20190603 Ver 2_Mitigation_plan_IRTdraft_22June2020_20200625

ID#* 20190603 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Mac Haupt
Initial Review Completed Date 06/25/2020
Mitigation Project Submittal - 6/25/2020
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Chris Roessler
Project Information
..................................................................................................................................................................
ID#:* 20190603
Existing IDY
Project Type: r DMS r Mitigation Bank
Project Name: Folly Swamp
County: Gates
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: FollySwamp_mitigation_plan_IRTdraft_22June2020... 57.05MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Chris Roessler
Signature:*

MITIGATION PLAN WILDLANDS PASQUOTANK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Draft for I RT Review Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin
June 2020 HUC 03010205
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
PREPARED BY:
ON
WILDLANDS
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

PREPARED BY:
DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
WILDLANDS PASQUOTANK UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin
HUC 03010205
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
WILDLANDS
ENG I NEER INC,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
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).
Contributing Staff:
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
John Hutton, Principal in Charge
Nicole Macaluso, PE, Design Lead
Greg Turner, PE, Designer
Michael Clark, El, Designer
Geoff Smith, PE, Lead Quality Assurance

Executive Summary
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC ("Bank Sponsor") proposes to develop the Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
("Site", SAW-2018-02026) under the Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
("Bank", USACE Action ID not yet obtained). Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC is wholly owned by Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) and was developed for the sole purpose of holding this Bank. Figure 1
shows the general Site location. The Site will be planned and designed in one phase encompassing land
along Folly Swamp and five tributaries on six parcels in Gates County, NC. The purpose of the Bank is to
provide stream mitigation credits to compensate for impacts to Waters of the United States and/or
State Waters within the service area, Hydrologic Unit 03010205 (Pasquotank 05, see Figure 2). Existing
condition photographs are included in Appendix 4.
This mitigation plan has been written in conformance with the 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).
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page i

FABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0
Introduction.............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0
Basin Characterization and Site Selection..................................................................................
1
3.0
Baseline and Existing Conditions...............................................................................................
2
3.1 Watershed Conditions..................................................................................................................
2
3.2 Landscape Characteristics............................................................................................................
3
3.3 Project Resources.........................................................................................................................
4
3.3.1 Existing Streams........................................................................................................................
4
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands......................................................................................................................9
3.3.3 Existing Vegetation..................................................................................................................
10
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential.............................................................................................
10
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift...........................................................................................
10
4.0
Regulatory Considerations......................................................................................................
11
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources...............................................................................................
11
4.1.1 Biological Conclusion...............................................................................................................
11
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass.............................................................
12
4.3 401/404......................................................................................................................................12
5.0
Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives.......................................................................................
13
6.0
Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan............................................................................
13
6.1 Design Approach Overview........................................................................................................
13
6.2 Reference Streams......................................................................................................................
14
6.2.1 Acorn Hill Creek.......................................................................................................................
15
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis...........................................................................................................
16
6.3.1 Published Regional Curve Data...............................................................................................
16
6.3.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis.........................................................................................
16
6.3.3 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve.......................................................................................
17
6.3.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary.......................................................................................
17
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters...............................................................................
18
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis......................................................................................................20
6.5.1 Competence Analysis..............................................................................................................
21
6.5.2 Capacity Analysis.....................................................................................................................
21
6.6 Project Implementation..............................................................................................................
22
6.6.1 Folly Swamp Reaches 1 and 2.................................................................................................
22
6.6.2 Powell Branch..........................................................................................................................23
6.6.3 Morgan Branch........................................................................................................................24
6.6.4 Greene Branch.........................................................................................................................24
6.6.5 Barker Branch..........................................................................................................................25
6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management....................................................................
26
6.7.1 Vegetation and Planting Plan..................................................................................................26
6.7.2 Land Management..................................................................................................................
27
6.8 Utilities, Stream Crossings, and Site Access...............................................................................
27
7.0
Determination of Credits.........................................................................................................
28
8.0
Performance Standards...........................................................................................................
29
9.0
Monitoring Plan......................................................................................................................
30
10.0 Long -Term Management Plan.................................................................................................
32
10.1 Ownership and Long-term Manager..........................................................................................32
10.2 Long -Term Management Activities............................................................................................
33
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page ii

10.3 Funding Mechanism................................................................................................................... 33
10.4 Contingency Plan........................................................................................................................ 34
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan.................................................................................................... 34
12.0 Financial Assurances............................................................................................................... 35
13.0 References.............................................................................................................................. 37
TABLES
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1......................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2.........................................................................................................3
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions...........................................................................................3
Table 4: Project Attribute Table Folly Swamp...............................................................................................
5
Table 10: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Gates County, NC..............................................11
Table 11: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands......................................................................................
12
Table 12: Mitigation Goals and Objectives.................................................................................................
13
Table 13: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters .......................................
14
Table 14: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis.......................................................................................
18
Table 15: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Folly Swamp..........................................................
19
Table 16: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Powell and Morgan Branches ...............................
19
Table 17: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Greene and Barker Branches................................20
Table 18: Results of Competence and Capacity Analyses...........................................................................
22
Table 20: Project Asset Table......................................................................................................................
28
Table 24: Long -Term Management Plan.....................................................................................................33
Table 25: Management Funding.................................................................................................................34
Table 26: Financial Assurances Table..........................................................................................................
36
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Service Area Map
Figure 3
Existing Conditions Overview Map
Figure 3A
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 3B
Existing Conditions Map
Figure 4
NCDOT STIP Map
Figure 5
Watershed Map
Figure 6
Topographic Map
Figure 7
Soils Map
Figure 8A
Concept Design Map
Figure 8B
Concept Design Map
Figure 9
Reference Reach Map
Figure 10A
Monitoring Components Map
Figure 10B
Monitoring Components Map
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page iii

Figure 11 Design Discharge Chart
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2
Preliminary JD Application
Appendix 3
DWR Stream Classifications
Appendix 4
Data, Analysis, Supplementary Information, Maps
Appendix 5
Regulatory Correspondence
Appendix 6
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 7
Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 8
Financial Assurance
Appendix 9
Preliminary Plan Sheets
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Page iv

1.0 Introduction
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC ("Sponsor") proposes to develop the Folly Swamp Mitigation Site (Site) as the
first project under the Wildlands Pasquotank 05 Umbrella Mitigation Bank ("bank"). Wildlands Holdings VI,
LLC is wholly owned by Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
The Folly Swamp Mitigation Site (Site) is in northern Gates County approximately 30 miles northwest of
Elizabeth City, NC and four miles north of Sunbury, NC (Figure 1). The project is located within the
Pasquotank River Basin Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03010205010010 and NC Division of Water Resources
(DWR) Subbasin 03-01-50. The site was selected to provide stream mitigation credits in the Pasquotank
Basin 03010205 (Pasquotank 05) (Figure 2). The project involves the restoration of approximately 12,000
linear feet (LF) of incised and straightened streams. Restoration of these reaches will provide 12,809
stream mitigation credits (SMUs). The Site will be protected by a 50-acre conservation easement. The Site
Protection Instrument outlining the proposed easement is provided in Appendix 1.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1
Project Information
Project Name
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
County
Gates
Project Area (acres)
50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
36° 29' 24" N, 76° 35' 24" W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
41
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection
The Site is in the Pasquotank 05 Basin, the DWR Subbasin 03-01-50, and the 03010205010010 14-digit
Hydrologic Unit (HU). There are no current local or state watershed plans associated specifically with this
subbasin. The Pasquotank 05 is dominated by forested land (59%) and agricultural land (40%), and 51% of
the stream buffers are non -forested. The major developed areas include Elizabeth City, Hertford, and
Edenton, and the main roadways consist of US-17, US-64, and US-158 (Figure 1). The Folly Swamp
Mitigation Site was selected because it would allow unavoidable impacts to Waters of the United States
within the service area to be mitigated appropriately and provide a means for the economic growth of this
region to continue while ensuring aquatic resources and water quality are maintained.
Very few water quality studies have been reported in the basin and subbasin. NCDMS published a River
Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) plan for the Pasquotank 05 in 2009. Among the goals listed in the 2009
RBRP that this mitigation project will address are:
• Develop additional Strategic Habitat Areas (SHAs) and coordinate data and methodology
improvements with other state and federal agencies
• Implement agricultural BMPs to reduce nonpoint source inputs to the estuary
• Protect, augment, and connect Natural Heritage Areas and other conservation lands
Also mentioned in the RBRP is that the watershed will benefit from stream restoration projects that
reestablish more natural pattern, hydrology, and habitat, especially in heavily ditched watersheds.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 1

The Site fits the need for meeting the watershed goals by augmenting and connecting Natural Heritage
Areas and reducing nonpoint source loading to the Albemarle Sound estuaries. Folly Swamp drains to the
Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and later the Pasquotank River and Albemarle Sound. The
project will essentially extend the protected area by 50 acres to the west of the Great Dismal Swamp.
Various areas of the Albemarle Sound on the 2018 303(d) list for pH, copper, and dioxin impairment. Also,
various segments of the Pasquotank River appear on the 2018 303(d) list for copper, dissolved oxygen, and
pH. The Site is a large source of nutrients and bacteria because it hosts a pasture -raised livestock operation
and is fertilized to promote growth of row crops. Visual inspections indicate that the primary stressors in
the Folly Swamp watershed come from row crop agriculture, lack of riparian buffers, and stream
channelization.
Restoration of streams and wetlands on the Site will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in
the RBRP by building stable stream banks and restoring a forested riparian buffer. The project will slow
surface runoff, increase retention times, provide shade to streams, and reconnect the streams to a
floodplain and riparian wetlands. This will reduce sediment and nutrient loads. Sediment and nutrient
loading contribute to the downstream production of chlorophyll a, which can lower dissolved oxygen
levels. In addition, restoration will provide and improve instream and terrestrial (riparian) habitats while
improving stream stability and overall hydrology.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The Site watershed (Table 2 and Figure 5) is situated in the rural countryside in Gates County between
Sunbury and Corapeake, NC, within the Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain. Site topography, as indicated on the
Sunbury, NC USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangles, includes mostly gently sloped areas with some
moderate topography along the upstream reaches. Generally, valleys onsite are unconfined and alluvial,
and valley slopes tend to flatten as elevation decreases. Channels closer to the Folly Swamp floodplain have
lower slopes than the headwater reaches.
To its confluence with Hamburg Ditch, Folly Swamp is a Class C, Swamp Waters stream suitable for aquatic
life and secondary recreation. The Hamburg Ditch, also known as Cross Canal, is within the Great Dismal
Swamp National Wildlife Refuge. Swamp Waters is a supplemental classification intended to recognize
those waters which have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from non -
swamp streams (i.e., naturally low dissolved oxygen and pH).
The watershed to the Site streams includes agriculture, forest, and some development, including dozens of
single-family homes, and relatively few commercial uses along NC 32. Most of the Site has row crops within
the riparian areas, while Greene Branch runs through pasture. There are no development pressures
indicting that the Site land use will change in the future. However, because Gates County serves as a
bedroom community for Suffolk, VA, it is conceivable that the Site could include a low -density development
in the distant future.
Based on a review of historical aerials, included in Appendix 4, the Site streams have had the same
approximate land use and configurations since at least 1950 with the following exceptions:
Folly Swamp was channelized between 1950 and 1959. Since that time, the drainage district travel
way (berm) has been on the left bank and the right floodplain has largely been cleared for
agricultural use.
• In the 1970's and 1980's, the following changes were made to the Site:
o Folly Swamp's left floodplain was converted to row crop fields.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 2

o A small area of forest was cleared at the downstream end of Barker Branch
0 105 acres of Greene Branch's watershed was converted from forest to agriculture.
o A field in the middle of Greene Branch was converted to agriculture, and Greene Branch
and its floodplain were ditched.
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province
Middle Atlantic Coastal Plain
Ecoregion
Ecoregion 63e — Mid -Atlantic Flatwoods
River Basin
Pasquotank River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14 digit)
03020105, 03010205010010
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-01-50
Project Drainage Area (acres)*
3,392
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area
0.4%
CGIA Land Use Classification
54.3% forested, 34.7% managed herbaceous, 5.7%
wetland, 5.3% developed
*Folly Swamp downstream from Barker Branch
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
The Site is located within Ecoregion 63e — Mid -Atlantic Flatwoods. It occupies the middle portion of the
coastal plain. Soils formed in mostly Pleistocene -age clays and sands. Since the subsurface drainage is slow,
except near streams, artificial drainage is common.
The project is in the undivided Tertiary Yorktown Formation geologic region. The Yorktown Formation is
fossiliferous clay with varying amounts of fine-grained sand, bluish gray, shell material commonly
concentrated in lenses. The channel bed material reflects the local geology and consists of fine-grained
sand and silt.
The predominant Site floodplain soils on site are described in Table 3 below and depicted in Figure 7.
Table 3: Floodplain Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name
Location
Description
Bladen Loam,
Most common soil on Site,
Bladen soils are generally found in lower to middle Coastal
BnA
resent on major portions of all
p 1 p
Plain river valleys. The are very deep, poorly drained, and
Y• Y Y p, p Y
project reaches.
slowly permeable soils. They are also very strongly acidic.
Mapped along the easement
Craven Fine
boundary on small portions of
Craven soils are formed from marine sediments on Coastal
Sandy Loam, CrA
Greene Br. and Morgan Br., and
Plain upland flats. They are moderately well drained with
on segments of Powell Br. and
slow permeability.
Jordan Br.
Exum soils are very deep, moderately well drained,
Exum Silt Loam,
Mapped along a short segment
moderately slowly permeable soils on uplands in the middle
ExA
of Powell Br.
and lower Coastal Plain. They formed from loamy marine
sediments.
Mapped along much of Folly
Lenoir soils consist of somewhat poorly drained, slowly
Lenoir Loam, LeA
Swamp, Jordan Br., and lower
permeable soils that formed from clayey sediment on
Greene Br.
Coastal Plain uplands.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Page 3

Soil Name
Location
Description
Nawney Loam,
Mapped on lower portions of
Nawney soils are very deep and poorly drained with
NaA
Greene Br. and Morgan Br.
moderate permeability. They formed from loamy marine
and fluvial sediments on floodplains of the Coastal Plain.
Source: Gates County Soil Survey, USDA-NRCS, http://efotg.nres.usda.gov
3.3 Project Resources
3.3.1 Existing Streams
In September 2019, Wildlands contracted an investigation of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within
the proposed project easement areas. Folly Swamp was deemed perennial and four unnamed tributaries
on the Site were deemed intermittent. These tributaries have been named Powell Branch, Morgan Branch,
Greene Branch, and Barker Branch by Wildlands. Jurisdictional stream features are shown on Figures 3, 3A
and 3B and supporting documentation is provided in Appendix 2.
The streams on the project site are small, first or second order streams with the exception of Folly Swamp.
Two Folly Swamp reaches comprise the upper end of the project area. Below this, Folly Swamp is a large,
channelized ditch maintained by the Gates County Drainage District #1 for drainage purposes and is not
suitable for stream mitigation. It should be noted that we are calling the mainstem Folly Swamp where it
will be restored, and Folly Ditch, as it is locally known, where not included in the mitigation project.
The Drainage District is in favor of restoring Folly Swamp at the upper end. Additional project streams enter
the Folly Ditch as it flows towards the Great Dismal Swamp, approximately 2.5 miles downstream from the
mainstem stream mitigation area.
Moving downstream from the Folly Swamp restoration reaches, approximately 1,500 feet from the
downstream terminus, Powell Branch is the first mitigation tributary to join the Folly Ditch. It flows from a
drainage area comprised of agricultural fields and forest into the southern bank of Folly Swamp. The stream
has widened in several locations and rills have formed as a result of agricultural runoff, resulting in
headcutting within Powell Branch. Morgan Branch is the next tributary downstream, flowing parallel to the
eastern side of NC 32 and entering the Folly Ditch from the north. Its headwaters are comprised of
silviculture and low density residential areas. The project reaches of Morgan Branch are within active
agricultural fields with a silviculture area along the downstream right bank.
The last reaches to join the Folly Ditch are Greene Branch and Barker Branch, approximately 2,100 and
2,500 feet downstream from Morgan Branch, respectively. Both Greene Branch and Barker Branch enter
the Folly Ditch from the south. Approximately 30 head of cattle graze along Greene Branch and have access
to the upper reach. A single strand of electrified wire keeps them out of the lower reach. Greene Branch's
headwaters have been diverted and the upper reach is an ephemeral low area in a forested setting.
Barker Branch is also a maintained ditch that flows through agricultural fields. Its lower left bank is adjacent
to the same cattle pasture shared by Greene Branch. The two branches are on opposite sides of a wetland
feature adjacent to the Folly Ditch.
Geomorphic surveys were conducted on Site streams to characterize their existing condition. Existing
streams and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 2. NCDWR stream assessment forms are in
Appendix 3 and reach specific cross sections and geomorphic summaries are provided in Appendix 4.
Folly Swamp
Folly Swamp is a maintained ditch with instream substrate dominated by silt and sand. A pilot channel is
frequently present within the larger ditch. Early successional trees populate the streambanks. A sidecast
berm is present along much of the left bank and serves as a travel way for ditch maintenance. On the
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 4

downstream end, the berm directs high floods over the right bank toward the residential homes on Savage
Road. A perched culvert on this stream may function as an aquatic migration barrier. Stream function was
assessed on Folly Swamp using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and found to be
Low due to deficiencies in flood flow, water quality, in -stream habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
Two cross sections were measured in the upper and lower reach. The reaches are separated by another
maintained ditch from the north. This ditch is referred to in the project as Jordan Branch. As presented in
the Section 3.3.2 below, Jordan Branch, within its banks, has been determined to be a jurisdictional
wetland.
Table 4: Project Attribute Table Folly Swamp
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Folly Swamp
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
3,994
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Unconfined
Drainage area (acres)
870
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Perennial
Stream Function
Low (all reaches)
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C Sw
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed)
G5/C5
Evolutionary Trend
IV —degradation and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
AE
Folly Swamp
t
Pnwall Rrnnrh
Powell Branch is a first order tributary to the Folly Ditch. A sidecast berm is also present along most of the
upper portion of the reach and the stream has been channelized downstream of the wood line. In the
channelized section, a 4-foot high berm parallels the left bank and a maintenance travel way parallels right
bank. Powell Branch has sections of vertical, eroding banks and active rilling where agricultural field runoff
concentrates down the stream banks. The stream is deeply incised with a bank height ratio of 4.4. Stream
function was assessed on Powell Branch using NC SAM and found to be Low due to deficiencies in epifaunal
substrate, embeddedness, low bank stability and stream -side habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
0 Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 5

Table 5: Project Attribute Table Powell Branch
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Powell Branch
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,493
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Slightly Confined
Drainage area (acres)
320
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Stream Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C Sw
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed)
G5/C5
Evolutionary Trend
IV — degradation and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X and AE in Folly Swamp flood fringe
Morgan Branch
Morgan Branch is a first order tributary to the Folly Ditch located just east of NC-32. Morgan Branch is
incised with a bank height ratio of 3.8 and is eroded in areas where the stream banks are steep. Two active
drain tiles are present in the upstream floodplain of Morgan Branch, indicating that the floodplain is being
hydraulically bypassed. The last 540 feet of Morgan Branch's left floodplain is wet and frequently bush
hogged while the right floodplain is a planted pine forest with a Chinese privet understory. Stream function
was assessed on Morgan Branch using NCSAM and found to be Low due to deficiencies in flood flow,
stream stability, water quality, in -stream and stream -side habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Page 6

Table 6: Project Attribute Table Morgan Branch
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Morgan Branch
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
3,145
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Slightly Confined
Drainage area (acres)
183
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Stream Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C Sw
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed)
G5/C5
Evolutionary Trend
IV —degradation and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X and AE in Folly Swamp flood fringe
Graana Rrnnrh
The upper end of Greene Branch is poorly defined. An upslope ditch which parallels Greene Branch and a
diversion channel at the property boundary diverts much of the overland flow that would naturally reach
this section of Greene Branch. Wildlands installed a weir and flow gage on the diversion channel on March
15, 2019 and measured flow through April 10, 2019. The gage measured consistent ditch flow on all 26
days.
Approximately midway between the diverted headwaters and Greene Branch's confluence with the Folly
Ditch, is a ditched drainage that has been determined to be a linear wetland. This drainage is referred to as
Pollo Branch in the project. It drains an area with four chicken -rearing houses.
Downstream of this area, Greene Branch is channelized with a deeply set, constructed U-shaped channel.
Erosion is present at the toe of the channel, but largely obscured by the presence of thick vegetative
overgrowth above the deeply incised channel. Greene Branch is incised with a bank height ratio of 1.8. A
perched culvert on this stream may function as an aquatic migration barrier. Stream function was assessed
on Greene Branch using NCSAM and found to be Low due to deficiencies in water quality, in -stream and
stream -side habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
Approximately 20 cattle and 50 sheep have access to areas with the proposed conservation easement
along Greene Branch. As evidenced in the photo below, they regularly disturb the herbaceous vegetation
and soil structure along upper Greene Branch. Excluding them from the conservation easement area will
allow the vegetation and soil structure to re-establish, as well as reduce nutrient and fecal coliform loading
to the Folly Ditch.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 7

Table 7: Project Attribute Table Greene Branch
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Greene Branch
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,886
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Slightly Confined
Drainage area (acres)
105
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Stream Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C Sw
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed)
G5/C5 (CP headwaters at upper end)
Evolutionary Trend
IV —degradation and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X and AE in Folly Swamp flood fringe
RorkPrRronrh
Barker Branch emanates as a shallow channel from a wooded area and flows along the east side of an
agricultural field and becomes intermittent as it leaves the treeline and received from a ditch from the east.
Barker Branch becomes incised and entrenched below an active headcut just 200 feet downstream from its
jurisdictional start and continues in that condition to the stream's confluence with the Folly Ditch. Stream
function was assessed on Barker Branch using NCSAM and found to be Low due to deficiencies in flood
flow, stream stability, water quality, in -stream and stream -side habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Page 8

Table 8: Project Attribute Table Barker Branch
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
Barker Branch
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,496
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately confined, unconfined)
Slightly Confined
Drainage area (acres)
69
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral
Intermittent
Stream Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality Classification
C Sw
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed)
G5/CP headwaters approach
Evolutionary Trend
IV —degradation and widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X and AE in Folly Swamp flood fringe
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands
In September 2019, Wildlands contracted an investigation by Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC)
of on -site jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within the proposed project easement areas. Jurisdictional areas
were delineated using the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Routine On -Site Determination Method.
This method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the subsequent
Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Regional Supplement. All jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were located by
sub -meter GPS. Wetland determination forms representative of on -site jurisdictional areas as well as non -
jurisdictional upland areas are included in Appendix 2.
The wetland delineation was field reviewed by USACE staff on November 6, 2019 and PJD application was
submitted on November 18, 2019. There are five jurisdictional wetland features located on -site (labeled
Wetland A — Wetland E). These wetland features are classified as headwater forests, bottomland hardwood
forest, or seeps.
Wetlands are infrequent along the project streams. Jurisdictional wetlands are present along Folly Swamp
in three locations:
• on the left bank just upstream from the Jordan Branch confluence
• on the left bank downstream from NC32 extending to Morgan Branch
• on the right bank between lower Greene Branch and lower Barker Branch
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 9

