any title

insurance company insuring title to the Easement, from and against unpaid mechanics and
materialmen's liens; and (iv) any other documents and papers necessary or appropriate in
connection with the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this Option.
At Closing, Baker shall deliver (i) a Settlement Statement setting forth each party's costs,
expenses, prorations and other financial analysis of the purchase and sale of the Easement
as contemplated hereby; (ii) the Note as defined in item 4(e), below; and (iii) any other
documents necessary to consummate the transaction contemplated by the Option.
C. Payment. It is understood that funding for the purchase of the Easement shall be
provided by the State of North Carolina pursuant to the Division of Mitigation Services of
DEQ and that such funding is made subsequent to recording of the Easement and
subsequent to Closing. Therefore, at Closing, Baker shall deliver to Grantor a promissory
note in the amount of the Purchase Price, less the Option Deposit and closing costs,
mortgage pay-offs, expenses, and prorations applicable to Grantor, which promissory note
shall bear interest at Zero Percent (0%) per annum on the unpaid balance until paid or until
default and which promissory note shall be due and payable in full on the date ninety (90)
days after the Closing (the "Note"). At the time of Closing, Baker shall record the Deed
and any plat referenced in the Deed and deliver copies of the recorded documents to the
State Property Office for review and funding. The Note shall contain an express provision
that if the DEQ fails to fund the purchase of the Easement in the amount of the Purchase
Price thereby causing Baker to fail to pay the Note in full on or before the maturity date,
then Baker, as Grantor's sole remedy, shall be liable to Grantor for all reasonable costs and
expenses, including reasonable attorney fees, required to have the Easement removed and
the title to the Property returned to the condition it was prior to the imposition of the
Easement, at which point the Note, this Option, and all duties, responsibilities and liabilities
with respect thereto shall be null and void. Otherwise, Baker shall pay the Note in full
upon receipt of funding by the State of North Carolina.
f. Condition of Property, Intended Use. Prior to Closing, Grantor shall remove all
rubbish and trash, including any hazardous waste or harmful chemical substances, from the
Easement but shall otherwise keep the Property in the same condition as of the Effective
Date, reasonable wear and tear excepted. Grantor shall prevent and refrain from any use
of the Property for any purpose or in any manner that would diminish the value of the
Easement or adversely affect Baker's intended use of the land for the Easement, which use
is to provide the Division of Mitigation Services within DEQ with wetland, stream, and/or
buffer mitigation credits. Grantor acknowledges that Baker will enter into an agreement
with DEQ to provide these credits, and Grantor agrees not to undertake or permit any
activities on the Property that would diminish Baker's ability to obtain such credits. If any
adverse change occurs in the condition of the Easement prior to Closing, whether such
change is caused by Grantor or by forces beyond Grantor's reasonable control, Baker may
elect to (i) refuse to accept the Easement at Closing; (ii) accept the Property at Closing, or
a portion thereof with a corresponding adjustment of the Purchase Price; or (iii) terminate
this Option and the transaction itself and declare this Option null and void.
g. Warranty of Title. Grantor covenants, represents and warrants that, as of the
Effective Date and Closing: (i) Grantor is the sole owner(s) of the Property and is seized
of the Property in fee simple absolute; (ii) Grantor has the right and authority to convey
this Option and the Easement and Grantor will hold the grantee of the Easement harmless
from any failure in Grantor's right and authority to convey the Easement, including issues
of title; (iii) there is legal access to the Property and to the Easement; (iv) the Easement is
3

free from any and all encumbrances, except those accepted by Baker in writing; (v) Grantor
will defend title to the Easement against all lawful claims of other parties; (vi) that the
Property is free of any hazardous wastes.
5. Right of Entry and Inspections. Baker, and its agents and employees or other authorized
representatives, may enter upon the Property during the Term for the purpose of making surveys,
conducting soil, engineering, geological and other subsoil or environmental tests to determine the suitability
of the Property for the Easement. Baker shall repair or pay for any damage done to the Property caused
while such tests are being made. Baker shall advise Grantor at least twenty-four hours in advance of any
entry upon the Property for the purposes of surveying, testing or inspecting as set forth herein. Baker shall
be permitted during the Term to obtain land use permits or other approvals relating to any part of the
Easement, and Grantor agrees to execute such documents, petitions, and authorizations as may be
appropriate or required in order to obtain such land use permits and approvals. Grantor shall join with
Baker in applications and any non judicial or non -administrative proceedings to obtain such approvals if
necessary. After Closing, Baker reserves the right to perform periodic inspections of the Easement to ensure
compliance with easement restrictions contained in the Deed. If Balser does not duly exercise this Option
and purchase the Easement, Baker shall return the Property to the condition in which it existed prior to any
investigations undertaken by Baker, its agents, employees or contractors pursuant to this Option.
6. Permanent Access and Construction Easements. In connection with this Option and
delivery of the Easement, Grantor shall also:
(a) convey and grant to Baker, its successors, assigns, contractors and agents, a non-exclusive
temporary construction easement, the location of which shall be determined in the sole discretion
of Grantor, for ingress, egress and regress on, over and upon Grantor's Property, sufficient to
allow Baker, its agents and contractors to construct and restore the Easement area to stream and/or
wetland conditions required by DEQ, said temporary construction easement to include sufficient
access to allow heavy equipment to access the Property and the Easement, as necessary; and
(b) convey and grant to Baker, its successors and assigns, a non-exclusive permanent easement
for ingress and egress to the Easement, the location of which shall be determined in the sole
discretion of Grantor, in order that Baker, its successors and assigns, may have a permanent means
of adequately accessing the area covered by the Easement. The permanent access easement
referred to herein shall be set forth in an accurate survey, the legal description of which shall be
included in a recorded permanent access easement which shall run with the land.
7. Indemnification. Baker agrees to indemnify and save harmless Grantor from and against
any loss, claim, damage, cost or expense (including reasonable attorney's fees) suffered or incurred by
Grantor by reason of any injury to person or damage to property on or about the Property to the extent
caused by Baker, its officers, employees, agents, invitees, contractors, or subcontractors entering or
conducting work upon the Property, except for any loss, claim, damage, cost or expense suffered or incurred
as a result of the negligence or intentional misconduct of Grantor or Grantor's employees, agents or
invitees.
8. Notices. Unless otherwise set forth, any notice or other communication required or
permitted hereunder shall be in writing and (a) delivered by overnight courier; (b) sent by facsimile
transmission, or (c) mailed by Registered or Certified Mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows (or to
such other address for a party as shall be specified by like notice; provided that notice of change of address
shall be effective only upon receipt thereof);
4