Pollo Branch and lower Jordan Branch were also mapped as jurisdictional wetlands. Pollo Branch is a linear
wetland that drains from the west to the middle area of Greene Branch. Jordan Branch is a linear wetland
ditch that drains from the north to the middle of Folly Swamp and demarcates the break between Reach 1
and 2.
These features exhibit a high water table, pockets of shallow inundation, saturation within the upper 12
inches of the soil profile, a low chroma matrix, and hydrophytic vegetation.
3.3.3 Existing Vegetation
Vegetation along the Site streams is fairly consistent, including species such as sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum), smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), elderberry (Sambucus spp.), pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and various grasses. Chinese privet (latin name) is present
throughout the Site but is only dense at the downstream ends of Morgan Branch and Powell Branch.
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
The primary stressors on site are incision and entrenchment from channelization and a lack of riparian
buffers. These stressors led to Low NCSAM scores. Without intervention, Folly Swamp and its tributaries
will continue to widen, which will further disconnect riparian wetland hydrology. Ultimately, functional
uplift for this Site is linked to improvement in and maintenance of hydrologic connectivity between streams
and riparian wetlands. Additionally, establishing a riparian buffer will protect and enhance this connectivity.
Functional uplift for the site will be achieved through the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to riparian wetlands
to restore hydrologic connection.
• Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants.
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and promote woody debris in
system.
• Fencing out livestock.
• Protecting the site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 5 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail in Section 6 as the project site mitigation plan.
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
The following potential Site constraints have been identified and will be addressed as part of this project.
Establishing vegetation on Priority Level 2 stream restoration (Folly Swamp and Powell Branch) has been
challenging on other projects. Wildlands has prepared a Vegetation and Planting Plan (Section 3.7) to
address this potential constraint. Priority Level 2 restoration may have a limited floodplain on some
projects. As described in Section 6.6 Project Implementation, Wildlands will construct floodplains that are
at least 4 times bankfull width and have a slope that is flatter than 5:1. Groundwater wells will be placed on
the floodplains of each Site stream to assess the effect of restoration on local hydrology. Another
constraint is that some of the smaller drainage areas may have low flow. Wildlands has monitored these
channels and expects that 30 days of continuous flow annually will be achievable. Last, beaver may enter
the Site streams because they are known to be present on lower Folly Ditch, near the Great Dismal Swamp.
Wildlands will contract with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to remove beavers if they become a
problem on the Site (i.e., within the conservation easement areas).
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 10

4.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 9, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. These considerations are expanded
upon in Sections 4.1-4.3.
Table 9: Project Attribute Table Part 4
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
PCN
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
PCN
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
Coastal Area Management Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
FEMA Floodplain Compliance
Yes
No
Appendix 5
Essential Fisheries Habitat
No
N/A
N/A
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources
Wildlands utilized the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
databases to search for federally listed threatened and endangered plant and animal species in Gates
County, NC protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973. Table 10 summarizes the species.
Table 5: Listed Threatened and Endangered Species in Gates County, NC
Species
Federal Status
Common Name
Scientific Name
Red -cockaded Woodpecker
Picoides borealis
Endangered
Northern Long -Eared Bat
Myotis septentrionalis
Threatened
American Alligator
Alligator mississippiensis
Similarity of Appearance (Threatened)
A pedestrian survey of the site conducted on October 29, 2019 indicated that suitable habitat was present
for the Red -Cockaded Woodpecker and the NLEB. No suitable habitat was found for the American alligator.
No federally threatened or endangered individuals were observed.
4.1.1 Biological Conclusion
A public notice was issued for comment to Federal, State, and local agencies and officials, including the
USFWS, NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on
August 22, 2019. Wildlands also submitted scoping letters to these agencies on November 22, 2019 that
included investigation into the presence of threatened and endangered species on Site protected under
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as any historical resources protected under The National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966.
USFWS's biological conclusion for the Site is that the project "is expected to have minimal adverse impacts
to fish and wildlife resources". USFWS requested that USACE submit a Situation three pursuant to the
SLPOES agreement to USFWS to satisfy the remaining requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA. NCWRC
did not comment.
SHPO concluded that the project will not affect historic resources
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 11

Regulatory communications and correspondence are included in Appendix 5
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
Folly Swamp, through the Site, is mapped as FEMA Zone AE with a regulatory floodway. Wildlands has
preliminarily modeled the design conditions and is seeking to achieve a No -Rise condition. However,
because the stream is being relocated outside of the effective regulatory floodway, a CLOMR may be
required while meeting the expectation of no rises in modeled water surface elevations. If a CLOMR is
required, a LOMR will be prepared after construction is complete. A floodplain development permit will be
obtained as part of the mitigation project. The other project reaches, Powell Branch, Morgan Branch,
Greene Branch, and Barker Branch are primarily mapped Zone X and are not modeled streams. However,
the downstream extents of each tributary are located within the flood fringe of Folly Swamp. We
anticipate any requirements around the tributaries will be addressed locally with Gates County through the
floodplain development permit.
4.3 401/404
Five jurisdictional wetlands are located in the project area (see Section 3.3 — Project Resources). The
existing jurisdictional wetlands appear in Figure 8A and 8B. The proposed stream channels are routed away
from these features when possible. However, the proposed stream channels often will impact the wetlands
when there is no alternative. Any wetlands within the conservation easement will be denoted in the final
construction plans on the Erosion and Sediment Control plan and detail plan sheets, as well as in the
project specifications. Floodplain grading will be considered a temporary impact to wetlands if final grade is
within one foot of existing grade. Some wetland resources will be converted to stream resources. Wildlands
expects a net gain of wetland area, as construction of the new channels will fill most of the old channels to
the elevation of the existing wetlands, creating a wider overall floodplain and riparian wetland area.
Table 11 estimates the anticipated impacts to wetland areas on this project. Final impacts will be provided
in the Pre -Construction Notification (PCN), after proposed floodplain grading has been completed, and will
more accurately quantify these data. The numbers below reflect a conservative estimate of potential
impacts. Of the five individually mapped wetlands, five may have temporary impacts, and four may have
permanent impacts. Wetland impacts will be scrutinized much more closely in the PCN application.
Table 6: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature
Classification
Total
Acreage
Permanent
(P) Impact
Temporary (T) Impact
Type of
Impact Area
Type of
Impact Area
Activity
(acres)
Activity
(acres)
Conversion to
Floodplain
Wetlands A-E
Riparian Riverine
3.20
Stream
0.50
Grading
1.0
Resource
Stream impacts have not yet been calculated but, generally, will be temporary. Except Barker Branch, all
restoration reaches will add stream length. The Coastal Plain headwater approach will be applied to Barker
Branch.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 12

5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The project will improve stream functions as described in Section 5 through stream and wetland
restoration and riparian buffer re -vegetation. Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable
through measurement and/or visual assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the
accomplishment of goals. The project will be monitored after construction to evaluate performance as
described in Section 10 of this report. The project goals and related objectives are described in Table 12.
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Reconnect channels
Raise water table and hydrate riparian wetlands.
with floodplains and
Reconstruct stream channels for
Allow more frequent flood flows to disperse on the
riparian wetlands to
bankfull dimensions and depth
floodplain. Hydrologically connect streams and
allow a natural
relative to the existing floodplain.
riparian wetlands. Support geomorphology and
flooding regime.
higher level functions.
Construct stream channels that
Improve the
will maintain a stable pattern and
Significantly reduce sediment and phosphorus
stability of stream
profile considering the hydrologic
inputs from bank erosion. Reduce shear stress on
channels.
and sediment inputs to the
channel boundary. Support all stream functions
system, the landscape setting, and
above hydrology.
the watershed conditions.
On Greene and Barker Branch,
Exclude cattle from
implement cattle exclusion
Reduce and control sediment inputs; reduce and
measures around conservation
manage nutrient inputs;
project streams.
easements adjacent to cattle
reduce and manage fecal coliform inputs.
pastures.
Install habitat features such as
Increase and diversify available habitats for
constructed riffles, cover/lunker
macroinvertebrates, fish, and amphibians leading to
Improve instream
logs, and brush toes into
colonization and increase in biodiversity over time.
habitat.
restored/enhanced streams. Add
Add complexity including large woody debris (LWD)
woody materials to channel beds.
Construct pools of varying depth.
to streams.
Restore and
Plant native tree and understory
Reduce sediment inputs from bank erosion and
enhance native
species in riparian zone and plant
runoff. Increase nutrient cycling and storage in
floodplain and
floodplain. Provide riparian habitat. Add a source of
streambank
appropriate species on
LWD and organic material to stream. Support all
vegetation.
streambank.
stream functions.
Permanently
Establish conservation easements
Protect Site from encroachment on the riparian
protect the Site
on the Site.
corridor and direct impact to streams and wetlands.
from harmful uses.
Support all stream functions.
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Design Approach Overview
The design approach for this Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in Section 5
which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 3.4. The design is also
intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 5, though these are not tied to performance criteria.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 13

The project streams planned for restoration will be reconnected with an active floodplain and the channels
will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water and sediment
delivered to the system. Exceptions are in two instances when the Coastal Plain headwater approach
(USACE and DENR, 2005) will be implemented. In this case the channel will have floodplain access but a
single -thread channel with meandering pattern will not be constructed. Where buffer restoration or
enhancement is needed, the adjacent floodplains and riparian wetlands will be planted with native tree
species. Instream structures will be built in the channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and
improve aquatic habitat. The Site will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.
The design approach for this Site employed a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration. Reference reaches were identified to serve as an acceptable range for design parameters.
Channels were sized based on design discharge hydrologic analysis and empirical approaches including
applying regional curve equations. Designs were then verified and/or modified based on a sediment
transport analysis. This approach has been used on successful Inner Coastal Plain restoration projects (e.g.,
Falling Creek and Grantham Branch Mitigation Sites) and is appropriate for the goals and objectives for this
Site.
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform design
of stable channels of similar stream types in similar landscapes and watersheds. Eight reference reaches
were identified for this Site (Figure 9) and used to support the design of Folly Swamp and its tributaries.
These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams including drainage
area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. All but three of the reference reaches are located either
within the Yorktown Formation and Mid -Atlantic Flatwoods ecoregion that also contain the Site. The Hell
Swamp and Watts mitigation projects serve as reference reaches for the Coastal Plain headwater approach.
They are located slightly to the east in Quaternary deposits and the Pamlico Lowlands and Tidal Marshes
(Ecoregion 63b). It appears that the geologic and ecoregion settings are relatively similar to the Site.
Geomorphic parameters for most of these reference reaches are summarized in Appendix 4; the local sites
used only for discharge are not included in Appendix 4. The references to be used for the specific streams
are shown in Table 13. A description of each reference reach is included in Table 13.
Table 8: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters
Reference
Stream
Landscape Position
Chosen For
Used For
Used on
Reach
Type
streams
N. Fork
Headwater, low
Sandbed with examples of woody
Q,
Acorn Hill
C6
slope, alluvial valley.
debris structures. Similar
Dimension,
All
Creek
Flowing into larger
landscape position and valley
Pattern,
mainstem
slope ranges
Profile
S. Fork
Headwater, low
Sandbed with examples of woody
Q,
Acorn Hill
C6/D6
slope, alluvial valley.
debris structures. Similar
Dimension,
All
Creek
Flowing into larger
landscape position and valley
Pattern,
mainstem
slope ranges
Profile
Channel dimensions, landscape
Q,
Acorn Hill
C6
Wide low slope
position, habitat structures,Folly
Dimension,
Swamp
Creek
alluvial valley
pattern, slope
Pattern,
Profile
Headwater, low
Sandbed with examples of woody
Q,
Outland
C6c/ D6
slope, alluvial valley.
debris structures. Similar
Dimension,
All
Branch
Flowing into larger
landscape position and valley
Pattern,
mainstem
slope ranges
Profile
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 14

Reference
Stream
Landscape Position
Chosen For
Used For
Used on
Reach
Type
streams
Headwater, low
Sandbed with examples of woody
slope, alluvial valley.
debris structures. Similar
Still Creek
E5
Flowing into larger
landscape position and valley
Q
All
mainstem
slope ranges
Shepherd
Low slope alluvial
Similar landscape position and
Folly Swamp
Run
E5
valley
valley slope ranges
Q
R1 & R2
Sandbed with examples of woody
Q,
Tributaries
Scout
Wide, low slope
debris pool structures, pattern,
Dimension,
West 2
E5
alluvial valley.
and similar landscape position to
Pattern,
to Folly
tributaries
Profile
Ditch
Channel dimensions, landscape
Johanna
E5/C5
Wide low slope,
position, habitat structures,
Dimension,
Folly Swamp
Creek
alluvial valley
Pattern,
R1 & R2
pattern, slope
Profile
Headwater, low
Sandbed with examples of woody
UT to
slope, alluvial valley.
debris structures. Similar
Tyson
y
C5
Flowing into larger
landscape position and valley
Q
All
Creek
mainstem
slope ranges
Hell
Coastal Plain Headwater
Greene
Headwater, low
Dimension
Branch R1
'
Swamp CP
-
slope
Approach landscape position,
Profile
Barker
Headwater
slope (good example)
Branch R1
Watts
Coastal Plain Headwater
Greene
DMS CP
-
Headwater, low
Approach landscape position,
Dimension
Branch R1
'
slope
Profile
Barker
Headwater
slope (not -so -good example)
Branch R1
Upper
Headwater, low
Landscape position, slope,
Powell
E6
Q
All
Branch
slope
dimension
UT2 to
Great
C6
Headwater, low
Landscape position, slope,
Q
All
Dismal
slope
dimension
Swamp
Silver
Headwater, low
Landscape position, slope,
Springs Rd
E6
slope
dimension
Q
All
6.2.1 Acorn Hill Creek
In search of reference sites, Wildlands investigated Acorn Hill Creek, which is approximately 3 miles south
of the Greene and Barker Branch area of the Site. Acorn Hill Creek is east of Sunbury and south of US 158.
Like the Site, it is underlain by Yorktown formation. The land use hasn't changed since 1993 except for
limited logging activity in headwater areas outside of the identified reference reaches. Four subwatersheds
ranging in size from approximately 170 acres to 670 acres provided several examples of Site -similar
drainage areas with well -formed channels.
It should be noted that the soils at Acorn Hill are primarily Nawney loam, Bladen loam, and lesser Pantego
fine sandy loam. These are largely the same as the Site soils.
Wildlands conducted four detailed geomorphic surveys and additional cross sections of mostly single -
thread channels within the Acorn Hill system. These includes the North Fork of Acorn Hill Creek (0.27
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 15

square mile drainage area and 0.31% channel slope), the South Fork of Acorn Hill Creek (0.7 square mile
drainage area and 0.13% channel slope), Outland Branch (0.81 square mile drainage area and 0.70%
channel slope), and the Acorn Hill Creek (1.05+ square mile drainage area and 0.11% channel slope).
Cross sections were measured at several other locations in the Acorn Hill Creek system that were reference
quality. The Acorn Hill reference reaches served to define the lower end of the reference reach curve. They
also served to develop dimension and profile parameters for the Site streams. Tree roots formed natural
grade control features on these references. The drop height over these roots informed how grade is
dropped on low -slope Site reaches including Folly Swamp and Powell Branch.
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to develop bankfull discharge estimates for each of the project restoration
reaches: the NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve (Doll et al., 2003), the EcoScience Coastal Plain Curve
(Sweet and Geratz, 2003), Wildlands Regional Flood Frequency Analysis, a site -specific reference reach
curve, and data from previous successful design projects. The resulting values were compared and
concurrence between the estimates was evaluated. The purpose of using multiple methods to estimate
design discharge is to eliminate reliance on a single method as the basis of channel design. However, the
methods commonly produce significantly different results so professional judgement must be used to
select the final design discharge for each restoration reach. Each of the methods used to estimate
discharge are described below and the results of the analysis are summarized in Table 14 and illustrated in
Figure 11.
6.3.1 Published Regional Curve Data
The NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve published by Doll et al. in 2003 and the EcoScience Coastal Plain
Curve were used to estimate discharge based on the drainage area of each design reach. The discharge
values derived from these regional curves were in the same range as those derived from the site -specific
reference reach curve and consistently lower than the figures produced by the Wildlands Regional Flood
Frequency Analysis.
6.3.2 Regional Flood Frequency Analysis
Wildlands developed a regional flood frequency analysis relation for the NC Coastal Plain region based on
methodology described in the 2009 USGS publication Magnitude and Frequency of Rural Floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006 (Weaver et al., 2009). Of the 103 stations referenced in the
publication, 12 stations with drainage areas ranging from 0.28 to 7.63 square miles were used in the
development of the tool. The applicable stations were selected based on several criteria such as geographic
region, drainage area, watershed characteristics, and dates of data collection. Peak flow data from the 12
USGS stream stations used for the creation of this relation were analyzed for homogeneity using Hosking
and Wallis (1993) heterogeneity statistics in the statistics program R®. All stations were found to be
acceptably homogeneous. The included gages are as follows:
• USGS 02227422 —
Crooked Creek Tributary near Bristol, GA (DA = 0.28 mil)
• USGS 0209173190 — Unnamed Tributary to Sand Run near Lizzie, NC (DA = 0.57 mil)
• USGS 02227990 —
Satilla River Tributary 2 at Atkinson, GA (DA = 0.67 mil)
• USGS 02169960 —
Lake Marion Tributary near Vance, SC (DA = 2.12 mil)
• USGS 01668300 —
Farmers Hall Creek near Champlain, VA (DA = 2.18 mil)
• USGS 021355013
— Davis Branch near Sumter, SC (DA = 2.50 mil)
• USGS 02136361 —
Turkey Creak near Maryville, SC (DA = 4.25 mil)
• USGS 021720725
— Canton Creek near Moncks Corner, SC (DA = 4.82 mil)
• USGS 02148090 —
Swift Creek near Camden, SC (DA = 4.90 mil)
• USGS 02130800 —
Backswamp near Darlington, SC (DA = 6.22 mil)
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 16

USGS 01661800— Bush Mill Stream near Heathsvi Ile, VA (DA = 6.77 mil)
USGS 02102908— Flat Creek near Iverness, NC (DA = 7.63 mil)
The data from these 12 gage stations were used to develop flood frequency curves for the 1-year, 1.2-year,
1.5-year, 1.8-year, and 2-year recurrence interval discharges. These relations can be used to estimate
discharge of those recurrence intervals for ungaged streams in the same hydrologic region and were solved
to determine the discharge of each project reach with the drainage area as the input. The Wildlands
regional flood frequency analysis produced discharge values that were consistently higher than the other
two primary discharge analysis methods.
6.3.3 Site Specific Reference Reach Curve
A total of 14 reference reaches were identified for this project (Section 6.2) and all but the two Coastal
Plain Headwater reaches were used to develop a Site -Specific Reference Reach Curve. Each reference reach
was surveyed to develop information for analyzing drainage area -discharge relationships. Some were only
used for plotting on a Site -specific reference curve for discharge and did not include development of design
parameters for pattern or profile; these channels do not appear in the Appendix reference reach table.
Stable cross -sectional dimensions and channel slopes were used to compute a bankfull discharge with the
Manning's equation for each reference reach. The resulting discharge values were plotted against drainage
area to make a Site -specific reference curve. The discharge values derived from the resulting curve were
consistently lower than the published Coastal Plain regional curve data and the Wildlands regional flood
frequency analysis.
6.3.4 Design Discharge Analysis Summary
The results of the design discharge analysis provided a range of discharge values. There was convergence
between the estimates derived from the NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve and the Wildlands regional
flood frequency analysis 1.2-year discharges for Folly Swamp and Powell Branch. The results of the two
methods had an average variation of 9% over the design reaches. On the other hand, the Wildlands
regional flood frequency analysis returned values for the 1.2-year event that were consistently higher than
the other two primary methods for the other design streams (Morgan Branch, Greene Branch, and Barker
Branch).
For Morgan Branch, Greene Branch, and Barker Branch, there was convergence between the estimates
derived from the NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve and the site -specific reference reach curve. On
average, these two methods differed by 19% over the four design reaches.
Wildlands ultimately selected a weighted design discharge approach by using 33% weight from the
reference reach curve, 27% weight from the NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve, 20% weight from the
1.2-year flood frequency analysis, 13% weight from the EcoScience Coastal Plain Curve, and 7% weight
from the 1.5-year flood frequency analysis. The products of this weighted design discharge were 8-25%
above those of the reference reach curve.
Table 14 provides a summary of the discharge analysis. Figure 11 illustrates the design discharge data.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 17

Table 9: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Folly
Folly
Greene
Greene
Swamp
Swamp
Powell
Morgan
Branch
Branch
Barker
Branch
Branch
Branch
-R1
-R2
-R1
-R2
DA (acres)
608
873
321
183
37
105
69
DA (sq. mi.)
0.95
1.36
0.50
0.29
0.058
0.16
0.11
NC Rural Coastal Plain Regional Curve
(cfs)
18
23
11
7.6
2.5
5.1
3.8
Manning's equation at surveyed XS
(cfs)
29
48
7.0
14
-
7.0
14
Wildlands
1.2-year event
19
23
13
7.1
4.1
7.1
5.7
Regional Flood
Frequency
1.5-year event
30
36
21
7.2
7.2
12
10
Analysis for Rural
NC Coastal Plain
2.0-year event
41
49
30
12
11
17
14
(cfs)
EcoScience Coastal Plain Curve
8.5
11
5.2
3.4
1.0
2.2
1.6
Site -Specific Reference Reach Curve
(cfs)
12
14
9.3
7.4
3.9
5.9
5.0
Selected Design Discharge (cfs)
16
19
11
8
4
6
5
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reaches were a primary source of information to develop the pattern and profile design
parameters for the streams. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed within the reference reach
parameter ranges with some exceptions based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. For example, radius of curvature ratio is kept above 1.9 on all reaches and meander
width ratio is kept above 2.9 in the moderately confined valleys of the Folly Swamp site. Wildlands has
found these minimum ratios to support stable geometry. For the B channel headwater reaches, channel
design did not follow the stream pattern ratios.
Reference ranges were also used to inform the design of the cross -sections on the streams. The streams
were designed with pool widths to be approximately 1.3 times the width of riffles to provide adequate
point bars and riffle pool transition zones. Designer experience was used for pool design as well. Pool
depths were designed to be a minimum of nearly 2.0 times deeper than riffles to provide habitat variation.
Cross-section parameters such as area, depth, and width were designed based on the design discharge and
stable bank slopes. The width to depth ratio was increased beyond some of the reference parameters to
provide stable bank slopes prior to the establishment of a vegetated streambank. A summary of
morphological parameters for several Site reaches, including Folly Swamp R1 and R2, Powell Branch,
Morgan Branch, Greene Branch R2, and Barker Branch R2 are listed in Tables 15, 16, and 17. Complete
morphological tables for existing, reference, and proposed conditions are provided in Appendix 4.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 18

Table 10: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Folly Swamp
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed
Parameters
Folly
Folly
Acorn Hill
Johanna
Folly
Folly
Parameter
SwampRI
Swamp
Creek
Creek
Swamp
Swamp
R2
R1*
R2*
Valley Width (ft)
100
125
> 200
-
100 - 150
125 - 175
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
608
870
670
576
608
870
Channel/Reach
Classification
G5
G5
C5
C5
C5
C5
Design Discharge Width (ft)
11.0
9.7
15.2
9.7
7.6 / 16.5
8.1 / 17.5
Design Discharge Max Depth
1.9
1.7
0.7
0.8
1.0/1.7
1.1 / 1.8
(ft)
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
9.6
10.7
10.2
7.2 - 7.8
4.6 / 14.2
5.3 / 16.2
Design Discharge Velocity
1.7
1.8
0.9
1.8 -1.9
0.8 / 1.1
0.9 / 1.2
NO
Design Discharge (cfs)
16
19
9.5
14
16
19
Channel Slope
0.0025
0.0003
0.0011
0.0022
0.001
0.0008
Sinuosity
1.05
1.05
1.07
1.2
1.25
1.25
Width/Depth Ratio
12.6
8.7
23
10 - 20
12.6 / 19
12.4 / 19
Bank Height Ratio
3.0
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
1.5
1.9
>7
8.0 - 9.6
2.2 - 5
2.2 - 5
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
/ d100
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
*Folly Swamp has a two -stage channel. The pilot channel measures are listed first and the larger channel measures
are listed second.
Table 11: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Powell and Morgan Branches
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed
Parameters
Powell
Morgan
S. Fork
Scout West
Powell
Morgan
Parameter
Branch
Branch
Acorn Hill
2
Branch R1*
Branch
Valley Width (ft)
80
200
-
-
80
200
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
320
186
450
218
320
186
Channel/Reach
G5
G5
C6/D6
E5
C5
C5
Classification
Design Discharge Width (ft)
7.2
5.9
19 - 26
5.6 - 7.6
6.2 / 13
11
Design Discharge Max Depth
1.4
1.1
0.4
0.7-1.0
0.7/1.2
1.1
(ft)
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
5.3
4.8
7.5 - 11
6.6
8.4
7.3
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s)
2.1
1.7
0.7
1.2
1.3
1.1
Design Discharge (cfs)
11
8.0
5.3 - 8.2
1 6.4
11
8.0
Water Surface Slope
0.0043
0.0030
0.0013
0.004
0.001
0.0017
Sinuosity
1.1
1.1
1.14
1.2
1.1
1.25
Width/Depth Ratio
9.8
7.2
48 - 62
5.7 - 11
13 / 20
17
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 19