If to Baker: Jake Byers
Michael Baker Engineering
797 Haywood Rd. Suite 201
Asheville, NC 28806
If to the Grantor: 172 Jane Sowers
Statesville, NC 28625
9. Miscellaneous.
a. This Option, together with the exhibits attached hereto which are incorporated
herein by reference, contains the entire understanding of the parties hereto with respect to
the subject matter contained herein. No amendment, modification, or discharge of this
Option, and no waiver hereunder, shall be valid or binding unless set forth in writing and
duly executed by the parties hereto.
b. Any provision of this Option that shall be found to be contrary to applicable law
or otherwise unenforceable shall not affect the remaining terms of this Option, which shall
be construed as if the unenforceable provision or clause were absent from this Option.
C. This Option shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties and their
respective heirs, personal representatives, successors, and assigns.
d. This Option shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the
State of North Carolina without application of its conflicts of laws provisions.
e. No act or failure to act by either party shall be deemed a waiver of its rights
hereunder, and no waiver in any one circumstance or of any one provision shall be deemed
a waiver in other circumstances or of other provisions.
f. Grantor agrees to not mow or otherwise damage vegetation within Easement area
after Baker plants or replants the same. If Grantor or Grantor's agents or invitees damage
vegetation within the Easement, Grantor will replace the lost or damaged vegetation at their
expense.
g. Baker shall ensure that access to portions of the Grantor's property shall not be
impeded by the proposed.
h. This Option shall not be assignable by Baker, except to another entity acquiring at
least fifty-one percent (51%) interest in Baker or Baker's business or to an entity qualified
to be the grantee of a conservation easement under N.C.G.S § 121-35
i. Baker shall install high tensile fence along conservation easement to exclude
livestock.
Baker shall install one well and two drinker boxes on the property.
k. Baker shall provide fiords for the remaining balance (25% up to $900.00 ) not
covered by the NCACSP for crop land conversion.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have duly executed this Option as of the date first above written.
GRANTOR: P a A
By:1
Print Naive: L�j'� i' �• Ct ° [ u' ►+� G� Q` •^ t/1�< ��L ( l 'mot �'
GRA�Ny TOR.
Print Name: #' 1 ('/I'\(Ld a. 461""
Title:
MICH ' BAKE ENGINEERING, INC.:
By: d4-
P r i INme: �c ea%i lJVtiiS
Title: L Ec p
TiOt_
PC,n}
1; RL
6

Yadkin 03040101
I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Note: This map is not a certified survey.
Roc � , l., • _ ;.,
HOLCOMB ELMER E LIFE ESTATE �.
HOLCOMB WILMA F
PIN: 5926-00-80-4164
oil
?i -:4 p
k 7
NC
0 100 200 300
Feet
ExhibitA
Landowner(s):
HOLCOMB ELMER E LIFE ESTATE
HOLCOMB WILMA F

Suggs, Kristi
From: Suggs, Kristi
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:58 PM
To: Marella Buncick ([e-mail])
Subject: Request for Comment for Categorical Exclusion on the Whittier Creek Site - Option D (DMS Full
Delivery Project #100020)
Attachments: 162039_WhittierCreek_USFWS_SubmittalPackage_09262017.pdf
Dear Ms. Buncick,
I have included the attached letter and supporting documentation requesting comment from the USFWS about the
above referenced project. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you in advance for your assistance!
Kristi Suggs
Kristi Suggs I Environmental Specialist II 1 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. a Michael Baker International Company
9716-B Rea Road #56 1 Charlotte I NC 28277 [O] 704-665-2206 [C] 704-579-4828
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
INTERNATI0NAL
N V 12 WREM
Fff �rna +� a
1

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
September 26, 2017
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Ecological Services Field Office
Atlas: Marella Buncick, Endangered Species Biologist
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Whittier Creek Site — Option D Stream Mitigation Project,
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID 9100020, Surry County, NC
Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03040101
Dear Ms. Buncick:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the implementation
oftheWhittier Creek Site — Option D Stream Mitigation Project. Please note that this request is
in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project.
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) identified and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable
impacts in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040101. The project is located in Surry County and
the NC DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03040101-110040. The site is located in the Ararat
community on two abutting parcels southeast of the intersection of Rockhill Church Road and Nurse Road,
approximately 7 miles east of Dobson, NC.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,130 linear feet of existing
perennial streams along Whittier Creek and several UTs to Whittier Creek, which is a tributary to Bull
Creek. In addition, a conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches with riparian
buffers extending in an excess of 30 feet from the top of bank of the restored channel and will protected in
perpetuity by the State of North Carolina.
The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands within the project area have been significantly impacted
by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization used to promote drainage and
maximize agricultural acreage for cattle pastures. The proposed restoration project not only has the
potential to provide stream 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 review of the most current information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) website(hiips://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cniylist/sgLry.html and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) the following species are considered federally -listed species
in Surry County:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
MBAKERINTL.CDM
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Moke o Difference
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Glyptemys muhlenber ii
Bog Turtle
Threatened Similarity of Appearance S/A
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
Isotria medeoloides
Small whorled pogonia
Threatened
Data Review and Analysis
Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(hiips://ncnhde.natureserve.org) on September 26, 2017 and found no known occurrences of the above
referenced species within two miles of the Project site. However, the Project is located within Surry County,
a Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) White Nose Syndrome (WNS) zone, and is therefore subject to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service's Final 4(d) rule to maintain section 7(a)(2) compliance.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat) — Threatened
In North Carolina, the NLEB occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal
plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is
not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern
North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically
>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves
of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant females give birth from late
May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for NLEB.
Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the WNS, the USFWS has issued the finalization of a
special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful
and incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone
and will include the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a
review of NCNHP records did not indicate any known NLEB populations within 2.0 mile of the study area;
therefore, the project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to meet
regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d) consultation.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) - Threatened Similarity of Appearance (S/A)
Bog turtles live in the mud, grass and sphagnum mosses found in bogs, swamps, and marshy meadows
usually fed by cool surface springs. There are two distinct populations of the species, a northern population
and a southern population. The southern population which is found in western North Carolina, including
Alexander County, NC is listed as threated due to "similarity of appearance" as stated in the November 4,
1997, 62 FR 59605 59623. Because the southern population has not experienced the habitat loss of the
northern population, the southern population is not subject to Section 7 consultation requirements of the
Endangered Species Act.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) — Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 6.5 feet in height with
purplish stems and produces small yellow flowers from late August until frost. This species is endemic to
the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, and the few sites where it occurs in relatively natural conditions
consist of Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power
lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland oak -
pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where

We Moke o Difference
disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or
partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other
vegetation. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor,
clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. Because marginal to
suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along field edges and utility easements adjacent to the
project area, Baker conducted a field survey on September 25t1i, 2017. No populations or individuals were
documented during the on -site review.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) — Threatened
Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family. It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves
near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish -yellow flower. The plant occurs in
predominantly mature (2"d or 31d successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in the forest canopy. The species prefers
moist, acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to the small whorled pogonia include habitat
loss and degradation from urban expansion, forestry practices, recreational activities, and trampling. The
project site consists of open and active cattle pasture with a narrow line of predominantly first successional
woody vegetation along the top of the stream bank. Existing stream reaches, riparian corridors, and open
fields at the project site have been significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access;
therefore, habitat suitable for the species is not present within the project site.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed Project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days, we will assume
that the USFWS does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
ksuaas(a,mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Cc: Matthew Reid, NCDMS
File
Enclosures

0
10 1 002
Ararat
Rd.
z
Project Locaton
(36.3789,-80.6034) `, 0304 1
0 0
a
03040 1090
030401011
0
304010 0900 0
2
NC268
S RRY
304 1
03040 01 1006
304010109
Major Roads
Road
Streams
i
Q HU
---
SURRY
3 4 101 \ 070
YA D
North Carolina
Vicinity Map
Michael-
Division of
Mitigation Services
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
o o.s =Miles
Whittier Creek Site - Option
D
DMS Project No. 100020
1" = 1 Mile
(Surry County, NC)

C
i000w�
..
Proposed Conservation Easement
3
North Carolina USGS Topographic Map
Michael Baker Division Of (Mount Airy South Quad, Siloam Quad)
N T E R N A T I O N A L Mitigation Services 0 200 400eet Whittier Creek Site - Option D
(Burry County, NC)
DMS Project No. 100020 1"=400

Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Mitigation Features a'
None 1
Enhancement I'
Restoration "' " d
North Carolina Project Site Map
Michael Baker Division of
INTERNATIONAL Mitigation Services 0 150 300eet Whittier Creek Site - Option D
(Burry County, NC)
D MS Project No. 100020 1„ = 300'

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
Natural Heritage Program
Governor Roy Cooper Secretary; Susi H. Hamilton
September 26, 2017
Kristi Suggs
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
9716 - B Rea Rd., 56
Charlotte, NC 28277
RE: Whittier Creek Site - Option D; 162039
Dear Kristi Suggs:
I0Is] 0lart]ZMA[Clog]
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide information
about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
A query of the NCNHP database, based on the project area mapped with your request, indicates that there are
no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, or conservation/managed areas
within the proposed project boundary, or within a one -mile radius of the project boundary.
Please note that although there may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within or near the project
boundary, it does not imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this
query should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare species are
found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our records.
Please also note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation planning,
project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria for regulatory
decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published without prior written notification
to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information source in these publications. Maps of
NCNHP data may also not be redistributed without permission.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance, please
contact Rodney A. Butler at rod ney.butler&ncdcr.gov or 919.707.8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
MAILING ADDRESS: Tele--hone: 019) 7DT-8107 LC)CA.TICN
1651 Mail Service Center rt,rrsv.ncnhv.org 121 West hones S7reat
Ralaigh, NC 27699-1651 Ralaigh, NG 27603

r.
O
4-
QL
O
W
C/')
^W
W
L
U
^L'
W
CM
W
0
2
Z
U
Z
U oil
" Braley
0
.1 a...lmg
110
3la
xcrK H�11 Gn.nch ft��
Y
of
�iow�
. iM
7
(D
0)
d

Suggs, Kristi
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, February 02, 2018 4:39 PM
To: [e-mail]
Cc: Wiesner, Paul; Reid, Matthew; Suggs, Kristi
Subject: EXTERNAL: Whittier Creek Mit Prcj_NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Attachments: Whittier Creek NLEB 4(d) rule form 2-2-18.pdf, Whittier Creek project maps.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Good afternoon Marella,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Whittier Creek Mitigation Site in Surry County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, in addition site maps/figures.
Thank you and have a great weekend,
Donnie
Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern Long -Eared Bat
4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their project and meet the
requirements of the framework.
Northern Lona-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form serves
to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation for the
4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum amount of information required for
the Service to be able to track this information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section 7(a)(2)
compliance for any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
1

Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***

Northern Lone -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the NLEB
for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if the
USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not likely
to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause prohibited
incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address section 7(a)(2)
compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance: YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency2 to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑X
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question 41 or yes to question #2 and no to questions
3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.): Donnie Brew, Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), Donnie.Brew2dot.gov, 919-747-7017 & Kristi Suggs, Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.,
ksuggs2mbakerintl.com, 704-579-4828
Project Name: Whittier Creek Site — Option D
Project Location (include coordinates if known): The project site is located in Surry County, North Carolina,
near the Town of Dobson, in the Ararat community. The project site is located in the Yadkin River Basin
(03040101) and the NC DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03040101110040. The site is located on two
abutting parcels just southeast of the intersection of Rockhill Church Road and Nurse Road. The coordinates at the
intersection of Rockhill Church Road and Nurse Road are (36.3789,-80.6034).
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
1 http://www.fws.gov/"dwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdVWNSZone.pdf
'See http://www.fws.gov/"dwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

The Whittier Creek Site is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
identified and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable impacts in the Yadkin
River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040101. The project will involve the restoration and enhancement and permanent
protection of approximately 3,130 linear feet of existing perennial stream along Whittier Creek and several UTs to
Whittier Creek, which is a tributary to Bull Creek. In addition, a conservation easement will be implemented along
all project reaches with riparian buffers extending in an excess of 30 feet from the top of bank and will protected
in perpetuity by the State of North Carolina.
The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands within the project area have been significantly impacted by
past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization used to promote drainage and maximize
agricultural acreage for cattle pastures. The proposed restoration project not only has the potential to provide stream
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.
The following additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: a Project Vicinity Map, a
USGS Topographic Map, and a Project Site Map.
YES NO
General Project Information
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
❑X
Does the project include forest conversion4? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑X
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
3.0
If known, estimated acres5 of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
3.0
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June I to July 316
0.0
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑X
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June I to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑X
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June I to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
❑X
Estimated wind capacity (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
4 Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
s If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: Date Submitted: 2 + 2 r / g

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
January 29, 2018
Mr. Milton Cortes
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd., Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
RE: Prime and Important Farmland Soils
NCDMS, Whittier Creek Site — Option D, Stream Mitigation Project
Surry County, NC
Dear Mr. Cortes:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) is contracted by the North Carolina Division of Mitigation
Services (NCDMS) to conduct stream restoration/enhancement activities for the above -referenced project.
The project area is located in Surry County, North Carolina approximately 7 miles east of Dobson, NC.
The project is located on both the Mount Airy and Siloam, North Carolina 7.5-minute topographic maps
from the United States Geological Survey (USGS). The center of the project area is located at 36.3779N,
-80.59988W. The site is located on two abutting parcels southeast of the intersection of Rockhill Church
Road and Nurse Road in Ararat, NC. Please see the enclosed USGS Topographic Map for a depiction of
the project site location.
The majority of the site has historically been disturbed due to past and current management for pasture
grazing and livestock rearing. Baker conducted a review of the project area using the US Department of
Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service's (USDA NRCS) Web Soil Survey. The following
table outlines the soils that are present within the proposed conservation. Based on the data determined
from this review, there are a total of 4.8 acres of Prime Farmland within the project area.
The enclosed Soils Maps depicts their locations within the easement.
Farmland Classification— Summary by Map Unit — Surry County, North Carolina (NC171)
Map unit Acres in Percent of Area
symbol Map unit name Rating Conservation in Conservation
Easement Easement
Colvard and Suches soils, 0
CsA to 3 percent slopes, Prime farmland
4.8 83.4%
occasionally flooded
Fairview cobbly fine sandy
Ff) loam, 15 to 25 percent Not prime farmland
1.0 16.6%
slopes, stony
Totals for Area of Interest
5.8 100.00%
MBAKERINTL.COM
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
Ballantyne One,1572o Brixham Hill Avenue
Suite 300, Room 318
Charlotte, NC 282771 Office: 704.665.2200

We Make a Difference
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding this project or need any additional
information. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at ksugg`kmbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Cc: Matthew Reid, NCDMS
File