Parameter
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed
Parameters
Powell
Branch
Morgan
Branch
S. Fork
Acorn Hill
Scout West
2
Powell
Branch R1*
Morgan
Branch
Bank Height Ratio
4.4
3.8
1.0
1.1-1.2
1.0
1.0
Entrenchment Ratio
2.1
1.4
11- 16
> 2.2
> 2.2
> 2.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
/ d100
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
*Powell Branch has a two -stage channel. The pilot channel measures are listed first and the larger channel measures
are listed second.
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Greene and Barker Branches
Existing Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
Greene
Barker
N. Fork
Greene
Barker
Parameter
Still Creek
Branch
Branch R2
Branch R2
Acorn Hill
Branch
R2A
Valley Width (ft)
85
50
-
-
85
50
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
102
48
173
224
102
48
Channel/Reach
CP
Classification
G5
G5
C6
E5
C5
headwater
Design Discharge Width (ft)
3.7
4.2
9.0
6.8 - 8.0
11
N/A
Design Discharge Max Depth
N/A
(ft)
1.7
1.3
0.4
0.7 -1.0
1.0
Design Discharge Area (ft2)
4.7
4.1
3.6 - 4.0
5.7 - 6.7
7.0
N/A
Design Discharge Velocity
N/A
NO
1.3
1.2
1.1-1.2
1.2
0.9
Design Discharge (cfs)
6.0
5.0
4.1- 4.8
7.3
6.0
5.0
Water Surface Slope
0.0045
0.0060
0.0031
0.0066
0.0013
0.0056
Sinuosity
1.1
1.1
1.22
1.33
1.13
N/A
Width/Depth Ratio
2.9
4.3
20 - 22
7.4 -11.3
17
N/A
Bank Height Ratio
1.8
3.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
N/A
Entrenchment Ratio
5.4
1.9
44
4.9 - 13
> 2.2
> 2.2
d16 / d35 / d50 / d84 / d95
/ d100
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
sand bed
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
Results of sediment transport analyses are presented in Table 18 below. The primary consideration for
sediment transport in this project is transport capacity. This is measured by stream power. Shear stress is
not a factor because the sand bed streams will mobilize all particles in a sediment -moving discharge event.
Furthermore, the existing streams, for the most part, are not aggrading or degrading, though some are
widening, and lower Greene and Barker Branches are degrading. Wildlands conducted an analysis to see if
changes to stream power might affect the channel condition. If a problem is identified, further grade
control or bank revetment measures could be implemented.
On -site streams were visually inspected numerous times between 2018 and 2020 to qualitatively assess
bank erosion and aggradation and degradation within the channels. Site streams exhibit some evidence of
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 20

on -going fluvial erosion of streambanks and channel bottom. However, if streambank and bed erosion is
reduced through restoration and enhancement activities, this sediment load will be greatly reduced. The
restoration design will also more uniformly distribute stream power and shear stress in the channels.
Set in mostly flat valleys and channels, the Folly Swamp streams are not prone to degradation. As such, the
design will generally not include threshold structures to prevent headcuts from forming and migrating. One
exception is where reach slopes are steeper for channels to drop from a higher grade to the existing bed
grade. In those cases, threshold structures will include log sills, woody riffles that include gravel backfill,
and combinations of the two. Rock will be obtained from a Coastal Plain pea gravel pit that provides
material in the 2- to 6-inch diameter range. This material was used at the Falling Creek Mitigation Site in
Wayne County and is of suitable size and type to meet the requirements of the Site.
Another potential source of erosion is runoff from agricultural fields within the project area. Row crop
fields and cattle pasture deliver fine sediment that appears to be mostly transported by the existing
channels. With a planted riparian buffer, the potential for washload to the proposed streams will be
significantly reduced. Consequently, due to a decrease in potential sediment loading, lower stream power
in the design streams should not result in increased aggradation potential.
6.5.1 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed during design for each of the restoration reaches by comparing
shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimensions, and proposed
channel slopes. The analysis used standard equations based on a methodology using the Shields (1936)
curve and Andrews (1980) equation described by Rosgen (2001). The results of the analysis are shown in
Table 18.
One reach that warrants closer attention is Powell Branch Reach 2, where the channel is relatively steep as
it is dropped from a higher restored grade to existing grade in the Folly Ditch. Additional grade control and
bank revetments, such as brush toe, will be implemented here to prevent channel degradation and bank
erosion. Morgan Branch and Folly Swamp include similar short transitional zones, but the gradient change
is less significant than for Powell Branch.
6.5.2 Capacity Analysis
Table 18 lists the estimated design and existing stream power for each of the primary restoration stream
channels. The primary objective of calculating capacity was to note where design stream power varies
demonstrably from existing stream power and whether the existing conditions indicate a problem may
result. For example, if the existing stream is degrading and stream power increases, further degradation
may be expected.
As shown, stream power increases in Greene Branch Reach 2B and is relatively high in Powell Branch Reach
2. The increase in stream power in Greene Branch is not concerning because it is a relatively small increase;
however, the existing channel is degrading in this section. As a result, additional grade control and bank
revetments will be implemented in Greene Branch Reach 2B. As described above, Powell Branch Reach 2
will receive additional grade control and bank revetments. Finally, low stream power is not expected to be
an issue with the Site because the future bedload and washload are expected to be negligible.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 21

Table 13: Results of Competence and Capacity Analyses
Folly
Folly
Powell
Powell
Greene
Greene
Morgan
Swamp -
Swamp -
Branch -
Branch -
Branch -
Branch -
Branch
R1
R2
R1
R2
112A
R2B
Design Mean
0.9
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.7
0.6
0.5
Dbkf (ft)
Design Schan
(ft/ft)
0.0010
0.0010
0.0020
0.0082
0.0021
0.0013
0.0039
Exist. Shear
0.14
0.14
0.23
N/A
0.14
N/A
0.08
Stress, t (lb/sq ft)
Design Bankfull
Shear Stress, t
0.05
0.06
0.08
0.27
0.08
0.05
0.12
(lb/sq ft)
Design Hydraulic
Radius, R (ft)
0.8
0.9
0.6
0.5
0.6
0.6
0.5
Design Bankfull
Xsec Area, Abkf
14.2
16.2
8.4
5.4
7.3
7.0
4.7
(sq ft)
Design Wetted
Perimeter, WP =
17.0
18.0
13.4
10.2
11.3
11.2
9.2
W + 2D (ft)
Design Movable
particle size
3.6-17
3.9-18
5.5-23
20-59
5.9-25
3.5-17
8.8-33
(mm)
Design Bankfull
Velocity (fps)
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.0
1.1
0.9
1.3
Design Unit
Stream Power
0.8
1.0
1.5
8.0
1.4
0.7
2.3
(W/sq m)
Exist. Unit
Stream Power
3.4
3.7
6.9
N/A
3.5
N/A
1.5
(W/sq m)
Existing
1
Conditions
Neither
Neither
Neither
Neither
Neither
Neither
Deg.
'Agg. is aggrading. Deg. is degrading.
6.6 Project Implementation
This section provides narrative detail on the restoration or enhancement approaches for each of the
project reaches. All project reaches will include the establishment of the following:
1. A conservation easement protecting the project from uses that would damage it.
2. A riparian buffer that consists of native hardwood species at a density to meet success criteria.
3. Livestock exclusion where applicable.
4. Invasive species treatment.
6.6.1 Folly Swamp Reaches 1 and 2
Folly Swamp will be restored beginning at the upstream property line and continuing through the
conservation easement to the downstream property line. At the upstream end of the project Folly Swamp
will be gradually raised with Priority Level 2 restoration. It is designed to have a shallow but wide floodplain
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 22

of at least five times bankfull width. As with all reaches, the highest floodplain elevation attainable will be
targeted. The terrace slopes will rise very gradually from the excavated floodplain such that the width from
existing ground to existing ground will be approximately 125 to 175 feet. The side cast berm along the
existing ditch will be removed. A new travel way will be reconstructed outside of the conservation
easement.
The restored stream will gently meander through an excavated valley, restoring pattern to the straightened
channel. The Folly Swamp design consists of a two -stage channel. A smaller pilot channel will thread
through a larger meandering channel. The pilot channel is designed to transport baseflow and the sediment
load carried at that stage. The larger meandering channel has a width -to -depth ratio of 19, which targets a
channel dimension similar to that at Acorn Hill Creek, a nearby reference stream system. Pools comprise
72% of the reach and are designed to be flat to allow for grade drops over log structures. Riffles, as in the
Acorn Hill reaches, are used sparingly in only the short downstream transitional section. Stream structures
are placed primarily for habitat formation and maintenance as there is low shear stress. Woody material
will be incorporated as much as possible to mimic conditions found in the Acorn Hill system.
Where grading is required to lower floodplain elevations topsoil will be stockpiled and combined into
subsurface soil to achieve final grades. Additionally, soil samples have been collected and analyzed, and
amendments will be added as necessary to achieve desirable pH and nutrient levels. Chicken litter is being
obtained and composted to be added to the Priority 2 cut areas. This will boost soil properties such as
organic matter, fertility, and water retention.
Floodplain slopes will have grades no steeper than 5:1 to reduce rilling before vegetation establishes and to
better stabilize soil structure. Stockpiled topsoil will be reapplied with the necessary soil amendments after
the final slopes are completed. Wildlands will work to establish temporary vegetation on these slopes as
quickly as possible to ensure erosion is limited. Section 6.7 includes details on how Wildlands will address
soil compaction.
The wetland (Wetland D, —0.67 acres) identified in the preliminary JD has been avoided as much as
possible. The proposed stream alignment is as far south as the property boundary allows, which brings the
restored channel through the narrower end of the wetland. A gage has been placed on the northern side of
the wetland, approximately halfway between where the cut slope begins and the conservation easement
boundary, to determine the project's effect on wetland hydrology. Additionally, it is expected that
wetlands will be created along the excavated floodplain.
In sum, except for livestock exclusion, the restoration proposed for Folly Swamp will meet the goals and
objectives outlined in Table 13 (Section 5).
6.6.2 Powell Branch
Powell Branch will be restored below the Savage Road culvert until its confluence with Folly Ditch. For the
first approximately 900 feet of Powell Branch, a functional floodplain will be constructed using a Priority Level
2 approach with an average depth of floodplain cut, relative to existing top of bank, of 2.6 feet. This approach
will be necessary because the proposed starting thalweg elevation cannot exceed the existing thalweg
elevation without creating increased backwater conditions that extend upstream to and past Savage Road.
To avoid potential adverse effects from floodplain cut, topsoil will be removed and stockpiled before further
excavation. The stockpiled topsoil will be reapplied and improved with soil amendments.
Priority Level 1 restoration will be implemented beyond the first 900 feet until the confluence with Folly
Ditch. The floodplain cut will be significantly reduced throughout this length of valley. To achieve the desired
floodplain width, the wooded area on lower Powell Branch, which is dominated by Chinese privet, will be
cleared and replanted.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 23

The vast majority of Powell Branch will have a wide floodplain of at least four times bankfull width.
Like Folly Swamp, Powell Branch has been designed with a two -stage channel. A smaller pilot channel will
thread through a larger meandering channel. The pilot channel is designed to transport baseflow and the
sediment load carried at that stage. The larger meandering channel has a width -to -depth ratio of 20, which
targets the channel dimension present at Acorn Hill Creek, a nearby reference stream system. The two -stage
Powell Branch channel transitions to a single stage channel approximately 370 feet from Folly Ditch. This
transition is necessitated by an increased channel slope which will result in increased stream velocities and
a reduced cross -sectional area will be required to carry the design bankfull discharge.
Except for livestock exclusion, the restoration proposed for Powell Branch will meet the goals and
objectives outlined in Table 13 (Section 5).
6.6.3 Morgan Branch
Morgan Branch will be initially restored with shallow Priority 2 restoration that uses a floodplain elevation
of approximately one foot below the existing ditch top of bank. This will allow for a wide floodplain, very
limited cut, and balanced earthwork. As such, the disturbance to the existing soil profiles will be minimal
and trees, with proposed soil amendments, should readily establish. By approximately 1,200 feet, Morgan
Branch will be at Priority 1 depth according to the existing top of bank. Priority 1 restoration then continues
for 2,100 feet.
The final 300 feet of the Morgan Branch design implements a steeper, Piedmont -like C channel to drop
gradient over three woody riffles and tie in the with deeper Folly Ditch.
The grading plan for Morgan Branch, to be completed while the draft mitigation plan is reviewed, will seek
to balance earthwork and promote drainage from the surrounding agricultural fields. The finished
floodplain will widen at a flat elevation initially and then taper at a 10:1 slope to existing grade.
Two drain tiles enter Morgan Branch at 700 and 1,600 feet into the restored alignment. Vernal pools will be
constructed to receive flow from the tiles. The vernal pools will then be drained to the proposed channel
with small channels.
Angled log sills and log sill with rootwads were used to serve as grade control. Brush toes and cover logs are
also used throughout the reach.
An existing wetland approaches the stream's right bank at the furthest downstream riffle in the vicinity of
stream station 435+00. A small amount of grading may be conducted to install a woody riffle along this
wetland, resulting in a temporary wetlands impact.
Except for livestock exclusion, the restoration proposed for Morgan Branch will meet the goals and
objectives outlined in Table 13 (Section 5).
6.6.4 Greene Branch
Upper Greene Branch is complicated by the fact that it is not fed by the drainage area expected based on
the surrounding topography. However, by installing a culvert at the upstream end and plugging the ditch
below the head of the proposed culvert, the natural drainage of upper Greene Branch will be reconstituted
and the riparian corridor will be restored using the Coastal Plain headwater valley approach.
Wildlands has an agreement in concept with the neighboring landowner to purchase a conservation
easement that will allow the culvert installation and ditch plugging. It will also restrict drainage alteration in
the 1.59 acres leading to the culvert. This will prevent any drainage modification that would undo the re-
establishment of the natural drainage pattern. Trees will not be planted on this 1.59 acres and farming will
continue.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 24

The Coastal Plain headwater design proposed for Greene Branch will utilize the existing hydrology of the
wooded valley to the greatest extent possible. An existing ditch within the adjacent open pasture that runs
parallel to the wooded valley will be filled and flow to the existing ditch will be rerouted to the low area of
the wooded valley. Necessary grading within this reach will include the creation of gentle swales to
hydraulically connect existing flow paths and low areas within the valley as well as connect the proposed
culvert, described above, to the valley. Where swales are proposed, woody structures will be added to
mimic the existing intertwined network of tree roots that serve as grade control and habitat structures.
Livestock will be excluded from the easement. The upper reach of Greene Branch (Reach 1) is proposed at a
1.5:1 credit ratio, based on valley length. This considers that vegetation is already well established.
Greene Branch Reach 2, an incised and maintained ditch, will be restored with Priority 1 restoration
approach. Jurisdictional wetlands will be avoided as much as possible; the only wetland impact will be
along the end of the reach, beginning approximately 190 linear feet above the confluence with Folly Ditch.
Within this area and within the roughly 220 linear feet above the start of the wetland impact, the proposed
bankfull profile will follow the existing ground nearly exactly with less than 0.2 feet of vertical deviation.
Along Greene Branch Reach 2 upstream of this area, the proposed bankfull profile generally follows the
existing top of bank elevations.
It should be noted that the permanent wetland impacts along lower Greene Branch will be limited to the
new channel location. Wetlands hydrology and vegetation will be rehabilitated over a broad area. Impacts
to the wetland identified in the preliminary JD (Wetland B, —1.56 acres) have been avoided as much as
possible. The proposed stream alignment does go through the wetland; however, the stream is at grade
and consequently the water table should be at least similar to the existing condition. A monitoring well has
been established to allow comparison of pre- and post -construction conditions.
Because of the backwater condition of Folly Ditch due to beaver activity, it is not necessary to have a steep
connecting grade on lower Greene Branch. Beaver maintenance has been attempted on lower Folly Ditch,
but, likely due to its proximity to the Great Dismal Swamp, it has proven difficult to prevent beaver from
returning. As described in Section 3.6, if necessary, Wildlands will contract to control beaver within the
conservation easement areas. Lower Folly Ditch is outside of the Site and will not be placed in a
conservation easement.
The restoration proposed for Greene Branch will meet the goals and objectives outlined in Table 13
(Section 5).
6.6.5 Barker Branch
Barker Branch will be restored using the Coastal Plain headwater valley approach. Unlike Greene Branch
Reach 1, most of this system exists within open agricultural fields. The conservation easement extends
approximately 250 feet to the south and 150 feet to the east-southeast upstream of the beginning of the
proposed work so that the resulting backwater from the starting elevation of the headwater valley will not
extend outside of the conservation easement. A headwater valley will be established where the existing
ditch converges with a shallow ditch from the east and leaves the treeline. Credit for this reach will not be
started until it reaches the intermittent/ephemeral break as determined by NCDWR. This location is
approximately 360 feet from where the headwater valley alignment commences.
The proposed alignment of the headwater valley follows the floodplain left of the existing ditch because
this area is lower in elevation than the right floodplain. An existing culvert crossing will be reconstructed in
essentially the same location and will be designed to blend into the proposed restoration work. Beginning
approximately 190 linear feet downstream of the crossing, the headwater valley will follow the existing
ditch for approximately 440 linear feet.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 25

To limit backwater to within the easement, as described above, valley cut will be required for roughly the
upper half of Barker Branch. For the lower half, the proposed headwater valley generally follows the
existing ditch top of bank elevations. As with Powell Branch Reach 1, appropriate steps will be taken to
preserve topsoil and facilitate plant growth within cut areas.
As Barker Branch approaches Folly Ditch, the proposed centerline is moved about 20 feet to the left of the
existing ditch to preserve existing trees. The alignment will slightly impact the edge of an existing
jurisdictional wetland (also Wetland B) that runs along the Folly Ditch. The higher restored profile, relative
to the existing ditch bottom, however, will enhance the hydrology of the adjacent wetlands. Additionally,
the wetland area will be placed in a conservation easement and planted with tree species appropriate for
its hydrology.
The restoration proposed for Barker Branch will meet the goals and objectives outlined in Table 13 (Section
5).
6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management
6.7.1 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The Site will be planted and seeded with a combination of early and later successional native vegetation
chosen to create a coastal plain bottomland hardwood forest community. The specific species composition
will be selected based on the community type, observations from floristic inventory in the existing and
reference -reach buffers, and best professional judgment on species establishment and anticipated site
conditions in the early years following project implementation.
Potential species to be planted in the floodplain and wetland areas of the Site include bald cypress
(Taxodium distichum), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), river birch (eetula nigra), swamp tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and sweetbay (Magnolia
virginiana). Stream banks may be planted with species such as black willow (Salix nigra), Carolina willow
(Salix caroliniana), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), and silky dogwood (Cornus amomum).
Understory species such as arrow wood (Viburnum dentatum) and winterberry (Ilex verticillata) will also be
included in the planting plan to enhance diversity.
Soil samples were collected and analyzed. Amendments will be added as necessary to achieve desirable pH
and nutrient levels. This includes composted poultry litter, lime, and humic acid. Soil composition test
results show possible subsoil deficiencies in zinc and magnesium. Plant growth and health will be
monitored to determine whether there is a need for diagnostic plant tissue sampling and additional soil
amendments.
Floodplain slopes will have grades that range from 5:1 to 10:1 to reduce rilling before vegetation
establishes and to better stabilize soil structure. Stockpiled topsoil will be reapplied with the necessary soil
amendments after the final slopes are completed. Wildlands will work to establish temporary vegetation
on these slopes as quickly as possible to ensure erosion is limited. Where grading is required to lower
floodplain elevations topsoil will be stockpiled and combined into subsurface soil with composted poultry
litter to achieve final grades.
Wildlands will also work to reduce soil compaction in highly compacted areas such as farm or haul roads.
This will be accomplished by ripping the soil with an excavator or an agricultural ripping element (e.g. chisel
plow). Ripping these areas will reduce plant growth -limiting bulk densities and increase porosity for better
water absorption by the soils. Soil compaction may also be reduced on larger areas with less severe
compaction by seeding annual species such as daikon radish or other tillage radish varieties specifically
bred to reduce soil compaction. The mix of vegetation on the site will also include N-fixers such as partridge
pea (Chamaecrista fasciculata var. fasciculata) that will improve soil fertility on the site.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 26

Adding or incorporating ramial wood chips to the floodplain is another approach that Wildlands may
employ. Ramial wood chips are made from small diameter stems and branches (<2.5") of hardwood tree
species and are beneficial to soil restoration by promoting mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungal growth. The
cambium to cellulose ratio of small -diameter branches is high so that the carbon to nitrogen ratio is low.
This avoids the soil nitrogen robbing capacity that is known to occur when 'green wood' decays on the
ground surface. Instead, it adds organic material and promotes fungal growth. This, or any other, addition
of organic material of will also make macro- and micro -nutrients more available to plants and act as a
buffer in acidic or basic soils.
In summary, Wildlands understands it will be held to the tree survival and growth performance standards
specified in the October 2016 Wilmington District Compensatory Mitigation Update.
Additional monitoring and maintenance issues regarding vegetation can be found in Appendix 6.
6.7.2 Land Management
The primary purpose of land management prior to construction is to effectively prepare and set the stage
for successful ecological restoration. This includes site preparation, soil testing and amendments, and
chemical and mechanical treatments to remove non-native invasive species. Dense infestations of Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) in portions of the Site make this species a primary target. Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), autumn olive (Elaeagnus umbellate) and mimosa (Albizzia julibrissin) have been
identified as secondary targets for chemical treatment. Prior to construction, in two heavily privet -infested
portions of the easement Wildlands anticipates work -intensive cut stump treatment.
The Site will be monitored for non-native invasive species and treated as necessary during the monitoring
period. Additionally, Wildlands will also monitor the Site for future land management issues such as
floodplain erosion, areas of poor vegetation growth, and boundary encroachments.
6.8 Utilities, Stream Crossings, and Site Access
Table 19 summarizes the proposed crossings on the Site. The only crossing that is included in the easement
is that on Greene Branch because livestock are in this area. This crossing will be fenced with 5-strand
barbed wire or charged high -tensile wire and gated.
The crossings will be designed to allow for fish passage and aquatic habitat continuity. Culvert pipes will be
buried 6 to 12 inches to allow for a natural stream bed through the crossing. Many existing culverts on the
Site have vertical profile steps at the outfalls, posing a challenge to fish passage. Restoration activities will
help to improve aquatic passage and stream habitat by replacing these perched culverts and allowing for a
continuous stream bed habitat.
Table 19: Crossings Summary
Reach
Crossing Location (STA)
Crossing Type
Within Conservation Easement?
Folly Swamp R1
114+64
culvert
No
Greene Branch R2
618+32
culvert
Yes
Barker Branch R1
705+24
culvert
No
There are two additional culverts but these do not, per se, constitute Site crossings. The culvert at the
downstream end of Folly Swamp Reach 2 will be replaced. And the culvert being installed to add drainage
area to Greene Branch will be upstream of where stream crediting begins.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 27

7.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits proposed for the Site are listed in Table 20. All the stream buffers measure will be
at least 50 feet from the top of the stream banks, with some exceptions in the vicinity of reach starts and
finishes. These exceptions total much less than 5% of the total project stream length. The credit release
schedule is in Appendix 7.
Table 14: Project Asset Table
Mitigation Credits
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Riparian Wetland
Riparian Buffer
Type
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
R
RE
Totals
12,809
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Project Components
Project Reach
ID
Existing
Footage
(LF)*
Proposed
Stationing/
Location
Approach
(P1 P2
etc)
Restoration
(R) or
Restoration
Equivalent
(RE)
Restoration
Footage (LF)
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
Folly Swamp R1
1,723
101+27 to 114+36
P2
R
1,309
1.0
1,309
-
-
114+76 to 120+22
P2
R
546
1.0
546
Folly Swamp R2
2,271
120+22 to 144+65
P2
R
2,443
1.0
2,443
Powell Branch
1,493
300+02 to 304+44
P2
R
441
1.0
441
304+87 to 313+02
P2
R
815
1.0
815
313+02 to 316+71
P2
R
369
0.0
369
Morgan Branch
3,145
401+22 to 435+47
PI/P2
R
3,415
1.0
3,415
Greene Branch
1,886
500+00 to 512+23
CPH**
R
1,187
1.5
791
512+23 to 517+89
P1
R
566
1.0
566
518+31 to 518+65
P1
R
34
1.0
34
518+65 to 528+42
P1
R
977
1.0
977
Barker Branch
1,496
703+62 to 705+14
CPH**
R
152
1.0
152
705+56 to 715+06
CPH**
j R
j 950
j 1.0
j 950
*Total project stream length including internal easement crossings where easement is purchased; these crossings are not included
in any of the credit calculations. Restoration footage from existing sections above equals 12,014 LF.
**Braided channel so valley length used for credit calculation.
Restoration
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Coastal
Level
Warm
I Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Wetland
Marsh
0 Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 28