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request Septembre 22, 2017
Name of Project Whittler Creek Site - Option D
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Mitigation
County and State Surry County, North Carolina
PART II (To be completed by NRCS)
Date Request Received By
NRCS January 29, 2018
P rson Co pleting For
IV�ilton tortes NRCS NC
Does the site contain Prime, Unique, Statewide or Local Important Farmland?
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form)
YES NO
Z
Acres Irrigated
none
Average Farm Size
101 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres:54 % % 187,236 acres
Amount of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 44.8 0/do 155,337 acres
Name of Land Evaluation System Used
Surry County, NC LESA
Name of State or Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned by NRCS
January 29, 2018 by entail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
I Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
rJ 8
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
0
C. Total Acres In Site
rJ 8
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
4.8
B. Total Acres Statewide Important or Local Important Farmland
0
C. Percentage Of Farmland in County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0031
D. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
6.6%
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value of Farmland To Be Converted Scale of 0 to 100 Points
74
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site Assessment Criteria
Criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5 b. For Corridor ro ect use form NRCS-CPA-106
Maximum
Points
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
1. Area In Non -urban Use
(15)
15
2. Perimeter In Non -urban Use
(10)
10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
(20)
20
4. Protection Provided By State and Local Government
(20)
20
5. Distance From Urban Built-up Area
(15)
15
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
(15)
15
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
(10)
0
8. Creation Of Non-farmable Farmland
(10)
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
(5)
4
10. On -Farm Investments
(20)
10
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
(10)
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
(10)
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
109
0
0
0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
74
0
0
0
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or local site assessment)
160
109
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
260
183
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
YES❑ NO ❑
Reason For Selection:
Name of Federal agency representative completing this form: ANTHONY W. HIGH SEC - USDA RD Date: 1 1/27/2017
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (03-02)

Suggs, Kristi
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 3:08 PM
To: Suggs, Kristi
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Submittal - Whittier Creek Site Option D,
Surry County, NC
Thank you very much!!
w
From: Suggs, Kristi [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 3:06 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: EXTERNAL: RE: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Submittal - Whittier Creek Site Option D, Surry County,
NC
Mr. Cortes,
Attached is the completed AD1006 Form for the Whittier Creek Site Option D Mitigation Project. Please let me know if
you need any additional information. Thank you!
Kristi Suggs
PLEASE NOTE MY CHANGE OF ADDRESS BELOW IN THE SIGNATURE LINE.
Kristi Suggs I Environmental Specialist II 1 Michael Baker International
Ballantyne One,15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 300, Office 318 1 Charlotte I NC 128277 1 [O] 704-665-2206 1 [C]
704-579-4828
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
Michael
. -` We Moke a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
Connect with us- V Mrlw&M
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 1:37 PM
To: Suggs, Kristi <[e-mail]>
Subject: EXTERNAL: RE: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Submittal - Whittier Creek Site Option D, Surry County, NC
Importance: High
Kristi;
Please find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation for NCDMS, Whittier Creek Site — Option D,
Stream Mitigation Project Surry County, NC.
If I can be of further assistance please let us know.

Cordially;
Assistant State Soil Scientist
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone:[phone]
milton.cortes(@nc.usda.eov
USDA
From: Suggs, Kristi [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Monday, January 29, 2018 10:33 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <MiIto [e-mail]>
Subject: Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Submittal - Whittier Creek Site Option D, Surry County, NC
Dear Mr. Cortes,
Please see the attached submittal package for the Farmland Protection Policy Act. Please let me know if you have any
questions or need any additional information. Thank you very much!
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
PLEASE NOTE MY CHANGE OF ADDRESS BELOW IN THE SIGNATURE LINE.
Kristi Suggs I Environmental Specialist II 1 Michael Baker International
Ballantyne One, 15720 Brixham Hill Avenue, Suite 300, Office 318 Charlotte I INC 28277 [O] 704-665-2206 1 [C]
704-579-4828
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
Michael
We Moke a Difference
114T�CRHATIONAL
Connect warn us: V Ijii 1113 7alM T.
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended recipients. Any
unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information it contains may violate the law and
subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe you have received this message in error, please notify the
sender and delete the email immediately.
Q

Suggs, Kristi
From: Suggs, Kristi
Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:59 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Request for Comment for Categorical Exclusion on the Whittier Creek Site - Option D (DMS Full
Delivery Project #100020)
Attachments: 162039_WhittierCreek_NCWRC_SubmittalPackage_09262017.pdf
Dear Ms. Deaton,
I have included the attached letter and supporting documentation requesting comment from the NC WRC about the
above referenced project. Please let me know if you need any additional information.
Thank you in advance for your assistance!
Kristi Suggs
Kristi Suggs I Environmental Specialist II 1 Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. a Michael Baker International Company
9716-B Rea Road #56 1 Charlotte I NC 28277 [O] 704-665-2206 [C] 704-579-4828
[e-mail] I www.mbakerintl.com
INTERNATI0NAL
N V 12 WREM
Fff �rna +� a
1

We Make a Difference
INTERNATIONAL
September 26, 2017
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
Attn: Shannon Deaton
Shannon.deaton&ncwildlife.org
RE: Categorical Exclusion for Whittier Creek Site — Option D Stream Mitigation Project,
NCDEQ DMS Full -Delivery Project ID 9100020, Surry County, NC
Yadkin River Basin Cataloging Unit 03 040 101
Dear Ms. Deaton:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc. (Baker) respectfully requests review and comment from the NC Wildlife
Resource Commission (WRC) on any possible concerns they may have with regards to the
implementation of the Whittier Creek Site — Option D Stream Mitigation Project. Please note
that this request is in support of the development of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the referenced project.
The Whittier Creek Site — Option D is a full -delivery project for the NCDEQ Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) identified and contracted to provide stream mitigation credits for permitted, unavoidable
impacts in the Yadkin River Basin, Cataloging Unit 03040101. The project is located in Surry County and
the NC DMS Targeted Local Watershed (TLW) 03040101-110040. The site is located in the Ararat
community on two abutting parcels southeast of the intersection of Rockhill Church Road and Nurse Road,
approximately 7 miles east of Dobson, NC.
The project will involve the restoration and enhancement of approximately 3,130 linear feet of existing
perennial streams along Whittier Creek and several UTs to Whittier Creek, which is a tributary to Bull
Creek. In addition, a conservation easement will be implemented along all project reaches with riparian
buffers extending in an excess of 30 feet from the top of bank of the restored channel and will protected in
perpetuity by the State of North Carolina.
The existing stream reaches and riparian wetlands within the project area have been significantly impacted
by past and present unrestricted livestock access and/or channelization used to promote drainage and
maximize agricultural acreage for cattle pastures. The proposed restoration project not only has the
potential to provide stream 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 review of the most current information from the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) website hilps://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cniylist/siva.html and the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) the following species are considered federally -listed species
in Surry County:
Michael Baker Engineering, Inc.
MBAKERINTL.CDM
9716-B Rea Road #56
Charlotte, NC 282771 Office:704.665.2200