Restoration
12,809
Re-
establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II
Creation
Preservation
Additional
Credit from
Extended
Buffers
TOTAL
12,809
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream performance standards for the Site will follow approved performance standards presented in
North Carolina Interagency Review Team's (NCIRT) Monitoring Requirements and Performance Standards
for Compensatory Mitigation in North Carolina (February 2013) and the Wilmington District Stream and
Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (NCIRT, October 2016). Annual monitoring and routine site visits
will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished project by a qualified scientist. Specific
performance standards that apply to the Site are those described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation
Update including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 through 3), Stream Channel Stability and Stream
Hydrology (Section VI, B, Items 1 through 7), and Headwater Stream Performance Standards (Section Vill, B,
Items 1 and 2). Table 21 summarizes performance standards.
Table 21: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Performance Standard
Cross -Section Survey on
BHR <1.2; ER >2.2 for C/E channels.
Restoration Reaches
MY1-4 success criteria: evidence indicating concentration
Dimension
Photo Points on Coastal
of flow indicative of channel formation at low point of
Plain Headwater (CPH)
valley.
Reaches
MY5-7 success criteria: evidence must indicate
development of stream bed and banks.
Pattern and Profile
Visual Assessment
Should indicate stream stability.
• Cross -Section Photos
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks.
Photo Documentation
• Photo Points
No mid -channel bars, Stable grade control.
Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate
years.
Stream Hydrology
Transducer
Thirty days of continuous flow each year must be
documented on intermittent and CPH streams.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 29

MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
of 7 feet in height in each plot.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average
of 10 feet in height in each plot.
Wetlands
Groundwater Well
No Performance Standard. For informational purposes
only.
Invasive Species
Visual Assessment and GPS
Invasives no more than 5% by area in easement.
mapping
Visual Assessment
CCPV
Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species.
Changes in the channel that indicate a movement toward stability or enhanced habitat include a decrease
in the width -to -depth ratio in meandering channels or an increase in pool depth. It is important to note
that in sand bed channels, pools and bed forms (ripples, dunes, etc.) may migrate overtime as a natural
function of the channel hydraulics. It is also of note that sand bed streams are highly mobile and movement
of the bed material during storm events is not considered a sign of instability. This could lead to changes in
pool depth from storm to storm. These sorts of bed changes do not constitute a problem or indicate a need
for remedial actions. If channel changes indicate a movement toward stability, remedial action will not be
taken.
This is a sand bed system and the nature of the bed material is not expected to change over time. No
pebble counts will be conducted for the project reaches and no performance standard is being set for
substrate.
Wetlands have been degraded due to ditching, drain tiles, and stream channelization. Though no wetland
credits are being sought, the proposed restoration work should create wetlands along the restored
channels. Wildlands will install a monitoring well at each restoration area to document relatively high water
table levels. For the existing wetlands along Folly Swamp and Greene Branch, these gages will also help
assess the impacts to wetland hydrology from the mitigation project.
The extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored and controlled as necessary throughout the
required seven-year monitoring period. All herbicide applications will be performed in accordance with the
NC Department of Agriculture rules and regulations.
9.0 Monitoring Plan
An annual Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Annual monitoring reports will provide data and a
chronology that will facilitate an understanding of Site status and assist in decision making regarding close-
out. The monitoring period will extend seven years beyond completion of construction or until
performance criteria have been met.
Table 22, below, describes how the monitoring plan is set up to verify project goals and objectives have
been achieved.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 30

Table 22: Monitoring Features and Performance Standards
Goal
Objective
Performance Standards
Monitoring Feature
Reconnect channels
Reconstruct stream channels
Four bankfull events during the
Crest gauges and/or
with floodplains and
for bankfull dimensions and
7-year period; in separate
pressure transducers
riparian wetlands to
depth relative to the existing
years, and thirty days of
recording flow
allow a natural
floodplain.
continuous flow each year on
elevations.
flooding regime.
intermittent and CPH streams.
Construct stream channels that
Entrenchment ratio over 2.2
will maintain a stable pattern
for C/E restoration reaches and
Cross section
Improve the
and profile considering the
bank height ratio below 1.2
monitoring, visual
stability of stream
hydrologic and sediment inputs
with visual assessments
inspections,
channels.
to the system, the landscape
showing progression towards
and photo points.
setting, and the watershed
stability.
conditions.
On Greene and Barker Branch,
CE fencing will be maintained if
Exclude cattle from
implement cattle exclusion
livestock are present. Livestock
Visual inspections of
project streams.
measures around conservation
are not accessing the
fencing and buffer
easements adjacent to cattle
vegetation.
pastures.
mitigation site.
Install habitat features such as
constructed riffles,
cover/lunker logs, and brush
There is no required
Improve instream
toes into restored/enhanced
performance standard for this
N/A
habitat.
streams. Add woody materials
metric.
to channel beds. Construct
pools of varying depth.
210 planted stems per acre at
One hundred square
Restore and
Plant native tree and
MY7. Interim survival rate of
meter vegetation plots
enhance native
understory species in riparian
320 planted stems per acre at
will be placed on 2% of
floodplain and
Zone and plant appropriate
MY3 and 260 at MY5. Trees in
the planted area of the
eamban
species on streambank.
each plot must average 7 ft at
project and monitored
vegetation.
vegetation..
MY5 and 10 ft at MY7.
annually.
Permanently
Visually inspect the
protect the project
Establish conservation
Prevent easement
perimeter of the Site to
site from harmful
easements on the Site.
encroachment.
ensure no easement
encroachment is
uses.
occurring.
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 23. Approximate locations of the
proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figures 10A and 10B.
Table 23: Monitoring Components
Parameter
Monitoring
Feature
Quantity / Length by Channel
Frequency
Notes
Folly
Powell
Morgan
Greene
Barker
Swamp
Branch
Branch
Branch
Branch
Riffle Cross
Dimension
5
2
4
2
N/A
1
Sections
0 Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 31

Quantity / Length by Channel
Monitoring
Folly
Powell
Morgan
Greene
Barker
Parameter
Feature
Frequency
q Y
Notes
Swamp
Branch
Branch
Branch
Branch
Pool Cross
Year 0, 1,
3
1
3
1
N/A
2, 3, 5, and
Sections
7
Pattern
Pattern
N/A
Year
Longitudinal
2
Profile
N/A
Year 0
Profile
Crest Gage
Stream
(CG)/
1 CG,
1 FG,
1 CG
1 CG/FG
1 FG
Quarterly
3
Hydrology
Flow Gage
1 FG
1 FG/CG
(FG)
CVS Level 2
Year 0, 1,
Vegetation
30 Fixed; 3 Random
2, 3, 5, and
4
Fixed
7
Wetlands
Groundwater
2
1
1
1
N/A
5
Well
Visual
Semi -
Assessment
Yes
Annual
Exotic and
Semi -
nuisance
Annual
6
vegetation
Project
Semi-
Boundary
Annual
7
Reference
Photographs
9 6 11 9 5
Annual
8
Photos
1. Cross -sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location. Surveys will include points measured at all breaks
in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, edge of water, and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during as -built
baseline monitoring survey only, unless observations indicate widespread lack of vertical stability (greater than 10% of reach is
affected) and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Crest gages and/or flow gages will be monitored using automated pressure transducers. Transducers will set to record bank
full events at least twice a day, stream flow at least every 3 hours, and will be inspected quarterly.
4. Both mobile and permanent vegetation plots will be utilized to evaluate the vegetation performance for the open areas
planted. Two percent of the open planted acreage will be monitored with permanent and mobile plots. Permanent vegetation
monitoring plot assessments will follow CVS Level 2 protocols. Mobile vegetation monitoring plot assessments will document
number of planted stems and species using a circular or 100 m2 square/rectangular plot. Planted shaded areas will be visually
assessed.
5. Groundwater well data will be collected for informational purposes only. Results are not tied to success criteria nor stream
crediting.
6. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
7. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped.
8. Coastal Plain Headwater Photo Points will be taken multiple times a year as needed to document flow and channel
development.
10.0 Long -Term Management Plan
10.1 Ownership and Long-term Manager
The Site will remain in private ownership, protected in its entirety, and managed under the terms detailed
in the conservation easement. Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) will serve as the Grantee and long-term
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 32

manager and will be the party responsible for long-term management. The conservation easement will be
transferred to UP2Save prior to the initial credit release.
UP2Save is a 501c3 non-profit organization that is committed to land conservation through sustainable
planning and management. UP2Save has the ability, both logistically and financially, to monitor and enforce
the provisions of the conservation easement and long-term management plan. The organization operates
in a sustainable manner to facilitate operations well into the future. UP2Save has been approved to serve
as the easement holder and long-term manager on several mitigation banks in North Carolina, including the
Falling Creek, Daniels, Creek, Hoosier Dam, and Box Creek projects. Additional qualifications and UP2Save's
annual report can be provided upon request.
10.2 Long -Term Management Activities
Prior to the initial credit release and following authorization of the Mitigation Banking Instrument, the Site
will be protected in perpetuity with a conservation easement. Following the issuance of the close-out letter
(i.e., final determination of success), long-term management activities will be conducted to ensure the Site
remains perpetually monitored. The long-term manager will be responsible for inspecting the Site annually,
conducting the long-term management activities described below, and rectifying identified deficiencies as
necessary. The restrictions and long-term management responsibilities will convey with the land, should
the property be transferred in the future. The long-term manager will be responsible for periodic
inspection of the Site to ensure that the restrictions documented in the recorded easement are upheld.
Table 154: Long -Term Management Plan
Long -Term
Management Activity
Long -Term Manager Responsibility
Landowner Responsibility
The landowner shall report damaged or
Signage will be installed
The long-term steward will be
missing signs to the long-term manager, as
and maintained along
responsible for inspecting the Site
well as contact the long-term manager if a
the Site boundary to
boundary and for maintaining or
boundary needs to be marked, or
denote the area
replacing
age to ensure that theement
clarification is needed regarding a boundary
protected by the
on eas area is clearly
conservation easement
location. If land use changes in future and
recorded conservation
marked.
fencing is required to protect the easement,
easement.
the landowner is responsible for installing
appropriate approved fencing.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
The Site will be
inspections and for undertaking actions
protected in its entirety
that are reasonably calculated to swiftly
The landowner shall contact the long-term
and managed under the
correct the conditions constituting a
manager if clarification is needed regarding
terms outlined in the
breach. The USACE, and their
the restrictions associated with the recorded
recorded conservation
authorized agents, shall have the right
conservation easement.
easement.
to enter and inspect the Site and to take
actions necessary to verify compliance
with the conservation easement.
10.3 Funding Mechanism
Anticipated long-term management activities and their associated annual cost are listed in Table 25 below.
Wildlands will fund a stewardship endowment that will be managed by UP2Save. UP2Save's endowment is
designated to provide on -going revenue to support long-term management activities. The stewardship
endowment is invested to provide recurring revenue to cover the cost of anticipated annual activities,
easement defense, and violation resolution.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 33

The level of effort for each activity is listed in hours or as a lump sum (LS). The cost per unit or labor rate
and anticipated frequency were utilized to calculate the total and annual activity cost. For example, the
steward anticipates four hours of staff time at a rate of $50 per hour to support adjacent landowner
coordination, which may consist of coordinating with current and adjacent landowners to ensure access
and maintain relationships and scheduling site visits. A conservative (lower than anticipated) rate of return
(or capitalization rate) of 4.50% and the estimated annual costs of the identified management activities
were utilized to determine the endowment funding requirement.
Table 165: Management Funding
Management Activity Units Hours Cost/Unit Frequency Annual Cost
Annual Monitoring
Staff time for annual planning
49 ac
13
$60
Annual
$780
Staff time to address minor violations or issues
N/A
10
$600
Once per
10 years
$60
Mileage
310
N/A
$0.58
Annual
$179.80
Lodging costs
1
N/A
$100
Annual
$100
Meal costs
3
N/A
$20
Annual
$60
Sign replacement costs
10
N/A
$2
Annual
$20
Insurance
1
N/A
$100
N/A
$100
Total Annual Funding
$1,299.80
Capitalization Rate
3.50%
Monitoring Endowment
$37,137
Accepting and Defending Easement in Perpetuity
Staff time for major violations
N/A
80
$60
N/A
$4,800
Legal Counsel
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$10,000
Other Incidentals
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
$5,000
Stewardship Complexities
1
N/A
$5,000
N/A
$5,000
Monitoring Endowment
$24,800
Total Monitoring and Legal
Defense Endowment
$61,937.14
Rounded
$61,937
10.4 Contingency Plan
Should UP2Save be unable to fulfill the long-term management responsibilities, a plan to transfer the
responsibilities and stewardship endowment will be presented to the USACE. Long-term management
responsibilities will not be transferred unless the long-term manager receives written authorization from
the USACE.
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post -construction monitoring
protocols and minor remedial actions (routine maintenance — see Maintenance Plan in Appendix 6) will be
performed as needed for the duration of the monitoring period. Wildlands, as the Sponsor, will notify the
USACE immediately if monitoring results or visual observations suggest a trend towards instability, major
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 34

remedial actions are needed, or that performance standards cannot be achieved. Should major remedial
measures be required, the Sponsor will submit a Corrective Action Plan and coordinate with the USACE
until authorization is secured to conduct the adaptive management activities. The Bank Sponsor is
responsible for funding and/or providing the services necessary to secure any necessary permits to support
the proposed major remedial adaptive management actions, to implement the corrective action plan, and
to deliver record drawings that depict the extent and nature of the work performed. If the USACE
determines that the Bank is not meeting performance standards or the Sponsor is not complying with the
terms of the instrument, the USACE may take appropriate actions, including but not limited to: suspending
credit sales, utilizing financial assurances, and/or terminating the instrument.
12.0 Financial Assurances
Financial assurances will be provided in the form of insurance for the activities specified in this plan. The
insurance will assure performance of construction and monitoring work to restore, enhance and/or preserve
the project aquatic resources. The principal amount of the insurance will be based on Table 26, below.
Construction insurance will convert to monitoring insurance upon as -built report approval.
Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC will serve as the Named Insured and Nautilus Insurance Company will serve as
the insurance carrier. In the event that Wildlands Holdings VI, LLC fails to meet the conditions of the
Mitigation Plan, Nautilus may fulfill these obligations either by performing those obligations up to the
applicable annual Limits of Insurance described in the policy's Declaration Pages, or by paying such claim(s)
to a willing party acceptable to the USACE, who would develop a proposal to fulfill the mitigation
obligations. The insurance will stipulate that any insurance payouts be made payable to an established
third party. Unique Places to Save (UP2Save) is to serve as the third party for this Mitigation Bank. At such
time as funds are distributed to UP2Save, they will become a surety to the insurance. Financial assurances
will not be structured to provide funds to the USACE in the event of default by the Principal (Sponsor). The
USACE will be notified a minimum of 120 days prior to termination of financial assurances. A letter from
UP2Save acknowledging their third -party status is located in Appendix 8.
Insurance will be phased to allow coverage through the monitoring period. Insurance covering construction
will be provided after the MBI is approved and prior to the initial credit release. The casualty insurance will
be retired upon submittal of the final as -built report to the DE. The initial term of the insurance policy will
be 15 months and will include an option to renew the policy for a term not to exceed one year to cover site
construction. The principal amount of the construction insurance will be calculated based on the remaining
cost to complete engineering, permitting, and construction activities as described in Table 26. Note, the
cost of recording easements will not be included in the construction insurance as this process will be
complete at the time the insurance is submitted to the USACE.
Following retirement of the construction insurance, insurance for annual monitoring will be utilized to
cover anticipated monitoring and adaptive management costs. Insurance will be structured to provide
continuous coverage through a single policy that will decrement in value each year according to Table 26.
Annual monitoring insurance will be submitted to the USACE upon approval of each previous year's
monitoring report. The principal amount of monitoring insurance is calculated based on the total estimated
costs that remains through closeout, including monitoring and maintenance activities. Table 26 lists the
proposed insurance principal amounts for each monitoring year.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 35

Table 176: Financial Assurances Table
Category
2021
2022 MY1
2023 MY2
2024 MY3
2025 MY4
2026 MY5
2027 MY6
2028 MY7
Engineering
$50,000
Legal
$3,500
Construction
$1,839,435
Planting
$71,500
As -Built
$50,000
Monitoring
$18,500
$19,100
$19,800
$20,600
$21,500
$22,500
$23,600
Re -grading
Contingency
$15,000
$ -
$10,000
$ -
$ -
$ -
$5,000
Re -Planting
Contingency
$ -
$5,000
$ -
$2,500
$ -
$ -
$ -
Beaver Control
$ -
$ -
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
$1,500
Invasive Control
$1,500
$1,500
$5,000
$1,500
Easement Access
Control
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
$500
USACE Admin Costs
$13,800
$8,700
$8,700
$8,700
$6,500
$8,700
$6,500
$15,500
Sub -Total
$2,028,235
$42,700
$34,800
$40,500
$33,100
$32,200
$36,000
$47,600
Insurance Principal
$2,028,235
$266,900
$224,200
$189,400
$148,900
$115,800
$83,600
$47,600
Monitoring Phase Insurance
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Draft Mitigation Plan
June 2020
Page 36

13.0 References
Andrews, E.D. 1980. Bed -material entrainment and hydraulic geometry of gravel -bed rivers in Colorado.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 95: 371-378.
Doll, B.A., Dobbins, A.D., Spooner, J., Clinton, D.R, and Bidelspach, D.A., 2003. Hydraulic Geometry
Relationships for the Rural North Carolina Coastal Plain.
Hosking, J.R.M., and J.R. Wallis. 1993. Some Statistics Useful in Regional Frequency Analysis. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp 271-281.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS). 2016. Memorandum dated June 15, 2015 with
title "Quantifying Benefits to Water Quality from Livestock Exclusion and Riparian Buffer
Establishment for Stream Restoration".
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR) 2007 Pasquotank River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan (RBWQP), accessed at: https://deg.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-
plan ning/water-resource-plans/pasquotank
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Gates County, NC.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, A. 1936. Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bedload movement. Mit.
Preuss. Verchsanst., Berlin. Wasserbau Schiffbau. In W.P Ott and J.C. Uchelen (translators),
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Report No. 167: 43 pp.
Sweet, W.V. and Geratz, J.W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39(4):861-871.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District, Regulatory Division and North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality. 2005. Information
Regarding Stream Restoration in the Outer Coastal Plain of North Carolina.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 2020. Endangered Species, Threatened Species, Federal
Species of Concern and Candidate Species, Gates County, NC.
http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/Gates.html
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequency of rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank Draft Mitigation Plan
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site June 2020
Page 37

- Project Location ¢
r
! Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit)
'
—
VI RGINIA
_.—.—.—.—.r.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—a..—.—.—.--..—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—.—
03010203010010
1`
; o rapeake
\ /1
q�
ti
f �
i
j \
�• 03010205010010
Grant t)ismal
gvamp National `
Wildlife Refuge I \
\
03010203040010
t
\
j
l
\
0301020501002I0
sz
I
036,1020303001
♦1
��03010203�040014O_ Sunb �` --
----LIS 1
hkrchants—
frB Il pe nd
1 r State Park
03010203040020
t t
1
•�
°^
1
�
/ S�amA
`•�
� /
/J 1
------------
03010203040030 CJ
/ z %
= r
=
TrotmJ
o Creek j
03010205090010
- _
/ 'Hobbsville
03010203070010 J i
f I
1�
1 �F k CrecJt
03010205070010
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
%.,WILDLANDS 0 1 2 Miles Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

a' Sulf�lk
In sap eake
�n
`_ taw Gle at D7♦mal
Swamo Nalonal
I=ranklln - WiktGra Neluq®
G.m DI —I
.......................... ...j.
$wanqu aN]r
'.•�..= W�arneas
`.. �• Sn�nrqua�rw
• LVIk45p
•`.� Rafuge
_!County Boundary
- Municipal Boundary
Service Area - HUC 03010205
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
�®
t,*
1
1
1
1
I
Figure 2. Service Area Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 5 10 Miles Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

I�T�I
I_2
R.. I
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Existing Project Channels
Perennial Stream
Intermittent Stream
Ephemeral Channel
Linear Wetland
° Non -Project Stream
Existing Utility Line
Existing Utility Easement
Topographic Contour (2')
Cross Section (XS)
Reach Break
Figure 3. Existing Conditions Overview Map
WILDLANDS
% � E N G I N E E R I N G
0 1,000 2,000 Feet Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

WILDLANDS
% � E N G I N E E R I N G
0 400 800 Feet
Figure 3A. Existing Conditions Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
Figure 3B, Existing Conditions Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

a +
Project Location
717 ti
TON S i 1 CAM DEN CO-
�ti A019 1 CURRITUCK CO -
ChoWan GATES CO - 59' 4 _
32 •� o�h� 58
PASOUOTNK CO~ �~
- HERTFORD CO -
AN CO z
RoanOk@ BERTIE CO -
3010'07
River Basin Boundary
Pasquotank 05 5ubbasin (HUC 03010205)
&Digit HU-C Boundary
L _ _County Boundary
2020-2029 STIP Lines
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
■ Division Highway
IM
ON CMAQ
em Other Highway
Transition Highway
Transition Rail
Regional Public Transit
+� Division Bicycle And Pedestrian
Transition Bicyc le And Pedestrian
.0ther B[ycle An Pedestrian
2020-2029 SUP Points
Statewide Highway
Regional Highway
' Division Highway
Interstate M ainten ance
l Br idge
l Transition H is hw 2y
Other Highway
Statew ide Aviation
Regional Aviation
Division Aviation
4- Aviation
" Regional Fer ry
Division Ferry
Transition Ferry
Statewide Rail
Regional Rail
i-] Division Rail
Transition Rail
,l Other Rail
Regional Public Transit
Division Pubic Transit
Division BicyrcleAnd Pedestr"an
Transition 8icycleAnd Pedestr.an
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
„ Pasquotank 1•ti ick,l IMANS CO -
I .rr- �
5 03010205 ti
S
- TYRRELL CO -
I
WASHINGTON CO -
r I
5 DARE CO -
i
94
Tar -Pamlico.
n
,H�Y D E COX
I=Pasauotank River Basin 03010205
0 10 20 Miles
Figure 4. NCDOT Draft STIP FY 2020-2029
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

WILDLANDS
kt� E N G I N E E R I N G
0 1,500 3,000 Feet
I I I
Figure 5. Watershed Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

W I L D L A N D S Figure 6. USGS Topographic Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
E N G 1 N E E R I N G 0 1,000 2,000 Feet
i I i I Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

Le
�•s
LeA-.,
BnA
ExA I*'
CrA
CrA
�.If♦ r� LeA
LeA y BnA
r
NO.
4 j
r
WILDLANDS
% P E N G I N E E R I N G
0 750 1,500 Feet
I I I I
n— nn
Project Location
L_ _� Proposed Conservation Easement
Soils
iladen Loam, 0-2% Slopes
raven Fine Sandy Loam, 0-1% Slopes
raven Fine Sandy Loam, 1-4% Slopes
xum Silt Loam, 0-2% Slopes
enoir Loam, 0-2% Slopes
Vawney Loam, 0-2% Slopes
toanoke Loam, 0-2% Slopes
act Channels
iial Stream
ittent Stream
feral Channel
Wetland
.oject Stream
` NaA _
CrA
LeA + +
S VB
C r B + f
CrA #® l �♦
LeA tC
BnA,+, RoA
CrA •♦
BnAi
BnA i
J
CrB
Figure 7. Soils Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
71 Existing Wetland
Mitigation Approach
-Stream Restoration
Not for Credit
Non -Project Stream
Topographic Contour (2')
�•i- �' Reach Break
G9 �' ■, 40' External ' ~
Culvert Crossing
r
a �
o f
"ulvReplace
T
,Ole L
O
A
*VWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
0 400 800 Feet
Figure 8A. Concept Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

{
S i
�t
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
f A6
40'Internal •*
Culvert Crossing
Rea h1
10
Easement area will be used
for drainage restriction only.
1 i
1
1
1
1
i
i +
ti 40'External
1 Culvert Crossing
i
4 i77
1 i
1
0 400 800 Feet
0.,
_ �aeeF
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
Proposed Internal Crossing
Mitigation Approach
Stream Restoration
-Coastal Plain Headwater (CPH)
Not for Credit
Non -Project Stream
Topographic Contour (2')
Reach Break
Figure 8B. Concept Map
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

Lu Itanburg
472
Brun sw"O
nce
GasrL'^
Hendee on
Hal m a
Saponl
Sdfsa
Fr .i nl. d in
1d.,::..
0 Project Location
0 Reference Site
Is
I1:IdV.
Fo�smoutl, Virginia
Beach
rtt .11
UT to Great
Dismal Swamp 3re3Dlsrmalrl
Grean sville `_•
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
VIRGINIA
/NORTH CARULiNA Upper Powell Branch
Roanoke
Rapids
Northampton
wherein
h 'i rtf _•., `dtsi I IL., II ••.,tll
Halifax
Acorn Hill Creek,
North Fork Acorn Millpond Creek, and Watts DMS
South Fork Acorn Millpond Creek CP Headwater
UT to Tyson Creek
s illo;ll ' Iri
Hell Swamp
Greeri;lll- CP Headwater
West Creek
Site 2 Shepherd Run
k,u,.t -I-
National
_r1 Uupin, Fowat
Clr�• n
Po¢it
Lake
�? fY-Pocosin
Wilderness 7A R
Jacksorwilfe
Manna
Corps Base
c amp Lejeu re
WN.., WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 9. Reference Reach Map
0 10 20 Miles Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
i I I I Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

y Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
fi Mitigation Approach
�� j . -., �c• Stream Restoration
Not for Credit
Non -Project Stream
E'
Topographic Contour (2')
Cross Section
�' ,�,;�' • Reach Break
s } . 0 Photo Point
y:
+ Crest Gauge
a.rr'
+ Crest/Flow Gauge
' + Flow Gauge
,+ 0 Groundwater Well
2-
❑ Fixed Vegetation Plot
`Cir {tit j
❑ Mobile Vegetation Plot
r
� Ll
.y .
5 - r
*VWILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 10A, Monitoring Components Map
0 400 800 Feet Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

t
�E]
i
M � '
_
' �' add Ff ., • M'*,
�.. ; I�
r'
` 1
� �}� r� � � O .lam• I
zr
Project Location
Proposed Conservation Easement
Existing Wetland
rl� Proposed Internal Crossing
Mitigation Approach
Stream Restoration
Coastal Plain Headwater (CPH)
Not for Credit
Non -Project Stream
Topographic Contour (2')
Cross Section
QQ Reach Break
0 Photo Point
+ Barotroll
+ Crest Gauge
+ Crest/Flow Gauge
+ Flow Gauge
+ Groundwater Well
❑ Fixed Vegetation Plot
❑ Mobile Vegetation Plot
Figure 10B, Monitoring Components Map
W I L D L A N D S 0 400 800 Feet Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

10000
1000
U
Gj
i° 100
U
U
N
i]
10
y = 12.251xo.aoss
RZ = 0.5821
y = 8.788xo.76z
RZ = 0.916
y = 18.281x'
RZ = 0.87.
GB R1 Barker
North Carolina Coastal Plain Regional Curve: Discharge
0.10 1.00 10.00
Drainage Area (square miles)
o Wildlands Regional Flood Frequency 1.2-yr Predictions X Select Reference Reaches for Curve
• Ecoscience Coastal Plain Curve ♦ Coastal Plain Regional Curve
♦ Final Design Discharges Power (Select Reference Reaches for Curve)
Power (Ecoscience Coastal Plain Curve) Power (Coastal Plain Regional Curve)
WILDLANDS
OW,
ENGINEERING
100.00
Figure 11. Design Discharge
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
Gates County, NC

Appendix 1
Site Protection Instrument

1.0 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. This area totals 50.65 acres. The deed book and page number
listed are for the agreements on an option to purchase a conservation easement. A conservation
easement will be recorded on the parcels and includes streams and wetlands being restored along with
their corresponding riparian buffers.
Note that 1.59 acres of the conservation easement on the Barker parcel at the head of Greene Branch
(i.e., where culvert will be installed below to add natural drainage area) will be limited to a drainage
alteration restriction only. That is, trees will not be planted, and easement restrictions will be limited to
preventing the existing drainage pattern from being altered.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument — Daniels Creek Mitigation Site
Memo of OptionAcreage
Site Protection
to be
Landowner
PIN
County
Deed Book and
Instrument
Protected
Page Number
Bryant Farm Limited
DB: 343
Partnership
7000871662000
Gates
CE
PG:30-34
7.71
Saunders Twin Farm
7000781397000,
DB: 343
Limited Partnership
7000578594000
Gates
CE
PG: 35-39
8.93
D B: 344
Jean C. Powell
7000944759000
Gates
CE
PG: 367-370
5.25
Rick H. Morgan and
DB: 343
Susan M. Thompson
7010368536
Gates
CE
PG: 554-558
10.47
Tommy A. and Lois
DB: 343
Greene
7010438918000
Gates
CE
PG:559-563
12.30
Michael J. and Ronnie
7010732954
Gates
CE
Not yet recorded
5.99
M. Barker
All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DIMS prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site Appendix 1
USACE Action ID No. 2018-02026 Page 1

Appendix 2 - Preliminary JD and
Supporting USACE Forms

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: Multiple, see Agent Authorization Form
City, State: Sunbury, NC
County: Gates
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): Multiple, see agent authorization f
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Bob Zarzecki
Mailing Address: 8412 Falls of Neuse Rd. Suite 104
Raleigh, NC 27615
Telephone Number: [phone]
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
I am the current property owner.
I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultanti
Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION
Name: Multiple, see agent authorization forms
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
Electronic Mail Address:
1 Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION',4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
Print Name
Capacity: ❑ Owner Z Authorized Agent'
Date
Signature
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
❑✓ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
❑ A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
❑ I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
❑ Other:
s For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
a If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
s Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERNIINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
0 I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminM JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓� Size of Property or Review Area +/- 77 acres.
❑✓ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
36.487057
Longitude:-76.584852
A legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 1 Ix 17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. hM2://www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Missions/Regulatoly-Permit-
Pro gram/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDS• please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'.
Vicinity Map
Aerial Photograph
F4 USGS Topographic Map
0 Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
Landscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
❑ NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
hJ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.4rmy.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/readocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim _JD_Form fillable.pdf
8 Please see hM2://www.saw.usace.4M.mil/Missions/Regulatory-Permit-Program/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federaljurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, if information is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

Appendix 2 - PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD:
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD:
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER:
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES AND/OR
AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County/parish/borough: Gates City: Sunbury
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format):
Lat.: 36.487057 Long.:-76.584852
Universal Transverse Mercator: NAD 1983
Name of nearestwaterbody: Folly Swamp 30-3-2-1-2
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑ Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
❑ Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES IN REVIEW AREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO REGULATORY
JURISDICTION.
Site
number
Latitude
(decimal
degrees)
Longitude
(decimal
degrees)
Estimated amount
of aquatic resource
in review area
(acreage and linear
feet, if applicable)
Type of aquatic
resource (i.e., wetland
vs. non -wetland
waters)
Geographic authority
to which the aquatic
resource "may be"
subject (i.e., Section
404 or Section 10/404)
* See attached aquatic resources table

Table of Aouatic Resources
Geographic authority
Estimated amount of
Type of aquatic
to which the aquatic
resource i.e.
(
"may
Site number
Latitude
Longitude
aquatic resource in
resource be"
review area
wetland vs. non-
subject (i.e., Section
wetland waters)
404 or Section 10/404
Wetland A
36.488748
-76.574195
+/- 0.75 ac
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland B
36.485907
-76.565060
+/- 1.56 ac
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland C
36.483781
-76.567606
+/- 0.14 ac
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland D
36.495076
-76.595345
+/- 0.67 ac
Wetland
Section 404
Wetland E
36.494916
-76.594085
+/- 0.08 ac
Wetland
Section 404
Jordan Branch
Folly Swamp
36.493157
-76.593183
+/- 3,790 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404
Powell Branch
36.486978
-76.586772
+/- 1,370 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404
Morgan Branch
36.493280
-76.570832
+/- 3,000 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404
Greene Branch
36.486245
-76.566251
+/- 900 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404
Barker Branch
36.485001
-76.565069
+/- 1,175 LF
Non -wetland
Section 404

1) The Corps of Engineers believes that there may be jurisdictional aquatic resources in
the review area, and the requestor of this PJD is hereby advised of his or her option
to request and obtain an approved JD (AJD) for that review area based on an
informed decision after having discussed the various types of JDs and their
characteristics and circumstances when they may be appropriate.
2) In any circumstance where a permit applicant obtains an individual permit, or a
Nationwide General Permit (NWP) or other general permit verification requiring "pre -
construction notification" (PCN), or requests verification for a non -reporting NWP or
other general permit, and the permit applicant has not requested an AJD for the
activity, the permit applicant is hereby made aware that: (1) the permit applicant has
elected to seek a permit authorization based on a PJD, which does not make an
official determination of jurisdictional aquatic resources; (2) the applicant has the
option to request an AJD before accepting the terms and conditions of the permit
authorization, and that basing a permit authorization on an AJD could possibly result
in less compensatory mitigation being required or different special conditions; (3) the
applicant has the right to request an individual permit rather than accepting the terms
and conditions of the NWP or other general permit authorization; (4) the applicant can
accept a permit authorization and thereby agree to comply with all the terms and
conditions of that permit, including whatever mitigation requirements the Corps has
determined to be necessary; (5) undertaking any activity in reliance upon the subject
permit authorization without requesting an AJD constitutes the applicant's acceptance
of the use of the PJD; (6) accepting a permit authorization (e.g., signing a proffered
individual permit) or undertaking any activity in reliance on any form of Corps permit
authorization based on a PJD constitutes agreement that all aquatic resources in the
review area affected in any way by that activity will be treated as jurisdictional, and
waives any challenge to such jurisdiction in any administrative or judicial compliance
or enforcement action, or in any administrative appeal or in any Federal court; and (7)
whether the applicant elects to use either an AJD or a PJD, the JD will be processed
as soon as practicable. Further, an AJD, a proffered individual permit (and all terms
and conditions contained therein), or individual permit denial can be administratively
appealed pursuant to 33 C.F.R. Part 331. If, during an administrative appeal, it
becomes appropriate to make an official determination whether geographic
jurisdiction exists over aquatic resources in the review area, or to provide an official
delineation of jurisdictional aquatic resources in the review area, the Corps will
provide an AJD to accomplish that result, as soon as is practicable. This PJD finds
that there "may be"waters of the U.S. and/or that there "may be" navigable waters of
the U.S. on the subject review area, and identifies all aquatic features in the review
area that could be affected by the proposed activity, based on the following
information:

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD (check all that apply)
Checked items should be included in subject file. Appropriately reference sources
below where indicated for all checked items:
■❑ Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:Sketch Map
❑ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
■❑ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 1-24,000 Sunbury, NC Quadrangle
■❑ Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: Gates County Soil Survey Sheet 9
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
❑ Photographs: ❑ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination (s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signature and date of
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

Environmental Consultants,
8412 falls or Neuse Road, Sui1c 104, Raleigh, NC 2761 i • phone: ()19) 846-5900 • Fax: [phone]
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description:i.�41') S&EC Project 4
Date: ?/ /�
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section iD of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions,This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION: _
Parcel Index Numbers) (PIN): JO 6�78�% Da D o-o-o76 ]3 2%ppB
Site Address:
City, County, State:
PROPERTY OWNER 1NFFORM4TION:
Name:
Address:
Phone No.:
Email:
Fax No.:
z-7 9 2Z
Mobile No.: (_7 -z_) Z?7
Contract Purchaser (please prin Date
Contract Purchaser Signature
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.

Environmental Consultants,
9412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 27611 + Rhone: {)19) &40-S900. Fax: (919) 8 46i-9467
sandec,com
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description: '_ % e �T 1/ S&EC Project #
ci
Date: �Z /
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions.This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN)
Site Address:
City, County, State:
Name:
Address:
Phone No.:
Email:
Contract Purchaser Signature
7cvv67/6�2_6av
iATION:
Fax No.:
Mobile No.:
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.

Environmental Consultants,
8412 falls oC Ncu%c Read, Suite tO4, Rnleigh, NC ^-7G15 • Phone: ()l9) 840-S900
PROPERTY OWNER
CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description:"I&EC Project #
Date: 21(2_'Lj 1117
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Afro: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions,This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 7eooft22? O
Site Address:
City, County, State:
Name:
Address: / 1,A C�
Phone No.: ?S Fax No.: Mobile No.: 2-5 3$ = 7,351
Email:
2�i�// gg
Contract Purchaser (please Date
Contract Purchaser Signature
We hereby certify the abo ve information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge,

Environmental Consultants,
8412 Falls of `ease Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC. 27615 • Phone: ()19) 846-h900 • Fax: [phone]
sandec.com
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description: g ter/ 7ji14_76? S&EC Project #
Date: � I
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions.This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN):
Site Address:
City, County, State:
YKUPERYY OWNER 1NrUKMA IUN: '
Name: /c !r 6�7? S 01? 7'k-1 t�
Address: 6 r, 5 Jut-4G z'� 2.1
Phone No.: 751 - /ZZ Fax No.: Mobile No.: 2,!;b -- 57�
Email: G j _/
Contr sex (pleas in Date
Contract Purchaser Signature
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge;

Environmental Consultants,
5412 Falls of Neuse Road, Suitc 104, Raleigh, NC 27015 • Phcme; (919) 846-i%X)
sandec.com
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Name/Description: GI/ if S&EC Project #
Date:
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions.This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN)
Site Address:
City, County, State:
Name:
Address:
Phone No.:
Email:
Contract Purchaser Signature
Fax
Mobile No.: ZS 337- /o.3c3 ze .j
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.

Environmental. Consultants,
9 412 falls of Neuse Road, Suite 104, Raleigh, NC 276 15 • Phone: O19) iS-14-7900
s:kndc com
PROPERTY OWNER CERTIFICATION / AGENT AUTHORIZATION
Project Narne/Description: S&EC Project #
Date: a z
The Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, NC 28403
Attn: Field Office:
I, the undersigned, a duly authorized owner of record of the property/properties identified herein, do
authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, US. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and Soil &
Environmental Consultants, PA (S&EC) staff (as my agent) to enter upon the property herein described
for the purpose of conducting on -site investigations and issuing a determination associated with Waters
of the U.S. subject to Federal jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. This document also authorizes S&EC (as my agent) to act on my
behalf and take all actions necessary for the processing, issuance and acceptance of a permit or
certification and any and all associated standard and special conditions.This notification supersedes any
previous correspondence concerning the agent for this project.
NOTICE: This authorization, for liability and professional courtesy reasons, is valid only for government
officials to enter the property when accompanied by S&EC staff. You should call S&EC to arrange a site
meeting prior to visiting the site.
PARCEL INFORMATION:
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 7e l0 % 3 2 %
Site Address: SSS
City, County, State: Srr Go,
i
Name: /111 W flitel l �
Address:
Phone No.: 7 Sam ax No.: Mobile No.:
Email:
Contract h (please
l
Contract Purchaser Signature
2/�-/2
Date
We hereby certify the above information submitted in this application is true and accurate to
the best of our knowledge.

41
12
11(illy G,iove
L;
TTj
4�.
Z5-
7iniA
Sav e., Y
Oak Gr(NQ
6 can n�cavl
Gf iircl) Corn
41 .2
4 q
j,-
0
L -L�
Project Number: 13997.W1 Map Title: 0 2,000 4,000 N
Figure 1 - USGS Map
Project Manager: I I I I I I I I I
BZ Folly Swamp Mitigation Site Feet
Scale: Gates County, NC
•
1 = 2000' Source: 2019 USGS Sunbury, NC Soil A Environmental Consultants, PA
Date: E412 F.Ik A NR.L S.�, M P.W&J, NC 2�— 15 - Pb: (919) 346-5WMW - Fm: (919) R46�
9/17/2019 and Corapeake, NC Quads — —Lk,.—

nA
Uv itaA
�r[ti OA One,
CrA BFIA
CrF+ Holly
�r G rov
f Lill GoA
w
LeA
_ CIA
BnA CrA FMA CrA 1326 RnA 3� l-eq ll
I_�!4 _
Lee rA GuA HnA
tir�R.
LeA � � Cr
Rrk CrF f BnA
Le,' i'rFt o
t� PnA. -LyA C.rA BnA Cyr
x
L C rA �Y 1326
13riA � 'D Gob ` C'rA
� 1 rA 0A rUhr
Cr$ :r CrE3 � B-iA
�3 i�
LsA ti Cr CIA 3
I eA Bhi,^ --
{ 3r.A GoA fraa
f GoA
rA Gn-A
Ud _� CIA
IFA �.
w r,o" Lyr :�1 -� {'f` 1: :- 1311A
r COB
Crt3 CIS
NaA n
Na
PnA _c 1A
�-
Ly'A LeA GoA BnA LeA �7
Br A 'r{ ` n'A e
LyA ,
�J LyA 131A Ler, ��� �`�
f:rl1
20A r -gyp
s
Pak
g3
h uA fry —A !
Crll
Nz 1
x}��
GoA' 13ri+� Cr-A
LyA r A
LeA
C '1
Project Number: Map Title: N
13997.W1 Figure 2 -Soil Survey Map o 1,500 3,000
Project Manager: FOII Swam Mitigation Site I Ii i i i ill
BZ Y p g Feet
Scale: Gates County, NC
1" = 1500' M
Date: Source: Gates County %412 F.1k W'N—R—L Run. 1W. Soil ,& Etivironmental Consultants, PA
Raleih.% gC 2T l3.Y :(919)�5 •V—(919)N,W1J6
9/17/2019 Soil Survey Sheet 9 1-k- L

ti
I
-
MIT M,
1
}.17I 4y .ram fifJiriiiti +��--'
�-100
4
L I
C-I
1i..�r
J
`� rl
� �
J■!
Sr1�_J
L�
r
•y
Al ,w
♦
�� r
,
�r � l�
_ram
4
I
7'�.
r I
/ r
f ��, � • Ff.��
r
dzi
7 ^■ffmoon, rim
GA
4.j
ki 4 lJr'.�'
-mom
'-.
r � � ON JJJ
No
1­1141-d

Ploy COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LiNDA CULPEPPER
Director
Michael Baker
11522 Ivy House Terrace
Henrico, VA 23233
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quafiry
June 7, 2019
DWR #19-0603
GATES County
Subject: On -Site Determinations for Applicability to Water Quality Standards (15A NCAC 026.0211)
Subject Property/ Project Name: Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Address/Location. 555 Folly Road, Sunbury
Stream(s) Evaluated: Unnamed Tributary to Folly Swamp
Determination Date: 06/06/19 Staff: Anthony Scarbraugh
Determination Type:
Buffer:
Stream:
❑ Neu se (15A NCAC 02B .0233)
® Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar-PamIic❑ (1SA NCAC 0 2 B .02S9)
❑ Catawba (15A NCAC 02R .0243)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 02B .0267) (governmental
and/or interjurisdictional projects)
❑ Randleman (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
❑ Goose Creek (15A NCAC 02B ,0605-.0608y
Stream
E/l/P*
Not
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
Subject
x
Survey
Topo
19-0603
E
Flag:19-0603
Flag:19-0603
x
Begin
E/l
19-0603
1
x
Flag:19-0603
Flag:19-0603
x
E/l
End
*E/1/P/NSP = Ephemeroontermittent/Perennial/No Stream Present
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has determined that the streams listed above and included
on the attached map have been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey of GATES
County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale
and evaluated for applicability to the Water Quality Standards. Each stream that is checked "Not
Subject" has been determined to not be at least intermittent or not present on the property. Streams
that are checked "Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify
them to be at least intermittent streams. There may be other streams or features located on the
property that do not appear on the maps referenced above but may be Considered jurisdictional
according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the Clean Water Act.
EQ
. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality division of Water Reso"mcs
_ Washingtosi "iesraI OffirA, i 943 Washington Square Mal i Washington. North Caf Oilna Z1889

GATES County
Page 2 of 2
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the OWR may request a determination by the Director.
An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of date of this letter to the Director in
writing.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by the Director.
An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of date of this letter to the Director in
writing.
1f sending via US Postal Service:
c/o Koren Higgins
D WR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
1f sending via delivery service (UPS, FedFx, etc. ):
% Karen Higgins
D WR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within sixty (60)
days.
The project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries regarding
applicability to the Clean Water Act should be directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Washington
Regulatory Field Office at [phone].
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Anthony Scarbraugh at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Rat TN.."
Robert Tankard, Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
cc: LASERFICHE
Kyle Barnes, US Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Office
Mac Haupt, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit (via email)
Chris Roessler, Wildlands Engineering (via email)

41
LG o o g I "el a,
).Flag. 19-0603 Begin
rd
13�t
A
N
1000 ft

Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site 4 t Legend "
- +�`.-• 19-0603 Not Subject M
USGS Topographic Map � 1010 19-0603 Subject �
FIag:19-D6D3
10
-ter-
r � T�
+�r� R
APPROVED
North Ceroiim Ewronmentai a ° +] a 0 [ j s
µanVement Commtssion y
Division. ❑f mter Resources �
Date 06107 � � � MOP
> # 19-0603
0.0
Ook Grove CrNO
• t �� .�
C.
�
AF W omom
do
SO !•� r
f
—lip

Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
1996 Sail Survey of Gates County Sheet No 9 — A Lr�
NaA Iz
APPROVED
,[
Nvrtfa Carolina Environmental
�
1�lanaga3'tient Comrnissian
pNisinn atllrlater FtaScurves
Daft0610720 19pernlit
-
# 19-0603
Cr B
0
■I
-' Legend
+'4 19-0603 Not Subject
19-0603 Subject
Flag: 19-0603
CFO
RoA
StB
GoA
PnA
LyA
i
Go /A)

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp (Barker Br) 2. Date of evaluation: 10/9/19
3. Applicantlowner name: 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 7 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r.lIntermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rlSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) rSize 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? rYes r",No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes r.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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
M. B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10 % of channel unstable
B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
. C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EB EB 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])
MC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 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
1Yes �1No 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. f+,,Yes rNo 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)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses E r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
rr E Little or no habitat
"""""""""""""""':'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. FYes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

7- 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
L1+ A
Z+'1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1C1C
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y 11Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
rN MN
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
j- C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
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
J
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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
rjC
rjC
Herbaceous vegetation with orwlthout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
FjD
FjD
Maintained shrubs
Fj'E
Fj'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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
A
A
s A
B
B
B
B
B
B
HA
C
HA
C
�"C
rA
C
C
N
C
D
D
s D
D
D
D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
t]B EB Low stem density
MC EC 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
E—jA E—jA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
E—jB E—jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
Fj'C Fj'C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
RC RC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 MD 79 to < 230 [7 E >_ 230

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp, upper Folly (R1) 2. Date of evaluation: 11/6/18
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization:
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4.5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 23 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: rPerennial flow rlIntermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes rNo If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List F- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes [TNo
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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
M. B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10 % of channel unstable
. B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EB EB 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])
MC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
(- A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 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
1Yes �1No 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 rNo 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)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m N r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o T r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
F D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
E Little or no habitat
""""""""""""""""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. F-, Yes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
j- A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
F r Aquatic reptiles
F r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
F r Asian clam (Corbicula )
F r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F' r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, flshfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F r Midges/mosquito larvae
F F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
f r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

1— 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
LIA
Z1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�1C
MC
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y 11Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
rN MN
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
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
J
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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
rjC
rjC
Herbaceous vegetation with orwlthout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
FjD
MD
Maintained shrubs
Fj'E
rjE
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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
I_JA
. A
B
B.B
B
B
B
HA
C
HA
C
�"CC
rA
NA
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
t]B MB Low stem density
MC EC 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
Fj'A rA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
1—jB r"jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
1-JC r"jC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
rjC rjC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 MD 79 to < 230 [7 E >_ 230

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp, lower Folly (R2) 2. Date of evaluation: 11/6/18
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Engineering 4. Assessor name/organization: Chris Roessler
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1000
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4.5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 25 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: rPerennial flow rlIntermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? rYes r",No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes [TNo
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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
M. B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10 % of channel unstable
. B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EB M 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])
MC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section-
r- F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 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
1Yes �1No 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 rNo 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)
�J A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses --Fu E r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r w r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
F,, B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F- E Little or no habitat
""""""""""""""""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. F-, Yes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r rr Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