We Moke o Difference
Scientific Name
Common Name
Federal Status
M otis se tentrionalis
Northern long-eared bat
Threatened
Glyptemys muhlenber ii
Bog Turtle
Threatened Similarity of Appearance S/A
Helianthus schweinitzii
Schweinitz's sunflower
Endangered
Isotria medeoloides
Small whorled pogonia
Threatened
Data Review and Analysis
Baker conducted a two-mile radius search using the Natural Heritage Program's Data Explorer
(hiips://ncnhde.natureserve.org) on September 26, 2017 and found no known occurrences of the above
referenced species within two miles of the Project site. However, the Project is located within Surry County,
a Northern long-eared bat (NLEB) White Nose Syndrome (WNS) zone, and is therefore subject to the US
Fish and Wildlife Service's Final 4(d) rule to maintain section 7(a)(2) compliance.
Myotis septentrionalis (Northern long-eared bat) — Threatened
In North Carolina, the NLEB occurs in the mountains, with scattered records in the Piedmont and coastal
plain. In western North Carolina, NLEB spend winter hibernating in caves and mines. Since this species is
not known to be a long-distance migrant, and caves and subterranean mines are extremely rare in eastern
North Carolina, it is uncertain whether or where NLEB hibernate in eastern NC. During the summer, NLEB
roost singly or in colonies underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees (typically
>3 inches dbh). This bat also been found, rarely, roosting in structures like barns and sheds, under eaves
of buildings, behind window shutters, in bridges, and in bat houses. Pregnant females give birth from late
May to late July. Foraging occurs on forested hillsides and ridges, and occasionally over forest clearings,
over water, and along tree -lined corridors. Mature forests may be an important habitat type for foraging.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for NLEB.
Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the WNS, the USFWS has issued the finalization of a
special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful
and incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone
and will include the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a
review of NCNHP records did not indicate any known NLEB populations within 2.0 mile of the study area;
therefore, the project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to meet
regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d) consultation.
Glyptemys muhlenbergii (Bog turtle) - Threatened Similarity of Appearance (S/A)
Bog turtles live in the mud, grass and sphagnum mosses found in bogs, swamps, and marshy meadows
usually fed by cool surface springs. There are two distinct populations of the species, a northern population
and a southern population. The southern population which is found in western North Carolina, including
Alexander County, NC is listed as threated due to "similarity of appearance" as stated in the November 4,
1997, 62 FR 59605 59623. Because the southern population has not experienced the habitat loss of the
northern population, the southern population is not subject to Section 7 consultation requirements of the
Endangered Species Act.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) — Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 6.5 feet in height with
purplish stems and produces small yellow flowers from late August until frost. This species is endemic to
the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, and the few sites where it occurs in relatively natural conditions
consist of Xeric Hardpan Forests. The species is also found along roadside rights -of -way, maintained power
lines and other utility rights -of -way, edges of thickets and old pastures, clearings and edges of upland oak -
pine -hickory woods and Piedmont longleaf pine forests, and other sunny or semi -sunny habitats where

We Moke o Difference
disturbances (e.g., mowing, clearing, grazing, blow downs, storms, frequent fire) help create open or
partially open areas for sunlight. It is intolerant of full shade and excessive competition from other
vegetation. It is generally found growing on shallow sandy soils with high gravel content; shallow, poor,
clayey hardpans; or shallow rocky soils, especially those derived from mafic rocks. Because marginal to
suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower occurs along field edges and utility easements adjacent to the
project area, Baker conducted a field survey on September 25t1i, 2017. No populations or individuals were
documented during the on -site review.
Isotria medeoloides (Small whorled pogonia) — Threatened
Small whorled pogonia is a member of the orchid family. It is named for the whorl of five or six leaves
near the top of a single stem and beneath the small greenish -yellow flower. The plant occurs in
predominantly mature (2"d or 31d successional growth) mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous
forests with minimal ground cover and long persistent breaks in the forest canopy. The species prefers
moist, acidic soils that lack nutrient diversity. Primary threats to the small whorled pogonia include habitat
loss and degradation from urban expansion, forestry practices, recreational activities, and trampling. The
project site consists of open and active cattle pasture with a narrow line of predominantly first successional
woody vegetation along the top of the stream bank. Existing stream reaches, riparian corridors, and open
fields at the project site have been significantly impacted by past and present unrestricted livestock access;
therefore, habitat suitable for the species is not present within the project site.
Please provide comments on any possible issues that may arise with respect to the endangered species,
migratory birds or other natural resources from the construction of the proposed Project. The following
additional supporting documentation has been included for reference: Vicinity Map, USGS Topographic
Map, and Project Site Map. If Baker has not received response from you within 30 days, we will assume
that the NC WRC does not have any comment or information relevant to the implementation of this project
at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response, input, and cooperation. Please contact me if you have
any further questions or comments. I can be reached at [phone] or via my email address at
ksuggs&mbakerintl.com.
Sincerely,
Kristi Suggs
Cc: Matthew Reid, NCDMS
File
Enclosures

0
10 1 002
Ararat
Rd.
z
Project Locaton
(36.3789,-80.6034) `, 0304 1
0 0
a
03040 1090
030401011
0
304010 0900 0
2
NC268
S RRY
304 1
03040 01 1006
304010109
Major Roads
Road
Streams
i
Q HU
---
SURRY
3 4 101 \ 070
YA D
North Carolina
Vicinity Map
Michael-
Division of
Mitigation Services
1 N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
o o.s =Miles
Whittier Creek Site - Option
D
DMS Project No. 100020
1" = 1 Mile
(Surry County, NC)

C
i000w�
..
Proposed Conservation Easement
3
North Carolina USGS Topographic Map
Michael Baker Division Of (Mount Airy South Quad, Siloam Quad)
N T E R N A T I O N A L Mitigation Services 0 200 400eet Whittier Creek Site - Option D
(Burry County, NC)
DMS Project No. 100020 1"=400

Proposed Conservation Easement
Proposed Mitigation Features a'
None 1
Enhancement I'
Restoration "' " d
North Carolina Project Site Map
Michael Baker Division of
INTERNATIONAL Mitigation Services 0 150 300eet Whittier Creek Site - Option D
(Burry County, NC)
D MS Project No. 100020 1„ = 300'

APPENDIX J: (IRT CORRESPONDENCE)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

I N T E R N A T 1 0 N A L
Memo Regarding Whittier Creek Post Contract IRT Field Meeting
Memo Date: 8/15/17
This memo will be included in the Mitigation Plan to serve as a record of field discussions including
crediting ratios and approaches.
Meeting Held: 8/14/17 from 10:00 to 12:00
Attendees: Jake Byers and Russell Myers (Baker); Todd Tugwell (Corps of Engineers); Paul Wiesner and
Matthew Reid (DMS), Mac Haupt (DWR), and Andrea Leslie (WRC)
The originally proposed approaches and ratios for each Reach are provided in the following Tables in
addition to the revised approaches and credits as applicable. Any modifications and discussions are
noted in the text below.
Reach
Name
Original
Approach
Length
Ratio
Original
Credits
Revised
Approach
Revised
Credits
R7
R
1389
1:1
1389
N/A
N/A
The group suggested that maintaining a sufficient bench and access to the floodplain throughout R7
would be a design priority to make sure it could handle flashy flows. Bioengineering should be used
where feasible, IRT agreed that this was suitable. This would be particularly important where UT4
intersects with R7. It was also mentioned that suppressing privet would be a priority along this reach.
No other comments along this reach — Group consensus of approach is accepted as proposed.
Reach Name
Original
Approach
Length
Ratio
Original
Credits
Revised
Approach
Revised
Credits
UT5
R
735
1:1
735
N/A
N/A
Group consensus was to accept proposed approach and ratio
Todd inquired about the possibility of moving the powerline to parallel the road and eliminate the need
for the two crossings along UT4 and UT5. It would be preferable if there were no crossings. Jake said he
would look into the possibility of moving the line.
Andrea commented that the culvert at the top of the reach under Rock Hill Church Road might not allow
sufficient water to pass through to support fish populations. She raised the possibility of backwatering
the culvert to increase the water depth through the pipe. Concerns were raised about how this might
impact the culvert in the long run and affect the stability of the road.