7 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
LIA
Z1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�1C
MC
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y 11Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
rN MN
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
B B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C
. C
�
C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D
D
D .J 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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C
Fj'C
Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D
FjD
Maintained shrubs
E
rjE
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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
HA HA A �A AN . A
B B B �B B B
C C C JC C C
D D D D D D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
t]B EB Low stem density
MC EC 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
E—jA E—jA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
E—jB E—jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
Fj'C Fj'C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
RC RC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 MD 79 to < 230 [7 E >_ 230

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp (Greene Br- R2) 2. Date of evaluation: 11/7/18
3. Applicantlowner name: 4. Assessor name/organization:
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1,000
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r.1Intermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rlSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) rSize 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? rYes [-,No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List F- CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes r.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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
M. B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
�+ A < 10 % of channel unstable
B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
M+ B M 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])
EC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
(- A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or 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
1Yes �1No 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 r'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)
F A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses Fu N r F 5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o T r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
F C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5% vertical bank along the marsh
F D 5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F, E Little or no habitat
"""""""""""""""':'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. F-, Yes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
j- A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
F r Aquatic reptiles
F r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, flshfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F r Midges/mosquito larvae
F F Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
F' r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
f r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

1— 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
LIA
Z1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�1C
MC
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y �1Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N1N
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
r D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
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
J
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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Fj'C
Fj'C
Herbaceous vegetation with orwlthout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
FjD
FjD
Maintained shrubs
rjE
rjE
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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
A
A
A
sB
B
I�B
�A
B
B
HA
C
C
HA
L"C
�B
C
C
D
D
s D
JC
s D
s D
s D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
M+ B MB Low stem density
EC EC 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
Fj'A rA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
1—jB r"jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
1-JC r"jC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
rjC rjC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 MD 79 to < 230 [7 E >_ 230

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp (Morgan Br) 2. Date of evaluation: 11/6/18
3. Applicantlowner name: 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 500
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5.5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 14 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r.1Intermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rlSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) rSize 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? rYes r",No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes r.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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
PA At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
M. B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10 % of channel unstable
B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
. C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EB EB 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])
MC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r 1 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 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
1Yes �1No 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 r'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)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses E r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
rr E Little or no habitat
"""""""""""""""':'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. F-, Yes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, flshfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

7- 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
LIA
Z1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�1C
MC
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y 11Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
rN MN
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
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
J
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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Fj'C
Fj'C
Herbaceous vegetation with orwlthout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
FjD
FjD
Maintained shrubs
rjE
rjE
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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
A
sA
sA
B
B
B
B
B
B
HA
C
HA
C
�"C
rA
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
t]B EB Low stem density
MC EC 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
Fj'A rA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
1—jB r"jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
1-JC r"jC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
RC RC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 MD 79 to < 230 [7 E >_ 230

FIELD
user rvianuai version c. i
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 any supplementary
measurements were performed. Seethe NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that maybe 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): Folly Swamp (Powell Branch) 2. Date of evaluation: 10/29/19
3. Applicantlowner name: 4. Assessor name/organization: Wildlands Engineering
5. County: Gates 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Pasquotank on USGS 7-5-minute quad:
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach):
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet):
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r' No
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r.1Intermittentflow r7idal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rMountains (M) rPiedmont (P) rInner Coastal Plain (I) ROuter Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic
valley shape (skip for ra b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip rSize 1 (< 0.1 mi`) rlSize 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) rSize 3 (0.5 to < 5 mi`) Mize 4 (>_ 5 m6
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? rYes r",No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r-jI r-JII III r-,IV r-JV)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r.Yes r.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.
JC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
r1A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
EB Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
r1A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
1B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r1A 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).
r1B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
A < 10 % of channel unstable
B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
. C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction - streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
EA EA Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
EB EB 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])
MC EC Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)

r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r 1 Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 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
1Yes �1No 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 rNo 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)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses E r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) r w r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
F,, B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r l Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) Lu r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots v 2 r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F- E Little or no habitat
""""""""""""""""'REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS—---- ..............
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11 a. F-, Yes [—,No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d;
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles 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
Bed rock/sapro lite
1 Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
r Detritus
r
rr Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11 d. E'Yes rNo Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. Yes Z—,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. ENo Water Other:
12b. r: Yes rNo 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.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [T])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, flshfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )
r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae

7 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
LIA
Z1A
Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
1B
2113
Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
�1C
MC
Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: 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
PA rA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_ 6 inches deep
rB rB Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
1C E.11C 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
1Y 11Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
rN MN
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.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins; do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading -assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf-on"condition.
t]A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
t]B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
MC 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 >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B
B
�A
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
J
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
FjA
FjA
Mature forest
rjB
rjB
Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
Fj'C
Fj'C
Herbaceous vegetation with orwlthout a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
FjD
FjD
Maintained shrubs
rjE
rjE
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: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB
RB
LB
RB
LB
RB
A
sA
sA
B
B
B
B
B
B
HA
C
HA
C
�"C
rA
C
C
C
D
D
D
D
D
D
Row crops
Maintained turf
Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
t]A EA Medium to high stem density
t]B EB Low stem density
MC EC 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
Fj'A rA The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
1—jB r"jB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
1-JC r"jC The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
[—�A [—�A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
RC RC 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 F�"No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r"�No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
rA <46 r B 46 to < 67 r7C 67 to < 79 r7D 79 to < 230 [1 E >_ 230
Most of reach is bordered by row crop fields. Ditch close to tree line, eroded areas in ag fields where water is draining to Powell Br. Some places where t

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Folly Swamp (Powell Branch)
Stream Category Oa2
Notes of Field Assessment Form (Y/N)
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N)
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included (Y/N)
NC SAM feature type (perennial, intermittent, Tidal Marsh Stream)
Function Class Rating Summary
Date of Evaluation 10/29/19
Assessor Name/Organization Wildlands Engineering
YES
NO
Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology
(2) Baseflow
(2) Flood Flow
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
(4) Floodplain Access
(4) Wooded Riparian Buffer
(4) Microtopography
(3) Stream Stability
(4) Channel Stability
(4) Sediment Transport
(4) Stream Geomorphology
(2) Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow
(2) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
(1) Water Quality
(2) Baseflow
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation
(3) Upland Pollutant Filtration
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Indicators of Stressors
(2) Aquatic Life Tolerance
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NO
NA
NA
(1) Habitat
(2) In -stream Habitat
(3) Baseflow
(3) Substrate
(3) Stream Stability
(3) In -stream Habitat
(2) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Stream -side Habitat
(3) Thermoregulation
(2) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(3) Flow Restriction
(3) Tidal Marsh Stream Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(4) Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In -stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
Overall
LOW
LOW

APPENDIX 3
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
NCDWR Stream Identification Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
ProjectfSite:� ��2'
Latitude:
Evaluator: C
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
75
Stream Deteirirra: _ circle one)
Other
if ? 19 or perennial if 2: 30* l�
Ephemeral . ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
w
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. 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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
01
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussio s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water able?
No = 0
Yes = 3 G�
C. Biology (Subtotal = (• ) - (�
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
co
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0. ,
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using c her methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Z _
Notes: �C 5 f l �G 4i"' ,
i
_
r ,�, ��
Sketch:
C�
��vv�S

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /`�
Project/Site: ��� �`2-6
Latitude:
Evaluator: ���
County: `
Longitude:
Total Points: CC'
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if_> 19 or perennial if> 30* =
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /U- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St g
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. 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
It
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 16, - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water able?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = /6.7� )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:1,_� // G S n
a2ee e.
`� /✓��? s �' e.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j ��
Project/Site: �-7 ,C
Latitude:
Evaluator: C
County: � -lye
i Lon tude:
g
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Z
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/
U-)
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No(- 0 `
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ Iq )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
00
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high wate e?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ` 42) `�---'
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
" 1. Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be Identified using
other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: LS /�
i , �t i
2_ - �,-r = o/ ��G✓
Sketch: cCr /�i�s

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /l4
Project/Site: Q �j
Latitude:
Evaluator: �6�
County: /�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if a 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St 'o g
,a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
7 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
C(2,2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
-3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
7T
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discu ions in manual (�
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
r 1')
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Biologv (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2)
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
01
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OB = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using o her methods. See p. 5 of manual.
Notes: l'S /0
z72?
r/l� , 104MCi1'
r� ,l/l
lveel<
Sketch: / �% �
����✓i�'lD�i�
G�

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j
Project/Site: `Ill
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ,
Stream Determination circle one
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
if _a 19 or perennial if � 30* l/
e.g. Quad Name:
M
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
C>
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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
(1-)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discuss' s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ,_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
! 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
U. blolow (Subtotal = u . /i) )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
(3,)
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1 2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
� -I0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5-�
' 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified usi g other methods. S, a p. 35 of manual.
Notes:/ / /
C ,, �I % t7 ,�
777M
/j2
Sketch: ��7lv7%C�
r-C.
r

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: B
Project/Site:4��`�%
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
%>
Stream Determin ' (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermi Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if> 30* -
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
V
2
3.
8. Headcuts
'0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = // )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
_ 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high wate able?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = /') )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Q-)
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
L21
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1,
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial stye ms may also be identified usi g other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
r
Notes: hG/CC S 41
S�G� /IBC
TIC
o/ it
Sketch:
f�7

NC "w" Strearn Ttlentification Form Version 4.11
®ate: / %
ec Prot/Site: �i- ,f %j� ;
� G�, _�''
Latitude:
Evaluator: �L/
County: �'
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral nt�ermttenD Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__Z_6_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. 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
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
�'
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 `
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
_
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
i" 0'
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussiorys in manual
R 4-1.irlrnlnn\� (Ciih�n�al = '� �
y... ...gi \"
12. Presence of Basefiow
0
1 ;'
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
0
1.5
1
1
__2__
0.5 ;
3
52
0 4,
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
( 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 i
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
( Yes
18. Fibrous roots in streambe
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
-
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
i
1
2
3
22. Fish
0-
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 -)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 ``'
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1 - 0 `r ,.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 1
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.489029 Long:-76.587725 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: BnA - Bladen Loam, 0-2 percent slopes NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
—Sediment Deposits (132)
—Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
X Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 1
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Acer saccharinum
25
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2. Pinus taeda
10
Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
6 (A)
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata:
6 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
100.0% (A/B)
45 =Total Cover
evalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
23 20% of total cover:
9
al % Cover of: Multiply b10000
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 0 x 1 = 0
1. Acer saccharinum
10 Yes
FAC
FACW species 0 x 0
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
FAC species 12 x 3 = 375
3.
FACU species = 0
4.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
5.
Colum als: 125 (A) 31�, _(B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
20 =Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ligustrum sinense
60 Yes
FAC
3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.0'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
60 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub -Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Depth Matrix
Redox Features
(inches) Color (moist) %
Color (moist) % Types Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-2 10YR 3/2 100
Sandy
2-13 10YR 4/1 90
7.5YR 5/8 10 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
—Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) (outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
—Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
_Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 2
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 1
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.487741 Long:-76.585283 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: BnA - Bladen loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 2
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Pinus taeda
25 Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2. Acer saccharinum
15 Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 6 (A)
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 6 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
50 =Total Cover
evalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
25 20% of total cover:
10
1 % Cover of: Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 0 x 1 = 0
1. Acer saccharinum
10 Yes
FAC
FACW species x 0
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
FAC species 110 x 3 = 330
3.
FACU species = 0
4.
UPL species 0 x 5 = 0
5.
Colu tals: 110 (A) 3 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.00
20 =Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ligustrum sinense
40 Yes
FAC
3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
40 =Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover:
8
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 2
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) % Types Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-3 10YR 3/2 100
Sandy
3-13 10YR 4/2 80
10YR 5/8 20 C M
Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al 2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) (outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013) _Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 3
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.489059 Long:-76.574729 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: NaA - Nawney Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
X Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 3
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover
Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Acer saccharinum
50
Yes
FAC
Number of Dominant Species
2. Platanus occidentalis
10
No
FACW
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 5 (A)
3. Liquidambar styraciflua
10
No
FAC
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 5 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
70
=Total Cover
evalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
35
20% of total cover:
14
I % Cover of: Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 0 x 1 = 0
1. Acer saccharinum
30
Yes
FAC
FACW species 5 x 30
2.
FAC species 11 x 3 = 345
3.
FACU species = 0
4.
UPL species 0 x 5 = _ 0
5.
Colum als: 130 (A) 31,7 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.88
30
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
15
20% of total cover:
6
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ligustrum sinense
20
Yes
FAC
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
20
=Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
10
20% of total cover:
4
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Boehmeria cylindrica
5
Yes
FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
5
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1. Toxicodendron radicans
5
Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
5
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
3
20% of total cover:
1
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 3
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 7.5YR 5/1 80
7.5YR 5/8 20 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 4
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.489482 Long:-76.574421 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: CrA - Craven fine sandy loam, 1 to 4 percent slopes NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 4
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
1. Pinus taeda
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
3.
4.
5.
6.
Absolute
Dominant
Indicator
% Cover
Species?
Status
40
Yes
FAC
10
Yes
FAC
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL. FACW. or FAC
5 (A)
5 (B)
100.0% (A/B)
50 =Total Cover valence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover: 25 20% of total cover: 10 1 % Cover of: Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' ) OBL specie 0 x 1 = 0
1. FACW species 50
2. FAC species 80 x 3 = 240
3. FACU species = 0
4. UPL species 0 x 5 = _ 0
5. Columtals: 105 (A) 2�,: (B)
6. Prevalence Index = B/A = 2.76
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1. Ligustrum sinense
20 Yes
FAC
3 - Prevalence Index is !-3.0'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
20 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
10 20% of total cover:
4
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Arundinaria gigantea
25 Yes
FACW
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Microstegium vimineum
10 Yes
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
35 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 18 20% of total cover: 7
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1.
)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 4
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 5/4 95
7.5YR 5/8 5 C M Sandy Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 5
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.493533 Long:-76.593673 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: LeA - Lenoir Loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 5
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1. Quercus alba
20 Yes
FACU
Number of Dominant Species
2. Acer saccharinum
10 Yes
FAC
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 66.7% (A/B)
30 =Total Cover
valence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
15 20% of total cover:
6
%I % Cover of: Multiply b
[OBL
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
specie 0 x 1 = 0
1.
FACW species - 0
2.
FAC species 70 x 3 = 210
3.
FACU species = 80
4.
UPL species00" 0 x 5 = _ 0
5.
Colum tals: 90 (A) 2a ` (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 3.22
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
=Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1. Smilax rotundifolia
60 Yes
FAC
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
60 =Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 5
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) % Types Loc2
Texture Remarks
0-8 10YR 4/4 100
Sandy
8-13 10YR 5/4 95
7.5YR 5/6 5 C M
Sandy Distinct redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T) (outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 6
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.485563 Long:-76.588538 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: CrA - Craven fine sandy loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 6
Absolute Dominant Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0.0% (A/B)
=Total Cover
Prevalence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL species 0 x 1 = 0
1.
FACW species 0 x 2 = 0
2.
FAC species 0 x 3 = 0
3.
FACU species 0 x 4 = 0
4.
UPL species 100 x 5 = 500
5.
Column Totals: 100 (A) 500 (B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 5.00
=Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Zea mays
100 Yes UPL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2.
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub -Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
100 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 50 20% of total cover: 20
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1.
)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes No X
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 6
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 5/3 100
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Sandy Redox (S5)
—Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 11/6/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 7A
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.486226 Long:-76.565380 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: NaA - 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: N/A
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
X Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 7A
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
4
(A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata:
5
(B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
80.0%
(A/B)
=Total Cover
valence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
I % Cover of:
Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 5 x 1
= 5
1. Liquidam bar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
FACW species 0
- 40
2. Salix nigra
5 Yes
OBL
FAC species 30 x 3
= 90
3.
FACU species
= 80
4.
UPL species 0 x 5
= _ 0
5.
Colu otals: 75 (A)
21
(B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2.87
15 =Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
8 20% of total cover:
3
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
=Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Solidago altissima
20 Yes
FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Persicaria virginiana
20 Yes
FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3. Juncus effusus
20 Yes
FACW
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
60 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
30 20% of total cover:
12
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
1.
)
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 7A
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 5/1 70
10YR 5/8 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 9/19/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 7B
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.485974 Long:-76.565844 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: NaA - 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes No X
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
_Water Marks (131)
_Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
_ FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 7B
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3
(A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata:
4
(B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
75.0%
(A/B)
=Total Cover
valence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
I % Cover of:
Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 5 x 1
= 5
1. Liquidam bar styraciflua
10 Yes
FAC
FACW species
0
2. Salix nigra
5 Yes
OBL
FAC species 30 x 3
= 90
3.
FACU species
= 80
4.
UPL species 0 x 5
= _ 0
5.
COlumtals: 55 (A)
1
_(B)
6.
Prevalence Index = B/A =
3.18
15 =Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
8 20% of total cover: 3
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
3 - Prevalence Index is !2.0'
2.
_
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
=Total Cover
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Solidago altissima
20 Yes FACU
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2. Persicaria virginiana
20 Yes FAC
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
40 =Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20 20% of total cover: 8
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 7B
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 5/1 70
10YR 5/8 30 C M Loamy/Clayey Prominent redox concentrations
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers OMB Control #: 0710-xxxx, Exp: Pending
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET —Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain Region Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
See ERDC/EL TR-07-24; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Project/Site: Folly Swamp Mitigation Site City/County: Sunbury/Gates Sampling Date: 11/6/19
Applicant/Owner: State: NC Sampling Point: 8
Investigator(s): S&EC Section, Township, Range:
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Flat Local relief (concave, convex, none): None Slope (%): 0
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): LRR T, MLRA 153A Lat: 36.495207 Long:-76.595385 Datum: NAD 83
Soil Map Unit Name: LeA - Lenoir loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes NWI classification: NAD 83
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes X 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 X No Is the Sampled Area
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No within a Wetland? Yes X No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required: check all that apply)
—Surface Soil Cracks (136)
_Surface Water (Al)
_Aquatic Fauna (1313)
_Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138)
_ High Water Table (A2)
—Marl Deposits (1315) (LRR U)
—Drainage Patterns (1310)
—Saturation (A3)
—Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl)
—Moss Trim Lines (1316)
—Water Marks (131)
X Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
_ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
_Sediment Deposits (132)
_Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
_Crayfish Burrows (C8)
_ Drift Deposits (133)
—Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
—Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
_Algal Mat or Crust (134)
_Thin Muck Surface (C7)
_Geomorphic Position (D2)
—Iron Deposits (135)
—Other (Explain in Remarks)
—Shallow Aquitard (D3)
_ Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137)
X FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
X Water -Stained Leaves (139)
Sphagnum Moss (D8) (LRR T, U)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Water Table Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes
No X Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

VEGETATION (Five Strata) - Use scientific names of plants.
Sampling Point: 8
Absolute Dominant
Indicator
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
% Cover Species?
Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
1.
Number of Dominant Species
2.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 3 (A)
3.
Total Number of Dominant
4.
Species Across All Strata: 3 (B)
5.
Percent of Dominant Species
6.
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 100.0% (A/B)
=Total Cover
valence Index worksheet:
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
I % Cover of: Multiply b
Sapling Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
OBL specie 40 x 1 = 40
1. Pinus taeda
20 Yes
FAC
FACW species 0 - 0
2. Liquidambar styraciflua
5 Yes
FAC
FAC species 25 x 3 = 75
3.
FACU species = 0
4.
U P L
0 x 55.
;,!p�ecie
Coluotals: 65 (A) (B)
6.
oo000 Prevalence Index = B/A = 1.77
25 =Total Cover
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
50% of total cover:
13 20% of total cover:
5
_ 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
Shrub Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
X 2 - Dominance Test is >50%
1.
'
2.
-Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
3.
4.
5.
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
6.
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Definitions of Five Vegetation Strata:
=Total Cover
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Tree - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 30' )
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and 3 in.
1. Juncus effusus
40 Yes
OBL
(7.6 cm) or larger in diameter at breast height (DBH).
2
Sapling - Woody plants, excluding woody vines,
3.
approximately 20 ft (6 m) or more in height and less
4
than 3 in. (7.6 cm) DBH.
5.
Shrub - Woody Plants, excluding woody vines,
6
approximately 3 to 20 ft (1 to 6 m) in height.
7.
Herb - All herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including
8.
herbaceous vines, regardless of size, and woody
9
plants, except woody vines, less than approximately 3
ft (1 m) in height.
10.
11.
Woody Vine - All woody vines, regardless of height.
40 =Total Cover
50% of total cover: 20 20% of total cover: 8
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Hydrophytic
=Total Cover
Vegetation
50% of total cover:
20% of total cover:
Present? Yes X No
Remarks: (If observed, list morphological adaptations below.)
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain - Version 2.0

SOIL Sampling Point: 8
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) % Types Loc2 Texture Remarks
0-13 10YR 4/2 100
Loamy/Clayey
Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.
2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
_ Histosol (Al)
—Thin Dark Surface (S9) (LRR S, T, U)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR O)
_ Histic Epipedon (A2)
—Barrier Islands 1 cm Muck (S12)
_ 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR S)
_ Black Histic (A3)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
—Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
—Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
—Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (LRR O)
(outside MLRA 150A)
—Stratified Layers (A5)
_ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
—Reduced Vertic (F18)
—Organic Bodies (A6) (LRR P, T, U)
X Depleted Matrix (F3)
(outside MLRA 150A, 15013)
_5 cm Mucky Mineral (A7) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
_ Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (LRR P, T)
_ Muck Presence (A8) (LRR U)
_ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR P, T)
_ Redox Depressions (F8)
(MLRA 15313)
_ Depleted Below Dark Surface (Al 1)
_ Marl (F10) (LRR U)
_ Red Parent Material (F21)
_Thick Dark Surface (Al2)
_ Depleted Ochric (F11) (MLRA 151)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
_ Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (MLRA 150A)_
Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR O, P, T)
(outside MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) (LRR O, S)
_ Umbric Surface (F13) (LRR P, T, U)
_ Barrier Islands Low Chroma Matrix (TS7)
_Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
_Delta Ochric (F17) (MLRA 151)
(MLRA 15313, 153D)
_Sandy Redox (S5)
Reduced Vertic (F18) (MLRA 150A, 15013)
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
_Stripped Matrix (S6)
_Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 149A)
_ Dark Surface (S7) (LRR P, S, T, U)
_Anomalous Bright Floodplain Soils (F20)
_ Polyvalue Below Surface (S8)
(MLRA 149A, 153C, 153D)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
(LRR S, T, U)
—Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
wetland hydrology must be present,
(MLRA 138, 152A in FL, 154)
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Type:
Depth (inches):
Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Remarks:
ENG FORM 6116-2-SG, JUL 2018 Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain — Version 2.0

Appendix 3
DWR Stream ID Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
ProjectfSite:� ��2'
Latitude:
Evaluator: C
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
75
Stream Deteirirra: _ circle one)
Other
if ? 19 or perennial if 2: 30* l�
Ephemeral . ntermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
w
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. 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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
01
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
`artificial ditches are not rated; see discussio s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water able?
No = 0
Yes = 3 G�
C. Biology (Subtotal = (• ) - (�
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
co
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0. ,
1
1.5
23, Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using c her methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Z _
Notes: �C 5 f l �G 4i"' ,
i
_
r ,�, ��
Sketch:
C�
��vv�S

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /`�
Project/Site: ��� �`2-6
Latitude:
Evaluator: ���
County: `
Longitude:
Total Points: CC'
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if_> 19 or perennial if> 30* =
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = /U- )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St g
1"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. 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
It
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = 16, - )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water able?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = /6.7� )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:1,_� // G S n
a2ee e.
`� /✓��? s �' e.
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j ��
Project/Site: �-7 ,C
Latitude:
Evaluator: C
County: � -lye
i Lon tude:
g
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent Z
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if ? 19 or perennial if z 30*
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
/
U-)
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No(- 0 `
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ Iq )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
00
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high wate e?
No = 0
es = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = ` 42) `�---'
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
" 1. Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be Identified using
other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: LS /�
i , �t i
2_ - �,-r = o/ ��G✓
Sketch: cCr /�i�s

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /l4
Project/Site: Q �j
Latitude:
Evaluator: �6�
County: /�
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
if >_ 19 or perennial if a 30*
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
St 'o g
,a, Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
7 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
C(2,2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
-3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
7T
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discu ions in manual (�
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
r 1')
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
G. Biologv (Subtotal =
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2)
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0)
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
01
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OB = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using o her methods. See p. 5 of manual.
Notes: l'S /0
z72?
r/l� , 104MCi1'
r� ,l/l
lveel<
Sketch: / �% �
����✓i�'lD�i�
G�

NC DWO Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: j
Project/Site: `Ill
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent ,
Stream Determination circle one
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial
Other
if _a 19 or perennial if � 30* l/
e.g. Quad Name:
M
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
C>
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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
(1-)
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
- artificial ditches are not rated; see discuss' s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = ,_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
! 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es = 3
U. blolow (Subtotal = u . /i) )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
(3,)
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
1 2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
� -I0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5-�
' 1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified usi g other methods. S, a p. 35 of manual.
Notes:/ / /
C ,, �I % t7 ,�
777M
/j2
Sketch: ��7lv7%C�
r-C.
r

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: B
Project/Site:4��`�%
Latitude:
Evaluator: ��
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
%>
Stream Determin ' (circle one)
Ephemeral Intermi Perennial
Other
e.g. Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if> 30* -
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
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
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
V
2
3.
8. Headcuts
'0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
o = 0
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = // )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
_ 1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high wate able?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology Subtotal = /') )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
Q-)
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
L21
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1,
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW 0.75; OBL = 1.5 Other = 0
*perennial stye ms may also be identified usi g other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
r
Notes: hG/CC S 41
S�G� /IBC
TIC
o/ it
Sketch:
f�7

NC "w" Strearn Ttlentification Form Version 4.11
®ate: / %
ec Prot/Site: �i- ,f %j� ;
� G�, _�''
Latitude:
Evaluator: �L/
County: �'
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral nt�ermttenD Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
if >_ 19 or perennial if >_ 30.
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =__Z_6_)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a. 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
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
�'
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
6. Depositional bars or benches
0 `
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
_
1
2
3
8. Headcuts
i" 0'
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussiorys in manual
R 4-1.irlrnlnn\� (Ciih�n�al = '� �
y... ...gi \"
12. Presence of Basefiow
0
1 ;'
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
14. Leaf litter
0
1.5
1
1
__2__
0.5 ;
3
52
0 4,
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
( 0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5 i
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
( Yes
18. Fibrous roots in streambe
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
-
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
i
1
2
3
22. Fish
0-
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0 -)
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5 ``'
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1 - 0 `r ,.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75 OBL = 1.5
Other = 0
perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

Ploy COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
LiNDA CULPEPPER
Director
Michael Baker
11522 Ivy House Terrace
Henrico, VA 23233
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quafiry
June 7, 2019
DWR #19-0603
GATES County
Subject: On -Site Determinations for Applicability to Water Quality Standards (15A NCAC 026.0211)
Subject Property/ Project Name: Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Address/Location. 555 Folly Road, Sunbury
Stream(s) Evaluated: Unnamed Tributary to Folly Swamp
Determination Date: 06/06/19 Staff: Anthony Scarbraugh
Determination Type:
Buffer:
Stream:
❑ Neu se (15A NCAC 02B .0233)
® Intermittent/Perennial Determination
❑ Tar-PamIic❑ (1SA NCAC 0 2 B .02S9)
❑ Catawba (15A NCAC 02R .0243)
❑ Jordan (15A NCAC 02B .0267) (governmental
and/or interjurisdictional projects)
❑ Randleman (15A NCAC 02B .0250)
❑ Goose Creek (15A NCAC 02B ,0605-.0608y
Stream
E/l/P*
Not
Subject
Start@
Stop@
Soil
USGS
Subject
x
Survey
Topo
19-0603
E
Flag:19-0603
Flag:19-0603
x
Begin
E/l
19-0603
1
x
Flag:19-0603
Flag:19-0603
x
E/l
End
*E/1/P/NSP = Ephemeroontermittent/Perennial/No Stream Present
The Division of Water Resources (DWR) has determined that the streams listed above and included
on the attached map have been located on the most recent published NRCS Soil Survey of GATES
County, North Carolina and/or the most recent copy of the USGS Topographic map at a 1:24,000 scale
and evaluated for applicability to the Water Quality Standards. Each stream that is checked "Not
Subject" has been determined to not be at least intermittent or not present on the property. Streams
that are checked "Subject" have been located on the property and possess characteristics that qualify
them to be at least intermittent streams. There may be other streams or features located on the
property that do not appear on the maps referenced above but may be Considered jurisdictional
according to the US Army Corps of Engineers and subject to the Clean Water Act.
EQ
. North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality division of Water Reso"mcs
_ Washingtosi "iesraI OffirA, i 943 Washington Square Mal i Washington. North Caf Oilna Z1889

GATES County
Page 2 of 2
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the OWR may request a determination by the Director.
An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of date of this letter to the Director in
writing.
This on -site determination shall expire five (5) years from the date of this letter. Landowners or affected
parties that dispute a determination made by the DWR may request a determination by the Director.
An appeal request must be made within sixty (60) calendar days of date of this letter to the Director in
writing.
1f sending via US Postal Service:
c/o Koren Higgins
D WR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1617
1f sending via delivery service (UPS, FedFx, etc. ):
% Karen Higgins
D WR — 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit
512 N. Salisbury Street
Raleigh, NC 27604
This determination is final and binding as detailed above, unless an appeal is requested within sixty (60)
days.
The project may require a Section 404/401 Permit for the proposed activity. Any inquiries regarding
applicability to the Clean Water Act should be directed to the US Army Corps of Engineers Washington
Regulatory Field Office at [phone].
If you have questions regarding this determination, please feel free to contact Anthony Scarbraugh at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Rat TN.."
Robert Tankard, Assistant Regional Supervisor
Water Quality Regional Operations Section
Division of Water Resources, NCDEQ
cc: LASERFICHE
Kyle Barnes, US Army Corps of Engineers Washington Regulatory Office
Mac Haupt, 401 & Buffer Permitting Unit (via email)
Chris Roessler, Wildlands Engineering (via email)

41
LG o o g I "el a,
).Flag. 19-0603 Begin
rd
13�t
A
N
1000 ft

Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site 4 t Legend "
- +�`.-• 19-0603 Not Subject M
USGS Topographic Map � 1010 19-0603 Subject �
FIag:19-D6D3
10
-ter-
r � T�
+�r� R
APPROVED
North Ceroiim Ewronmentai a ° +] a 0 [ j s
µanVement Commtssion y
Division. ❑f mter Resources �
Date 06107 � � � MOP
> # 19-0603
0.0
Ook Grove CrNO
• t �� .�
C.
�
AF W omom
do
SO !•� r
f
—lip

Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
1996 Sail Survey of Gates County Sheet No 9 — A Lr�
NaA Iz
APPROVED
,[
Nvrtfa Carolina Environmental
�
1�lanaga3'tient Comrnissian
pNisinn atllrlater FtaScurves
Daft0610720 19pernlit
-
# 19-0603
Cr B
0
■I
-' Legend
+'4 19-0603 Not Subject
19-0603 Subject
Flag: 19-0603
CFO
RoA
StB
GoA
PnA
LyA
i
Go /A)

Appendix 4
Data, Analysis, Supplementary Info and Maps

XS 1 Morgan Branch R1
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 53
Bankfull Dimensions
4.8
x-section area (ft.sq.)
5.9
width (ft)
0.8
mean depth (ft)
1.1
max depth (ft)
6.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
7.2
width -depth ratio
0
-2
-4
-6
o -8
i -10
w -12
-14
-16
Bankfull Dimensions
9.6
x-section area(ft.sq.)
11.0
width (ft)
0.9
mean depth (ft)
1.9
max depth (ft)
12.8
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
12.6
width -depth ratio
Folly Swamp Mitigation Plan
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
8.0 W flood prone area (ft)
1.4 entrenchment ratio
4.3 low bank height (ft)
3.8 low bank height ratio
XS 2 Folly Swamp R1
Width (ft)
Bankfull Flow
1.7 velocity (ft/s)
8.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.35 Froude number
Flood Dimensions Bankfull Flow
16.0 W flood prone area (ft) 1.7 velocity (ft/s)
1.5 entrenchment ratio 16.0 discharge rate (cfs)
5.8 low bank height (ft) 0.34 Froude number
3.0 low bank heightratio
Appendix 4 — Existing Geomorphology
June 2020

0
-2
-4
-6
c
0 8
w -10
12
-14
XS 4 Folly Swamp R2
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 4
Bankfull Dimensions
10.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
9.7
width (ft)
1.1
mean depth (ft)
1.7
max depth (ft)
10.5
wetted perimeter (ft)
1.0
hydraulic radius (ft)
8.7
width -depth ratio
0
-1
-2
-3
c
-4
-5
-6
w -7
-8
-9
Bankfull Dimensions
4.7
x-section area (ft.sq.)
3.7
width (ft)
1.3
mean depth (ft)
2.3
max depth (ft)
6.0
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hydraulic radius (ft)
2.9
width -depth ratio
Folly Swamp Mitigation Plan
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
18.5 W flood prone area (ft)
1.9 entrenchment ratio
5.1 low bank height (ft)
3.0 low bank height ratio
XS 5 Greene Branch R2
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
20.0 W flood prone area (ft)
5.4 entrenchment ratio
3.0 low bank height (ft)
1.8 low bank height ratio
Bankfull Flow
1.8 velocity (ft/s)
19.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.31 Froude number
Bankfull Flow
1.3 velocity (fUs)
6.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.25 Froude number
Appendix 4 — Existing Geomorphology
June 2020

0
-2
4
o -6
a>> -8
w
-10
-12
Bankfull Dimensions
XS 6 Powell Branch R1
10 20 30 40 50
5.3
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.2
width (ft)
0.7
mean depth (ft)
1.4
max depth (ft)
8.3
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.6
hydraulic radius (ft)
9.8
width -depth ratio
0
-1
-2
-3
c
-4
g -5
> -6
a� w -7
-8
-9
-10
Bankfull Dimensions
4.1
x-section area (ft.sq.)
4.2
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
5.6
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.7
hydraulic radius (ft)
4.3
width -depth ratio
Folly Swamp Mitigation Plan
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
15.0 W flood prone area (ft)
2.1 entrenchment ratio
6.0 low bank height (ft)
4.4 low bank height ratio
XS 7 Barker Branch R1
...... ......
Width (ft)
Flood Dimensions
8.0 W flood prone area (ft)
1.9 entrenchment ratio
3.9 low bank height (ft)
3.0 low bank height ratio
Bankfull Flow
2.1 velocity (ft/s)
11.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.46 Froude number
Bankfull Flow
1.2 velocity (fUs)
5.0 discharge rate (cfs)
0.25 Froude number
Appendix 4 — Existing Geomorphology
June 2020

Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Parameter
Folly Swamp Reach 1
Folly Swamp Reach 2
Powell Branch
Morgan Branch
Greene Branch Reach 2
Barker Branch
min I max
min max
min 1 max
min I max
min max
min I max
stream type
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
G5
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.95
1.36
0.5
0.29
0.16
0.11
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abkf
SF
9.6
10.7
5.3
4.8
4.7
4.1
avgvelocity during bankfull event
vbkf
fps
1.7
1.8
2.1
1.7
1.3
1.2
width at bankfull
Wbkf
feet
11.0
9.7
7.2
5.9
3.7
4.2
maximum depth at bankfull
dmax
feet
1.9
1.7
1.4
1.1
1.7
1.3
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.9
1.1
0.7
0.8
1.3
1.0
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkf/dbkf
12.6
8.7
9.8
7.2
2.9
4.3
low bank height
feet
5.8
5.1
6.0
4.3
3.0
3.9
bank height ratio
BHR
3.0
3.0
4.4
3.8
1.8
3.0
floodprone area width
wfpa
feet
16.0
18.5
15.0
8.0
20.0
8.0
entrenchment ratio
ER
1.5
1.9
2.1
1.4
5.4
1.9
max pool depth at bankfull
dp.oi
feet
pool depth ratio
dpooi/dbkf
pool width at bankfull
wpooi
feet
pool width ratio
Wpooi/wbkf
Bkf pool cross -sectional area
Apooi
SF
pool area ratio
Apooi/Abkf
pool -pool spacing
p-p
feet
pool -pool spacing ratio
P-P/wbkf
valley slope
Sv 11ey
feet/ foot
0.0013
0.0008
0.0028
0.0024
0.0030
0.0058
channel slope
Sch-nei
feet/ foot
0.0025
0.0003
0.0043
0.0030
0.0045
0.0060
sinuosity
K
belt width
wbit
feet
meander width ratio
wbit/wbkf
meander length
Lm
feet
meander length ratio
Lm/Wbkf
Linear Wavelength
LW
Linear Wavelength Ratio
LW/wbkf
radius of curvature
Rc
feet
radius of curvature ratio
RJ wbkf

Folly Swamp Reach 1 1 Folly Swamp Reach 1— toe erosion
Folly Swamp Reach 1— XS, pilot channel I Folly Swamp Reach 2 1
Folly Swamp — confluence with Jordan Branch I Folly Swamp Reach 2 - XS
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Project Site Photographs

Powell Branch - downstream I Powell Branch - upstream
Powell Branch — rill erosion from adjacent farm field I Morgan Branch - upstream
Morgan Branch - middle
Morgan Branch - downstream
1 Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Project Site Photographs

-r
'��4•�. ��� ��! -: arm - .... I
a r.
f
YF iN_
•
a �. � �
-
� � _ w $RED w' ;�- � `-
r
J -

Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Project Site Photographs

Folly Ditch 1
Savage Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
Inquiry Number: 5438402.5
October 02, 2018
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
IrE
��� Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 10/02/18
Site Name: Client Name:
Folly Ditch 1
Savage Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
EDR Inquiry # 5438402.5
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact: Andrea Eckardt
CEDW
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year
Scale
Details
Source
2016
1 "=875'
Flight Year: 2016
USDA/NAIP
2012
1 "=875'
Flight Year: 2012
USDA/NAIP
2009
1 "=875'
Flight Year: 2009
USDA/NAIP
2006
1 "=875'
Flight Year: 2006
USDA/NAIP
2000
1 "=875'
Flight Date: March 26, 2000
USGS
1998
1 "=875'
Flight Date: January 21, 1998
USGS
1993
1 "=875'
Flight Date: March 07, 1993
USGS
1982
1 "=875'
Flight Date: April 01, 1982
USDA
1973
1 "=875'
Flight Date: April 01, 1973
USGS
1961
1"=875'
Flight Date: June 18, 1961
USGS
1959
1 "=875'
Flight Date: December 08, 1959
USGS
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
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 2018 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.
5438402 - 5 page 2

I
�1
l 77
1
f
4

M./
" -
0

I

�11 �: e..,
AA
Ff' 1
4 A,
4
k ,
t
i
J�
Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent or image is not
georeferenced.

I� � o^ � 38
I
If

v,
4 F _
INQUIRY M 5438402.5
YEAR: 1993 ' +'
= 875 EDR
ML
Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent or image is not
georeferenced.

71�
MA
dr
4�-

1A
INQUIRY M 5438402.5
YEAR: i N
1973
(rIE D R
875

AFW
: -41
ti
W
I NO L) I RY 5438402.5
�� ,
YEAR: 1961 1 N
(r 875 FOR

it
.7,,;
44
1p

Folly Ditch 2
Savage Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
Inquiry Number: 5438412.5
October 02, 2018
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
IrE
��� Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 10/02/18
Site Name: Client Name:
Folly Ditch 2
Savage Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
EDR Inquiry # 5438412.5
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact: Andrea Eckardt
CEDW
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year
Scale
Details
Source
2016
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2016
USDA/NAIP
2012
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2012
USDA/NAIP
2009
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2009
USDA/NAIP
2006
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2006
USDA/NAIP
1998
1 "=750'
Flight Date: January 21, 1998
USGS
1993
1 "=500'
Acquisition Date: March 07, 1993
USGS/DOQQ
1982
1 "=500'
Flight Date: April 01, 1982
USDA
1973
1 "=500'
Flight Date: April 01, 1973
USGS
1961
1"=500'
Flight Date: June 18, 1961
USGS
1959
1 "=500'
Flight Date: December 08, 1959
USGS
1950
1 "=500'
Flight Date: November 01, 1950
USGS
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
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 2018 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.
5438412 - 5 page 2

Or
INQUIRY M 5438412.5 1 N
YEAR: 2012 - CE
500' EM
w
0

Zki"".
�JK
At
t �

bEO6&.- I -

INQUIRY k 5438412.5 1 N
YEAR: 1993
= 500'EQR

a
- Y
S
.4w •i
J '

Y+
� �{ � �' '�I 'i' ' i •� � .� 7Lti �'r '+N �� JJ'r�f�ti�{p�'
f L-. 1', J!' 'LL 1 +J �' �y' �� ~ •• M1 r .. r+ •r'J �'. �Tr1"L T -.
3A.LL-�'.L �"�'� �M1" +_7.r�� F•'�ill.}v+ ', �{ 1' IZ'- �� ��:P
yi•i#':': T•'+I t'T + •��•'{ -�I; •'J%}' {`{'_�• - sry •i �J•� ti.L yT - #Y''^T''• 5 +��F,•r. Yr='L; #�
•i M_ '� J,Y.•4.'i Y�l. ±� - 5 r. ti.Cy Gig �'•41.1
+�3 .
r • F jjj ___ `, • y , r t • ■ Y',- .. }• . - . �'a ��-+�+�7�1Qy,� I + •
hp
Lti ,r:•�. �?+Ii.� L4k .�}1f I - t,i�*+i .L 7+ �+ -
VA
1
Y y5
- M ' L •_� J _?
'y �Y'T9 , f '• ,L 1
it �•,• � i �� • S*
• r. Lr 1�
i
�I
4rL
ILL
x` 7.
i
INQUIRY M 5438412.5 •ti. y ' -
YEAR: 1973 iN
w _ L;';' • , -
L
CEDR'
= 500' _ y
r,� I AL

Al.
L• -Al �1
..
'
r '
ac
A;o�
ifs,
't�+�x�`�
�
•�
-. _ 5 .i .�
f
I
d
`r.�.

�
4
INQUIRY M 5438412.5 1 N
YEAR: 1959 - (rEDR
500'
4P.
M11W N.

jy-
INQUIRY k 5438412.5 N
YEAR: 1950 �jJr
= 500'EQR

Folly Ditch 3 and 4
Folly Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
Inquiry Number: 5438419.5
October 08, 2018
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
IrE
��� Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 10/08/18
Site Name: Client Name:
Folly Ditch 3 and 4
Folly Road
Corapeake, NC 27926
EDR Inquiry # 5438419.5
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact: Andrea Eckardt
CEDW
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year
Scale
Details
Source
2016
1 "=1000'
Flight Year: 2016
USDA/NAIP
2012
1 "=1000'
Flight Year: 2012
USDA/NAIP
2009
1 "=1000'
Flight Year: 2009
USDA/NAIP
2006
1 "=1000'
Flight Year: 2006
USDA/NAIP
1998
1 "=1000'
Flight Date: January 21, 1998
USGS
1993
1 "=1000'
Acquisition Date: March 07, 1993
USGS/DOQQ
1982
1 "=1000'
Flight Date: April 01, 1982
USDA
1973
1 "=1000'
Flight Date: April 01, 1973
USGS
1961
1"=1000'
Flight Date: June 18, 1961
USGS
1959
1 "=1000'
Flight Date: December 08, 1959
USGS
1950
1 "=1000'
Flight Date: November 01, 1950
USGS
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
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 2018 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.
5438419 - 5 page 2

R
y_ t
41
r
r -
r
i
_ s
INQUIRY k 5438419.5 /�
YEAR: 2016 4
= 1000' EDR ..

-=-
---------'-- ---
I. --.� �,:� -
INQUIRY ks4ao41oa
YEAR: m N
KrEDR
1000

'IRY #: 5438419.5Av.
1 N
2006
= 1000 (rEDR R
...t;

n
40
r
i
INQUIRY M 5438419.5
YEAR: 1998
= loon, EDR
Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent or image is not
georeferenced.

I
1.
.. 'F: •..
.f:
��,,��(( � Ib
••rr�.
�+1•. ti
•�'ti
�4 � Ai
r r - ... �.
:'� � . �`
.:� .v
�'�
•.�i
r r.. � � ..... � �+ • ` yP�`
ii t
1."
.ter {
�; �. ;
�� fib. ti -^ �iF"�a- .. ,.�.
� r` ' .
� 1"r'
� r,�' - � rr..
�. •.r.'. _ ��Ja'y�.
�i:•
.. K. �. •... .
��
$_ "''
! ;,
i
� �.
♦ � ���
►rC.
L �
1
J
_. .
t ." —
y'� .
��,-
.. r _.
�k
� rr
���
1► �

INQUIRY #: 5438419.5 �jJr /� N
YEAR: 1961
= loon' FOR

*-� " lit.
NQUIRY k 5438419.5 1 N
YEAR: 1950 - , (rEDR
1000
oll,

Appendix 5
Regulatory Correspondence

IRT Field Meeting Notes — Folly Swamp December 18, 2018
Meeting Attendees
Kyle Barnes/USACE
Kim Browning/USACE
Dave Lekson/USACE
Mac Haupt/NCDWR
Anthony Scarborough/NCDWR
Travis Wilson/NCWRC
John Hutton/Wildlands
Chris Roessler/Wildlands
John Hutton and Chris Roessler of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the
Folly Swamp mitigation site in Corapeake, NC. The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group
of IRT members and to get input on the management/mitigation options proposed for the site. During
the tour, the group discussed the condition of the channels on the site and the design options and
crediting scenarios they felt would be most appropriate to restore and enhance the channels. The
accompanying map identifies the stream reach names.
The tour began with the Folly ditch, then visited Jordan Branch, Powell Branch, Greene & Pollo Branch,
and concluded with Morgan Branch. Comments provided during the site visit are listed below by reach.
Folly Ditch/Swamp
The project is called Folly Swamp because that is the name given to the main channel on most available
maps. However, the locals refer to the channel as the Folly ditch. Wildlands learned this week that the
Drainage District was established in the 1930s and the channel has been maintained as a ditch since
then.
Wildlands proposes to create a wide, excavated floodplain with a meandering, single -thread channel.
John Hutton explained that the floodplain width on Folly Swamp will be approximately 100 feet with a
gently sloped transition to existing grade. Anthony Scarborough pointed out that E&S permits require
excavated dirt to be wasted on the project parcel from which it originated.
The Drainage District understands that they will not be able to clear and maintain the channel as they
have in the past and will need to sign agreements stating such. We will coordinate with the IRT on the
form of this agreement. Wildlands will obtain a no -rise certification from FEMA and NC Flood Mapping
to ensure that flooding will not be made worse by the project.
IRT members questioned the functional uplift potential of Priority 2 restoration in this setting. They cited
past problems with soil impacts from this approach that have resulted in poor tree growth. Nearby Duke
Swamp is a good example, where approximately 10-year-old trees are 10 feet tall. Wildlands heard more
about the specifics of this from the regulators and recognizes the challenges. We are open to further
suggestions but plan to save the topsoil to incorporate it at the excavated depth. Also, based on soil test
recommendations, Wildlands will add lime to raise the pH, use low pH seed mix as needed, and
incorporate fertilizer.

Adding ramial wood chips to the floodplain is another approach that Wildlands may employ. Ramial
wood chips are made from small diameter stems and branches (<2.5") of hardwood tree species and are
beneficial to soil restoration by promoting mycorrhizal and saprophytic fungal growth. The cambium to
cellulose ratio of small -diameter branches is high so that the carbon to nitrogen ratio is low. This avoids
the soil nitrogen robbing capacity that is known to occur when 'green wood' decays on the ground
surface. Instead, it adds organic material and promotes fungal growth. This material could be obtained
by thinning the hardwood saplings surrounding the immature pine stands along Jordan Branch.
In sum, Wildlands understands it will be held to the tree survival and growth performance standards
specified in the October 2016 Wilmington District Compensatory Mitigation Update.
For biological functional uplift, Wildlands will conduct pre- and post -construction surveys of benthic
macroinvertebrates and amphibians. We are not sure that benthic communities will improve within the
7-year monitoring period but are willing to investigate. It may take additional time to observe the
pollution intolerant and diverse communities seen in mature forest settings. Amphibian communities,
however, are expected to significantly improve within the conservation easement area, which now
includes row crop fields and cattle pasture.
Past projects have shown that wetlands will likely form on the excavated floodplains. To show that the
excavated floodplains will show a higher water table and improved hydrology, Wildlands will include a
monitoring well at each restoration area. We are not seeking wetland mitigation credit, however.
Kyle Barnes commented that the access corridor (elevated road) along upper Folly Ditch may interfere
with the project and conservation easement. Wildlands explained that a crossing will be established
near the existing crossing and that the access easement will be entirely outside of the conservation
easement. We have left space for this access on the north side of the proposed conservation easement
(see Folly Swamp — Reach 1 in attached map).
Mac Haupt commented on the disconnectedness of the project, with four separate mitigation areas and
some short lengths. A review of the concept map shows that what hasn't been included are primarily
wooded areas. Wildlands recognized this as a concern during option acquisition but thought the IRT
would not approve channel restoration or enhancement for mitigation in those areas and therefore did
not pursue conservation easements. Restoration or enhancement would impact wetlands and require
significant tree removal. These reaches are not of preservation quality either due to manipulation and
maintenance by the Drainage District. Wildlands also tried to address Mac's general concern about
disconnected projects areas by maintaining a minimum 3,000 ft length per area. Except Powell Branch,
this minimum was achieved.
Jordan Branch
As a direct tributary to the project reach of the Folly ditch, Wildlands wanted to include Jordan Branch in
the mitigation project. However, upon further review, including seeing it with low flow in December, it
will be mostly dropped from the project. Wildlands proposes to restore approximately 250 linear feet of
the existing Jordan ditch. This will enable it to tie into an elevated Folly Swamp without causing a
lengthy backwater effect.