It was mentioned that UT5 was not particularly incised, at least in the upper section. Jake pointed out
that incision increases downstream and said we would relocate the stream to match the valley
topography and increase sinuosity. Group consensus of this approach is acceptable as proposed.
Reach
Name
Original
Approach
Length
Ratio
Original
Credits
Revised
Approach
Revised
Credits
UT4a
El
315
1.5:1
210
N/A
N/A
The group note that UT4 as a whole was difficult to define in regard to mitigation approach. Some
sections are much more incised and eroded than others. It was noted by both Todd and Mac that UT4a
(and upstream of UT4b) have areas that could be proposed as restoration, El, or Ell. UT4a is proposed as
El, and the group agreed that this was acceptable so long as the work that is proposed matches what is
actually done in the field and is justified in the mitigation plan. However, if during analysis and design, it
is determined that improved functional lift can be obtained through the implementation of a priority I
restoration approach by moving the stream to the low part of the valley, then this reach would be
acceptable as a restoration reach at a 1:1 ratio. As of now, the El approach will remain. If restoration is
proposed, it will be well documented and justified in the mitigation plan. It was noted that the culvert
at the top of this reach also has the same issue as the culvert on UT5.
Reach
Name
Original
Approach
Length
Ratio
Original
Credits
Revised
Approach
Revised
Credits
UT4b
R
735
1:1
735
N/A
N/A
It was noted that the short upstream section of this reach already has some buffer, although there is
also a good bit of privet. A short section through the buffer was mostly stable but it would be necessary
to raise the bed to connect to a knickpoint at the break between UT4a and UT4b. The group agreed,
and the approach is accepted as proposed.
Please let me know if any of the above information is not presented as discussed in the field.
Sincerely,
Jake Byers

From: Leslie, Andrea J
To: Haunt. Mac; Tuawell. Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (LS); Byers. Jake
Cc: Wiesner. Paul; Reid. Matthew
Subject: RE: Whittier Creek Full Delivery Project Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes
Date: Friday, September 08, 2017 8:28:18 AM
All --
I also agree that the notes cover what was discussed.
Thank you,
Andrea
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
20830 Great Smoky Mountain Expressway
Waynesville, NC 28786
828-558-6011; 828-400-4223 (cell)
www.ncwildlife.org
Get NC Wildlife Update delivered to your inbox from the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission.
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to
third parties.
-----Original Message -----
From: Haupt, Mac
Sent: Thursday, September 07, 2017 3:07 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Byers, Jake
<[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J <[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Whittier Creek Full Delivery Project Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes
Jake, Paul,
Notes covered what was discussed,
Thanks,
Mac
-----Original Message -----
From: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US)[mailto:Todd.Tu,[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2017 9:55 AM
To: Byers, Jake <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac <[e-mail]>; Leslie, Andrea J
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Reid, Matthew <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Whittier Creek Full Delivery Project Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes
Jake, the notes look good to me.
Thanks,
Todd

-----Original Message -----
From: Byers, Jake [mailto:JByers(&_mbakerintl.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 17, 2017 4:09 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Haupt, Mac
<[e-mail]>; Andrea. leslie@wildlife. org ([e-mail])
<[e-mail]>
Cc: NCDENR NCEEP ([e-mail]) <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]
Subject: [Non-DoD Source] Whittier Creek Full Delivery Project Post Contract IRT Field Meeting Minutes
Please find attached the meeting minutes from the post contract IRT field visit. Please let me know if there is any
disagreement with the minutes as presented.
Thanks,
-Jake
Jacob "Jake" Byers, PE I NC Ecosystem Services Manager I Michael Baker Engineering, Inc., a unit of Michael
Baker International
797 Haywood Road, Suite 2011 Asheville, North Carolina 28806 1 [O] 828-412-6101 1 [M] 919-259-4814
[e-mail] <mailto:jb, ersgmbakerintl.com> I Blockedwww.mbakerintl.com
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakeiintl.com/>
<Blockedhttp://www.mbakerintl.com/>

APPENDIX K: (PLAN SHEETS)
MICHAEL BAKER ENGINEERING, INC.
WHITTIER CREEK SITE - OPTION D MITIGATON PROJECT, DMS PROJECT NO. 100020
MITIGATION PLAN (FINAL)

z w
o ti
c4 0
® z
b
a
z
a
x
NAD 83 Y
Z "
/I I' C
Lb
li
zoo'.
a
OZ
W \ \\
\/ D z
l l x o
U Z
= a m
w
V N
e x
i s
O U
MgII IIHAI 6COM "139 Oyd

gEl
Z
Z
�
F
w
y
�
❑
@ wg
ti � ti ti
Q
2
O
O
W
O
z ztt
¢
0
U U w Z
ti N O y O Z
z j O o F < n 2 ❑
2 ❑ ❑ 5
w U Z Z
� ❑ Z K tt � F � ❑ ° H m h H
�' o p � z � z r F F � p ❑ � x � � z
K > �U � ❑ r � ¢ W a � O � � � � W w O
O O ¢ W W ¢ ¢ O O O O
O U F w ti H ti U UU
�W
Z
U ~ W W CD W ZO Y W 2
c� o Y W Y J J ° o> ° o ❑ ❑
11 W
wc� O O O O (c� c� ° m m n ¢ � o � ❑ �n ❑ r � r
_
3�
a
o
-
r E
N
a oo �
v e
o
v e
v e
v e
v e
0 s
--
o
s
3
r
y
- w
C
E
E
y
c in
0
`w
E
w o
v'�
-
O
U
E
m�
r
A
- -
N
_
"
O
N m
C7
-
Od
w
O
o
E
oa
-
"c
o
'
F
a
�
v
w
z
o
arc
a
an
U
Q
f
z
o
n
°
w
$
w
a
y
O
Z
w
�
�
�
N
�
E
e
o
U
U
a
a
a
Q
5
o
a
a
o
3�
a
a w
N
dN
d
N_
E
Z
O
W
�
x
e
E
J
o
m
r
30
x
-
-
U
E `S_
O
rc
n
_
I
U
Q
y
U
y
y
a�a�Qo=a=
a
-_-
a w
w N
eeeeeeeee
v �
a
-
N
oI
Eo
Er
Q «
C
O
x
E
o n
p
o
c
`�
O
O
E
-
E
it
a
_
iB
v
Q
m
a
-
S
ci
ci
o

Rm
N U �
° a a O
� V O
U v
y76o o a
Y
i
Cm
0 o
3
a
o
a
U w
m =
0
ma
v
r
3 3
z a
x
_ E
c c o
0 w a w a 0 0 0_ o
• ❑ o © e Q Ow
o a 0� { ICI ♦ a w � ICI i �I LL� � o � © a
I "
li I I Ilia
wvE- w
s
w w q
� ,`v` 3 � � o w° w° `c ` [w•i
w1.3
on a o oon c c a v v
d E E d E° e v voI uoI
Q' O o 0 co s _
U�� m m v � U m w w m v v m v w � w U v m m i U
q rn o rn N 2• d f�
a
o 0 0 o V o .� o 0 0 0 0 0 o Q ,s o 0 0 o o ? I �� d d pi o s
m w w O O O W O W O O O O O O W W O O O - O w O w a tl Z7 V1 y a
�n a i a a i i i i i i LYj i i i i �.a x 3 O
o0
0
w
�
w
U
v �
j
5
3 d
° a o v Q
o
c
o
w
v E v v 3 m rn
V T
3
O o 0 o— a
o
c
-
N
m
o
2 ati m
v av m o q z m
a a m a c 0
m m o 0 0 o °o
no 0 0
c a N
N N a a
O
q
v
u
r
^ v a -
u o w
- -o
a s a a a_ a__ o- LL v v- _
a w w a w w y° 3 ¢` u m w❑_
a- m o—
m m— o 3 w

\
y
�
/m(
oil
�y
\
�
�
�
«\
_
\\w
%
<
§ \ /:
% )
\
pas a
�
( Mal
}\\, \\

F
a
LL
n LL
-
g _
w eke
-
LU
m
a F
_- LLy O 0,2
g2
� 2
Quo
a
k
�O
Nam,
3
u
z
__
-
�v
C1
W
O
n
tt
U
K
=
U
W
N
O
�
U
/ /
I -
w
LLJ
¢
/ /
LU o
W
Y
�
F
_
O
Q
�
I
-
N
"6P]--l—M olff Z/L

/:(
\Onovs
-
MM
\
\
\
}
\\ \\Eg
CID
@. \
(
.\
LL
\�M
..
}
.
-
\
\ }
"
Q}}}j
o ow
:\
\\\
\\ \ \
}}\
Hun
/lml
\\\\_`
-
\
\
�z

/:(
\
y
-
}
\�:
-
>
_
:/�-
-
�
-
-
t
--
aunt
�
}\
�([
}((]\}:(\\(
\1
IF
_
HH
\
£
y
§
-
~
\�
\
�
j
( Hill
11
z
�
�
§
8
K
:
7!
:
»
2
_N
s
_
z

- N
0
Z
��a
-
Z
NIN
4'NR—-
-
.o n
s
k
a F c
\
o
W
Z
W
_
-
V
\
r
g
kw
7
X X
X X
\r/
~
X X
`\
X XW
LL
W
X X
X X
X X _
X x
\\/
�/�
r
p
j/
-
W
z
LL
X X
X X
j
�j��
W
Z
3
X
X X
fir/uj
w
--
a
X X
X X
r/
LL
X X
X X j/
QLu
L`
-
W
>�
_
X X
X X
\\j
\ \
\Lu
/
>
X X
- \j\\
X X //
w
-
a
m
X X
\r\
m
X X
x X\
\/\\
-
a
X X
X X \\r/\
-
tV
„6a'3zm-Hsd-ssmzs��s„atd�„s�aa�maass-.anz�vn-��o�/ms�i)o�

\
/:(
y
R
----�
§
/
LU
}
j
\
� � !
�-
\ W }\\`\ \_ �)/\ \� ) ._ \F \}

? zoF s -
g
z
s g A- E
LU
W T m c c
a6�aa�eaa
`� "• F, m � 5 � O � � N '" d A � � A O d 'J m F" �" �C r�-' � W � � O
o cP4
LU
LU
0LU
.A
� A u
L)
b
d o f. C oQll
26
A
W
b u b a
W °"a a° a E m >. `� 's s K ,5
o F o° r°� O a o 4
o a
x x x x o x x x o x x x x
H� H H z H H H
ou �
co/9z/z y "6P'E0-HSd-6£BZ9I\�"ald\"6

S 133HS 99S - 9NIl HDIVW
V 07bN
\ zo
I
I I I a 11 I /
I 1 I
ao_ a
(Dal
owow'o
V
iv
o� o
R.
ao
TE. moo
�wm
�
w
4O
oa
�
of
I\ II I
A\
O u
U
xz
oo�ILL is
L w oz� w
woz
C7w
¢3
I I I 1
Iz Z3z�
Pzww
/
\ 1 I 1 „� � en aiUTILI� LWE \
n
LLFNf
Zw�f
w
oia

9 133HS 99S - 3NIl HDIVW
/ o
/ m
/ U
/ Y
U
- ooz s w
X
-
zUK
Q (�'JZO
x� I
Q W-oW
R Q ?
\
0 0� S
I
II
� ❑wm �
3� � �`y
�Uo w
Oi z
Fw
owof No ¢m
13 / > ❑a>
� Y Z
wl
KO
UQ
(�=
-O
Rw
wU ,c oo n zm
ac�F �¢
❑� win �U
m¢wQzom
mow �o ��
m�
woz -3¢
N ra
\
1
1
I
1
1
I
\
I
I
I
I
Qv
\
\
z�
/lll
�
I I
Vv�
/x
I I
\
vv v CFI
Q
S�EEZ
v
��
I
If z
I I / i
i
I II U LL
1 /
II �
1j I
1j I
1j l
1 \,
I\
1
1
1
1 \
1
I I
I \
1
1
1
1
III I
\\ 11
1 1
1 1
I 1
I 1 i
V 1
I 1
\ 1 x
\ 1
\ 1
11
\V 1
1
1
� a
w
� 11
w 1
a
O� a 1
J m 11
w
?K N
J � 1
1 I
1
ma
N2� 1
. 2
w0z
Z \
W U W \
J \
\
\
F a \I
�ti \
LLO
O=
J �
� a
Qm F
H
� W
Z z
O

Om
H�
YOU
QorQ
KNm�
Wma
WZmC7
oa
IV
a,al
� IIIIII�v /„
m)�+
<o=
i-
oxo
l �
�i ml I zJ I VIII II pl �,
Wo
'z -all
r m m
`J N0 p
w
C7zpz
c,
S�%U
/
as
az
Z' 8-L
caio�m0
M
ly
1 Qw
9 193HS 33S - 3NI1 HDI"
Wm�N
oNoO
a c
O
cw7zaz
as
F mw\
KU \
aZ \
LLd mW
_F

W sgi¢ � tiZ
w� C7 °�F � [• V
U
1
S 133HS 33S - 3NI1 HJ1VW
1\\\\
two
Qomm���
Von
o�A7M.
-a � mom � 1_¢ AAA V A A � II\ � � Rim I / z��o
wom o omm = a,a \\ m \\ \ \` \ \ \I� it\t _- D AST
�o AS
0o ¢w(n/ Q�gZoa
1
0
09 J m � 1 ����%c�.
� � g� I I% J'
w
� I �
its
jj
wo ❑� a� 1 Amil � 1 - 011� � I l
zwcm"[ I 1 0 A 4,I f m I
11
w wmowo mom
wp wF `zc 1
m z
o2 -Ooo ij
om wm Ewa z_m ,I a
no
O\ C
o \ \
V A \ V 11 l If plof�� � 4
n
\ V A A m \ 11 i1111y -�✓ �1��� V A.
1 V A A ail
N \ mA
of
Rill 1 __ �� �a
\V A A A v VAl j1itl l �A �-
z0
HY�FJ
LLJ�y \ 1 \ \\ S •lryl
\ IN
misziz „eacm-Nsd-bsmz91\s„atdwe�aa��aas�-.anz=yM-��t��L�i�ii�

2z� w W
o F
W sg� tiZ ¢
w� C7 °�F N [• V
Ll I
1
ado
PoA
O
2P
W
O�
WZ
/ mQ
2
0
U /
>W rn
w,/
QU ❑ovmid / /� / / /I�
of ❑'�s r. // / /// � C]`v`.'im/
z / PFLD
¢ lw/��a
/
, ���' - — 17 O-U 1v
_
3 8 CD
Tl
og
\Q
ID
\ \ = Y � o o
p emupo
m¢�
z
<w
o v
rw a�9
a�LL
- Ego zw ¢U,OUx�(� KQaYN �\
w� ox¢
\ \ \
¢¢OU Uw w0 `
M e C 133HS 99S — 3NIl HDiVW
Jw
¢w /
x
U i

z
2 z'
44
af
f f
I I \ Hd \ i
/ /
/ ❑ j
❑��Na V vv vv `v ��'v w ��1) v/J� i i j l i i wow 1—
g��mo
r7z❑ z \ \ ` \ 6�0❑ \ `-^F \ 1:� 1 I I / a / / / aoz oow w
za
\,NLL
00
� ` \\ ` ` \ w�o❑\\� tw.7m �\ �I o \I \I I I\ I1 I X I I Q la I I J_�a o-i amp o
oa
� �`�� \ V A \--__ v A 1 'q o,, f A I I�ywlY I ❑� ma wog o� oyo
I-
1�\pF�\
gym_ \ m �\ ❑\ � Vb mH
\ \ \ \ E G \X ' I: ICI / in \ H> � IW I ��❑� O m
V A A \ 1 1� /'AI'll w 1il II11 / I a d❑ �� o
\� 1xv vv <>A v v vvN 1l� Il /rKt/jii / / w w a
ml ?m II �. \V 1` '��'i Pi i l % � �/i i / / / �z ❑ �w
Lpo
/ 1, A �vv vv vv v I � I ` �\ �i I I �I l i li l l' I � � S� �_� ❑oo o
\F \ V I Ap[>\
w � /
��I�I Ivvv�� a;v�l 'I°illl Ia �
V A dn- v

Q
o
0
zoG
o
3 F
��y
m�3 --
Z
+
N
O
w�
e4o z
Z
o
0
0
0
�n
o
N
O
N
O
O
+
+
O)
V
O
V
N
A
A
O
O
O
O
2
U
11
U
Ob'08o=13
00'8E+GZ=1d
LU
O
O
m
N
O
O
O
O
1�
N
O
O
N
u6P'0[ ��d-6E0Z9[\sueLd\u6�sep\ryee1� 1en2�4M 6EBZ9[\s��efold\tl Ltl Okl \[s�M11e�.�n

rn
o
rn
rn
�
rn
o
o
rn
rn
m
rn
Z
w�
e4o z
�
Z
o
o
�
O
+
0
O
o
N
O
+
V
O
O
+
M
Ol
O
O
+
O]
O
O
N
O
O
O
+
O
O
O
1�
O
O
O
+
O
O
N
O
W
O
O
pOj
O
ol
Ol
u6p�� �jd-6E0Z9[\sue�d�u6�sep�ryeel� 1en2�4M 6EBZ9 [\s��efold\tl Ltl Okl \[s}fi1e� �
OZOZ/Z�b

—
O
O
O
OOi
W
Z
LL�
W"R
w
e4o z
�
U
Z----
----
0
0
--
------
------
-----
-----
v
-
0
------
L J
Y J
O
O
N
O
O
1�
O
O
O
O
TU
O
O
+
O
O
+
u6P'Z[ ��d-6E0Z9[\sueLd\u6�sep\ryee1� 1en2�4M 6EBZ9 [\s��efold\tl Ltl Okl \[s }R�d� �
OZOZ/Z�b

0
M
0
rn
0
o
i
I
I
I
I
�
MI
I
m
you
g
I
- y
uag
--
I
__
I
�
I
I
I
,
�
I
,
�
I
I
�
�
I
I
I
�
I
I
I
CD
d
N
Of
�
O
�
cn
�
I
I
I
I
I
/
I
I
llw
I
I
I
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
o�
"6P'SNtl£d-"J-JSK-Ld -�dK b£BZ9I\""S K\"6"a0\haa^]-.—l—M B --- OG/

0
0
rn
0
o
I
I
I
I
I
I
au
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1!w
l l
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
U
I
o
N
d
\N
1
\
Oo
0
o
e
o
\
o
LO
O
!
O
\
m
LO
\ m
O
o
�
I
+
I
C:
I
I
4u!gl_
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1!
!1I
-Awl
I
I
I
I
I
I
iwi
I
auag
I
I
I
o�

133HS SIH1 33S - 3NIl HJ1V'W
�g
IIlIA
Wt
iui���' y
,;,
nL
133HS SIHl 33S - 3NIl HJlV'W
bl /
i
co/9z/z yq y "6P'SI-93h-HSd-6£BZ9I\�"ald\"6 �a0\haa^]-san'ary M-���G/§I/L

� o "
z W
o ti
� o
® z
NAD 83
b � �
S
a
x
z
R
Y
�?E _
44
CIO
h
Z W o o \ U
Ile
-50
� a
wwda 7am� n
Mgr �, Jrl r.
O ¢wnjz�a z of P"yy.p�L
0
Fo oar z wl n � pf�-. o
W
F wo�tt O
pFz�O OQ
-
OC'Jin�mKropU'c' � -
mwUd
O_NOya¢� 7y
aaw�mmm°m4n= z - � n
s <_
woQFwz�z�ow> ° - ? o ✓>
F Faa¢FIFFd_
z w LL�wzwozzo` x oowr
� a°nc��2222W�`
QOvwi?Naa Fa F:/ia� � c .c a ^S
?I99?19 ?IgIIIIHAI 6CO09IJI

i
w
oKE
p r _ _
_
-
_ _ -
� E % 9 � E -
➢ � � - � E a
m Spa _
zp � o
®m�oi

zz
�
0
z
o
o2 ar
- -
1
2
U _ _2 2LL
rT,V
oa°
in
_
�W
16
.
___ v
° _
_ £ (� -
E
mF_ a
O
omvsd3
--_---
V
— --=- —
-- ���'— _— d
_ =_dam
—
___ _ - m� ¢o d
Z5
FmFoa»m
dim
-_
9I0-]3-HSdc—
-c6
cmisziz 6F� ��yZqq[[ NN
"6P'£BZ9I \�"ald \"E �aO \haa^]- .an'aNN bIOG/y N
a33va„_:E v'339_
a€�33
Q33@ma„aa
o E m
E
EE
o n
«Er

-
T1
LII�
III,
w-
a
z
T T
_
-
w
U
C)
w
=
-
o
=n
-
_
_
z
LU
Q
-
3 -
-
4
O
,x �_ w
-
o
r
LL1
LU
U-�mvnmr am_ F
Fa
H
W
-
LU
LL
�?r.
W
I.
Z
_ wnwirviw aa�
-�--
C)LU
af
x
C
I'I
_
W
It
-
v.rvyewnaais
_ -
Q
�
I
_
v
-
LU
H
ca
cmisziz
azmaa-Nsd-bnaaa-.anzwn- �b�om iMN

(/})
\((j})\
�
§
�
�
m
k
~
�
!
g
\&&
&
§°
,\
\)
)
�\
E\y
/
},
)\\
\
/\
+\
[\/
\
)�
/

133HS SIHI 33S 3NII H:)IVW
y
P4
A
4
00
1
LD
o
AM
jl
z 0
m z
0 (D
S/d
LD
2, <
4�,�,�
-H�
.. ........
199HS SIHI 99S - gNil HDIVW
11

I a
�ooa
_--_`— —`----- A ��_
—_-------T"�-
1 1I�r
IIIIIii'�
m A \ oo
wcw.�g�
A aLL >�ov mo V v v`e. 1 0 vA
V A oz �a�� \M
ov v/ vC bloom--�
aso
A o
o
�� as A VA r1. A I
I»
/ M
a
a i
O
/
a�
wow
Jc�
aw l' iG —%'ter/ \�PJ. i'
cm/9z/z
�ba�vmaa-Nsa-b.aa,.-