Powell Branch
Chris Roessler explained that Powell Branch has a mapped drainage area of 115 acres but that it is
actually larger because the ditch at the upstream end has been historically reversed to drain to the
project channel. He also stated that the area has been relatively dry in recent months, having largely
been missed by Hurricanes Florence and Michael. Each of September, October, and November had
between 3.0 and 3.5 inches of rain. Dave Lekson looked at PRISM data on his phone and confirmed the
project area has received below normal rainfall.
Kyle Barnes stated that the upper end is not a jurisdictional channel because it lacks an ordinary
highwater mark and had upland vegetation in the ditch. Also, the channel goes through high ground in
the middle of the reach, in the vicinity of the excavated pond.
Chris Roessler talked to the landowner after the IRT field meeting to confirm the background of this
area. The pond was excavated between 1959 and 1961 to a depth of 16 feet. Dirt from the pond was
piled around it and used over the years to fill low spots on the farm. Not all the dirt has been removed,
however, leaving the possibility that the high ground that Powell Branch runs through was from the
pond spoil.
The figure below is from the 1929 Gates County Soil Survey, which is before the Drainage District was
established in the 1930s. The map appears to show Powell Branch as an intermittent stream within the
project area.
This map is available at https://web.lib.unc.edu/nc-maps/interactive/MC 041 1929d c2.php
,lb
siz%
' 6 V l!

And here is the current USGS topo of Powell Branch, including the excavated pond:
If USACE would like to take a closer look at Powell Branch to make a final call on its jurisdictional status,
Wildlands would be in favor of that. However, if the answer is essentially already known, then Powell
Branch can be removed from the project.
Greene Branch
Wildlands proposes to use a headwater restoration approach on upper Greene Branch if there is
sufficient evidence that the channel will have 30 days of consecutive flow after connecting the low point
of the valley with its upper watershed. Currently, the valley is disconnected with its upper watershed by
a road and ditches on the adjacent farm. Wildlands proposes to install weirs and pressure transducers
on the adjacent farm ditches, as well as on middle Greene Branch and Pollo Branch, to determine if it
will have sufficient hydrology to support the proposed mitigation approaches.
IRT members agreed with this approach and stated that the project reaches would need to meet the 30-
day flow requirement to receive mitigation credit. A camera or other monitoring device was
recommended instead of a pressure transducer for post restoration monitoring. Otherwise, the IRT
members agreed with the proposed approaches on Pollo Branch and Greene Branch Reaches 1 and 2.
Lower Greene Branch (Reach 1) was proposed for Priority 2 restoration in the Prospectus. Priority 1
restoration is possible and will be targeted at the upper end. Kyle Barnes noted apparent JD wetlands in
the lower field and that Priority 2 restoration would impact those. Wildlands will investigate ways to
avoid and minimize impacts to any jurisdictional wetlands that may include extending the Priority 1
approach, using an alignment that avoids wetlands, or some other measure.
Morgan Branch
The last site visit of the project was Morgan Branch. Morgan Branch was proposed for Priority 2
restoration in the Prospectus. Wildlands will achieve Priority 1 restoration or very shallow Priority 2
restoration by the large pine tree on the existing ditch.

IRT members stated that other Priority 2 related concerns about the Folly ditch section above apply to
Morgan Branch. Wildlands proposes to address these concerns in the same way (i.e., soil amendments,
biological monitoring, tree performance standards, etc.).
Summary and Conclusion
The IRT questioned the functional uplift potential of the site given the general Priority 2 approach to
many channels proposed by Wildlands. We hope we have addressed some of that concern with these
meeting minutes. An updated credit table is provided below. As discussed above, we can remove Powell
Branch from the project if the IRT chooses.
Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits
Stream Reach
Mitigation
Type
Existing
Length (ft)1
Proposed
Length (ft)Z
Mitigation
Factor
Stream
Mitigation
Credits
Folly Swamp
R
3,790
4,927
1.0
4,927
Jordan Branch
R
250
300
1.0
300
Powell Branch
R
1,370
1,781
1.0
TBD
Morgan Branch
R
2,973
3,865
1.0
3,865
Greene Branch Reach 1
R
1,260
1,640
1.0
1,640
Greene Branch Reach 2
E2
515
515
2.5
206
Greene Branch Reach 3
R
700
700
1.0
700
Polio Branch
E2
380
380
2.5
152
Additional Credits from Wider
Buffers
--
--
--
--
TBD
Totals
11,238
14,108
11,790
1. Existing stream length estimated based on GIS data. These values will be revised based on survey data for the mitigation
plans.
2. Proposed lengths are estimates only. These values will be revised based on survey data and final design alignments for the
mitigation plans.
The Prospectus, which included Jordan Branch and Powell Branch, proposed 16,158 stream credits.

C'nntartt
Kyle Barnes will serve as the Project Manager for USACE and the main point of contact. Chris Roessler
will be the Wildlands Project Manager and coordinate/submit project deliverables directly to Kyle
Barnes for distribution to all NCIRT team members.
Action Items and Next Steps
• The IRT will consider these meeting minutes and provide feedback to Wildlands.
• Project Schedule — Wildlands is ready to proceed with project survey in the coming months.
• USACE requires Jurisdictional (JD) stream/wetland calls for the project. Wildlands will coordinate
with Kyle Barnes (or assigned) for on -site JD verification prior to mitigation plan submittal.
• After the jurisdictional determination has been conducted, any wetland areas that will be
impacted by the proposed work (filled or drained) will need to be identified and functional
replacement for those losses will be proposed and discussed in the draft mitigation plan.
• Signage will be needed on all conservation easement areas.
This represents Wildlands' interpretation of the meeting discussions. If any meeting attendees should
find any information contained in these meeting minutes to be in error and/or incomplete based on
individual comments or conversations, please notify Chris Roessler with corrections/additions as soon as
possible.
Sincerely,
Chris Chris Roessler
[e-mail]
919.624.0905

Figure 8 Concept Map
% rOt-,
WILD LANDS Folly Swamp Mitigation Site
E R7 G 1 N EE RI N G Pasquotank River Basin 03010205
0 1,000 2,000 Feet Gates County, NC

Comments on the Folly Swamp Minutes
January 24, 2019
1. Folly Ditch/Swamp- while DWR applauds WEI for engaging a project within a Drainage District,
until the roles and restrictions (and written affirmation) can be better realized by the Drainage
District regarding this proposal, DWR will reserve final judgement on the proposal on Folly Ditch
and all other proposed reaches in the prospectus.
WEI heard the concerns regarding the priority 2 approach on these type of streams from the
I RT.
The Folly Ditch is currently the only stream reach over 3,000 linear feet.
2. Jordan Branch- WEI reduced the length given the flow conditions, DWR concurred.
3. Powell Branch- This reach seemed to have some flow issues and Kyle Barnes stated the lack of
jurisdictional status in the upper reach. This reach has a red flag concerning flow and is a short
reach.
4. Greene Branch- The minutes state WEI intends to use a headwater approach in the upper
reach, however, in the proposed credits reach 1 shows a significant increase in project length.
The headwater approach utilizes valley length, DWR believes the amount of credit proposed
here would be reduced. In addition, this headwater reach will likely be dependent on the
hydrology that will come from an adjoining field outside the easement area. Until there is a
determination that 1) enough flow would be contributed to the headwater reach, and 2) there is
an agreement from the adjoining landowner that allows the flow to enter the reach, the viability
of the reach remains in question. A positive for the Greene and Pollo Branch is that there is a lot
of opportunity for nutrient abatement given the adjoining animal operations. Moreover, at the
bottom of Greene Branch, wetlands were noted and hopefully the design will incorporate
measures to maintain/enhance these resources.
5. Morgan Branch- DWR concurs with the minutes
6. Table of Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits- without getting too much into the design aspects
here, the proposed lengths seem high on several reaches, yielding a roughly calculated higher
than expected sinuosity. For example, proposed length of Folly ditch works out to roughly 1.33
sinuosity. There are similar concerns on the other reaches.
7. Overall, DWR maintains its position that the project is disconnected and most reaches are under
3,000 linear feet. Given the other comments provided by the IRT members regarding priority 2
project concerns in the coastal plain, DWR believes that for this project to move forward, some
of the issues regarding the Greene Branch would need to be resolved.

Kyle, below are my comments on the Folly Swamp field visit and meeting summary:
1. The discussion on Drainage Districts is of concern, and until we have a signed agreement from them stating that
channel maintenance will not occur on Folly Ditch, or any of the project channels, I am hesitant to continue to the
Final Prospectus stage of this Bank.
2. For the project as a whole, I understand the constraint of doing Priority 1 restoration due to the risk of flooding
adjacent properties; however, with the majority of the project being proposed as P2, there is very little functional
uplift, aside from a riparian buffer, that will occur. In order to justify 1:1 credits for restoration, you should be
restoring the system to its original state, which is not what is currently proposed. It's understood that there will be
considerable earthmoving associated with the proposed P2, but the burden of proof will be on Wildlands to justify
the functional uplift associated with a 1:1 ratio.
3. Powell Branch, along with all project streams and associated wetlands, will need a JD. If it's determined that a
portion of Powell Branch is not jurisdictional, that entire reach should be dropped from the Final Prospectus.
4. Greene Branch and Pollo Branch: a headwater valley approach through the woods seems appropriate, if in fact
you are able to divert water from the adjacent property to the east via the culvert at the fenceline, otherwise flow
remains a concern here. Lower Greene Branch is of concern, especially at the lower end, and appears to be more
wetland -like, especially if the channel is raised here for P 1. It's likely that the wetlands in this area will have
increased hydrology from raising the stream channel, but flow continues to be a concern.
5. Morgan Branch would benefit from P1 for as much linear footage possible.
Thanks for the opportunity to comment,
Kim
Kim Browning
Mitigation Specialist, Regulatory Division I U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Dr, Ste. 105 I Wake Forest, NC 27587 1919.554.4884 x60
BUILDING STRONG

IRT Field Meeting Notes — Folly Swamp May 13, 2019
Meeting Attendees
Kyle Barnes/USACE
John Hutton/Wildlands
Chris Roessler/Wildlands
Kyle Barnes met with John Hutton and Chris Roessler on April 24, 2019 to review two of the areas that
are part of the Folly Swamp mitigation site in Corapeake, NC. The purposes of the meeting were to look
at the jurisdictional status of Powell Branch, discuss some of the issues brought up in IRT meeting about
Greene Branch, and to review another channel that is adjacent to Greene Branch.
Comments provided during the site visit are listed below by reach.
Powell Branch
Wildlands installed a weir and flow gage on this site in March and data collection began on March 15tn
The weir was undermined by storm flow on March 25t" but in the intervening time consistent
streamflow was measured. John Hutton provided Kyle Barnes with a plot of the streamflow.
Kyle acknowledged that the stream looked a good bit different than on the IRT site visit in December. He
observed a consistent ordinary high water mark. He then looked upstream at the two channels that
drain to the project reach. The one to the west is an agricultural ditch that has been historically
redirected to flow to Folly Swamp. The one to the east, coming out of the woods, appeared to be a
jurisdictional stream on the downstream end. Kyle OK'd this area of the project from a jurisdictional
standpoint.
One concern Kyle brought up was the amount of flow input coming from the agricultural ditch to the
west versus the natural stream feature and the fact that the farmer could ditch it to drain away from the
project. Chris and John spoke with Mr. Powell, who owns Powell Branch within the project limits as well
as all of the fields that drain to the agricultural ditch. Mr Powell is also the Chairman of the Drainage
District that includes Folly Swamp. He stated that there is no way to make the grade work to drain the
fields away from the project area.
Wildlands will update the Prospectus to include this information.
Greene Branch
The group next looked at the gage placed on the ditch that is on the Barker property, just above the
head of Greene Branch. The proposal in this area is for Wildlands to install a culvert to add drainage area
to Greene Branch and use an outer Coastal Plain headwater approach on upper Greene Branch.
The gage on the Barker ditch measured consistent flow from March 15 to April 10, at which point the
weir became undermined. It is encouraging that flow was measured on all 26 days of recording. The bar
for hydrology on upper Greene Branch is 30 consecutive days of flow each year.
Kyle expressed concerns about installing a culvert and having the drainage to it last forever. While Chris
talked with the farmer, John and Kyle discussed placing a conservation easement or deed restriction on
a 1- to 2-acre area upstream from the culvert that essentially prevents the landowner from altering the

drainage pattern. Wildlands will seek to obtain a conservation easement or deed restriction that
prevents alteration to the drainage in the area surrounding the culvert.
The group walked downstream and viewed the gage at Pollo Branch. This showed consistent flow.
Next the group looked at the gage on Greene Branch. This showed consistent flow and Kyle commented
that it had more water than he expected for this time of year.
Barker Branch
Next the group looked at the channel (Barker Branch) to the east of Greene Branch on the Barker
property. Wildlands is in discussions with the landowner about adding it to the mitigation project. Kyle
observed a consistent ordinary high water mark from the tree line downstream to the Folly ditch and
stated that it was appropriate for Priority 1 restoration. He cautioned that it is important to look at
drainage leading into the easement because any problems created by the project are likely to lead to
alterations by the farmer. John and Kyle discussed that the wetlands would be mapped and presented in
a PJD application and the design would seek to avoid impacts. Wildlands plans to use a NW 27
application to obtain a 404 permit. Kyle agreed with this approach.
The group then looked at the upper portion of Barker Branch beginning at the wood line where a
drainage ditch enters from the east. Kyle noted the ordinary high water mark along this section was not
consistent and he did not believe it was jurisdictional from a Corps' perspective. John suggested that
Wildlands install a gage to monitor hydrology and also request that Anthony Scarbraugh do a stream
determination from a DWR perspective. Kyle agreed with this. Based on the results of additional
monitoring, if single thread Priority 1 restoration was not acceptable, Chris suggested an outer coastal
plain headwater approach. Kyle cautioned against over engineering but thought it may be workable and
confirmed that an ordinary high water mark is not required for the headwater approach. Wildlands will
further investigate options for upper Barker Branch.
Action Items and Next Steps
Wildlands will update the Prospectus based on feedback from the December IRT meeting and Kyle
Barnes in this past meeting. Kyle will look to public notice the Prospectus soon after.
Wildlands plans to begin survey soon and will present a PJD application in the coming months prior to
commencing substantial design efforts.
Wildlands will look to provide conceptual agreements with the Drainage District and Mike Barker (re.
culvert installation and drainage conservation easement/deed restriction) that the IRT requested in the
December meeting minutes.
This represents Wildlands' interpretation of the meeting discussions. The minutes will be presented to
Kyle Barnes for confirmation. Kyle accepted the minutes with one change, which is captured in this
version.

Sincerely,
Chris Roessler
[e-mail]
919.624.0905

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 3, 2019
Mr. Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
RE: Response to IRT comments on December 18, 2018 Field Meeting Minutes
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin - 03020105
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Wildlands received comments from the NC IRT dated January 24, 2019 on the Folly Swamp field meeting
minutes. The field took place on December 18, 2018. This letter provides our responses to those
comments.
Comments on Folly Swamp Field Meeting Minutes
Mac Haupt, NCDWR, January 7, 2019
1. Folly Ditch/Swamp —while DWR applauds WEI for engaging a project within a Drainage District,
until the roles and restrictions (and written affirmation) can be better realized by the Drainage
District regarding this proposal, DWR will reserve final judgement on the proposal on Folly Ditch
and on other proposed reaches in the prospectus.
WEI heard the concerns regarding the Priority 2 approach on these type of streams from the IRT.
The Folly Ditch is currently the only stream over 3,000 linear feet.
Wildlands provides a conceptual understanding with the Folly Swamp Drainage District in the
updated Prospectus. A more formal and detailed agreement will be established once the design
nears completion.
The existing length of Morgan Branch is approximately 3,000 feet and the proposed length of
Greene Branch area, with Barker Branch which will be connected through a conservation
easement, is more than 3,000 feet. Only Powell Branch is clearly less than 3,000 feet.
2. Jordan Branch —WEI reduced the length given flow conditions, DWR concurred.
3. Powell Branch —This reach seemed to have some flow issues and Kyle Barnes stated the lack of
jurisdictional status in the upper reach. This reach has a red flag concerning flow and is a short
reach.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

From the updated Prospectus, Section 3.1.1.:
Some question of Powell Branch's jurisdictional status were raised by IRT members during a
December 18, 2018 site visit. However, after seeing the site again on April 24, 2019, Kyle Barnes
considered it to be jurisdictional with a consistent ordinary high water mark. Additionally, of the
two channels upstream of Savage Road leading to the project reach at least the original one
coming from the southern wooded area appears to be jurisdictional. Wildlands installed a weir
and flow gage on Powell Branch in March and data collection began on March 151h.The weir was
undermined by storm flow on March 251h but in the intervening time consistent streamflow was
measured. Minutes from both site visits are included in Appendix F.
4. Greene Branch — The minutes state WEI intends to use a headwater approach in the upper reach,
however, in the proposed credits reach 1 shows a significant increase in project length. The
headwater approach utilizes valley length, DWR believes the amount of credit proposed here
would be reduced. In addition, this headwater reach will likely be dependent on the hydrology
that will come from an adjoining field outside the easement area. Until there is a determination
that 1) enough flow would be contributed to the headwater reach, and 2) there is an agreement
from the adjoining landowner that allows flow to enter the reach, the viability of the reach
remains in question. A positive for the Greene and Pollo Branch is that there is a lot of
opportunity for nutrient abatement given the adjoining animal operations. Moreover, at the
bottom of Greene Branch, wetlands were noted and hopefully the design will incorporate
measures to maintain/enhance these resources.
Apologies because the reaches were labeled backwards in the meeting minutes. Reach 3 in the
minutes table is the one that will follow the headwater approach and it uses valley length. (It
has been relabeled as Reach 1 in the updated Prospectus). Wildlands established a flow
monitoring device in the ditch on the neighboring Barker property and learned that a small
amount of stream flow was present from mid March to mid April. Wildlands will establish a
conceptual agreement with the Barkers to install a culvert to connect the agricultural ditches to
upper Greene Branch. The Barkers have verbally agreed to this.
Jurisdictional wetlands will be mapped at all sites and considered in the design process.
Measures will be taken to maintain or enhance these resources.
5. Morgan Branch — DWR concurs with the minutes.
Sounds good.
6. Table of Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits —without getting too much into design aspects
here, the proposed lengths seem high on several reaches, yielding a roughly calculated higher
than expected sinuosity. For example, proposed length on Folly ditch works out to roughly 1.33
sinuosity. There are similar concerns on other reaches.
The anticipated sinuosity on all the single -thread restoration reaches was reduced to
approximately 1.22. Wildlands will investigate sinuosity on reference reaches, valley width, and
sediment transport before making a final determination on proposed sinuosity.

7. Overall, DWR maintains its position that the project is disconnected and most reaches are under
3,000 linearfeet. Given the other comments provided by the /RT members regarding Priority 2
project concerns in the coastal plain, DWR believes that for this project to move forward, some
of the issues regarding the Greene Branch would need to be resolved.
This is a large project with more than 14,000 stream credits likely involved. Please see response
to first DWR comment.
Wildlands is committed to working with the IRT to make sure existing jurisdictional wetlands are
maintained or enhanced, as well as to create new wetland features.
Wildlands has worked to demonstrate that 30 days of flow are likely on Greene Branch. A
culvert will be added to connect additional drainage area above Greene Branch. Additionally,
Wildlands will work with the landowner to obtain a conservation easement that prevents
drainage alteration. We have also added Barker Branch, which will connect to lower Greene
Branch via a conservation easement.
Kim Browning, USACE, January 24, 2019
1. The discussion on Drainage Districts is of concern, and until we have a signed agreement from them
stating that channel maintenance will not occur on Folly Ditch, or any of the project channels, I am
hesitant to continue to the Final Prospectus stage of this Bank.
This is the same response to DWR's first comment. Repeated:
Wildlands provides a conceptual understanding with the Folly Swamp Drainage District in the
updated Prospectus. A more formal and detailed agreement will be established once the design
nears completion.
2. For the project as a whole, I understand the constraint of doing Priority 1 restoration due to the risk
of flooding adjacent properties; however, with the majority of the project being proposed as P2,
there is very little functional uplift, aside from a riparian buffer, that will occur. In order to justify 1:1
credits for restoration, you should be restoring the system to its original state, which is not what is
currently proposed. It's understood that there will be considerable earthmoving associated with the
proposed P2, but the burden of proof will be on Wildlands to justify the functional uplift associated
with a 1:1 ratio.
Priority 2 is done for 1:1 credit in other parts of the state. Wildlands would like to know that if
we address Priority 2 as outlined in the updated Prospectus, whether that would alleviate the
IRT's concerns about functional uplift. Is there anything that could be added? Perhaps Wildlands
could show the area with a higher water table before and after restoration.
3. Powell Branch, along with all project streams and associated wetlands, will need a JD. If it's
determined that a portion of Powell Branch is not jurisdictional, that entire reach should be dropped
from the Final Prospectus.

Wildlands met with Kyle Barnes on April 24, 2019. At this site visit, Kyle affirmed that Powell
Branch is a jurisdictional channel. Minutes from this meeting are included in the updated
Prospectus.
4. Greene Branch and Pollo Branch: a headwater valley approach through the woods seems
appropriate, if in fact you are able to divert water from the adjacent property to the east via the
culvert at the fenceline, otherwise flow remains a concern here. Lower Greene Branch is of concern,
especially at the lower end, and appears to be more wetland -like, especially if the channel is raised
here for P 1. It's likely that the wetlands in this area will have increased hydrology from raising the
stream channel, but flow continues to be a concern.
Wildlands proposes a headwater approach for upper Greene Branch and upper Barker Branch.
Flow monitoring, described in the updated Prospectus, indicates 30 consecutive days of flow will
be attainable on Greene Branch.
Jurisdictional wetlands will be mapped at all sites and considered in the design process.
Measures will be taken to maintain or enhance these resources.
5. Morgan Branch would benefit from P1 for as much linear footage possible.
We agree and will strive for that.
We hope that these responses adequately address the IRT's comments and we look forward to working
with the IRT during the next phases of this project.
Sincerely,
Chris Roessler
Project Manager
[e-mail]
all

0'r OFF
Cy � GP
Tea Sraras as P'^�4
Regulatory Division
AID: 2018-02026
Mr. Chris Roessler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road
Suite 225
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
Dear Mr. Roessler:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 51" Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
December 5, 2019
This correspondence is in reference to the proposed compensatory mitigation bank known
as Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank (Bank). The Bank consists of five sites totaling 47
acres all flowing to Folly Swamp. The sites are located approximately four miles north of the
town of Sunbury on NC 32 in Gates County, North Carolina. The sites are located on named and
unnamed tributaries within the Pasquotank River Basin (HUC 03010205).This correspondence
refers to comments received in response to Interagency Review Team (IRT) reviews and a Public
Notice dated August 22, 2019.
After review of the public notice, project prospectus, and/or our on -site meetings, the North
Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR), the North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the United States Department of the
Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps)
provided comments which are enclosed for your review. It is Department of the Army policy to
provide a project proponent the opportunity to furnish a proposed resolution or rebuttal to all
comments and/or objections from the public and government agencies before a final decision is
made. In this regard, I would appreciate receiving any comments that you have on the comments
received.
Also, pursuant to 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(5), Initial Evaluation, I have determined that your
proposed mitigation bank has potential for providing appropriate compensatory mitigation for
activities authorized by Department of the Army permits. We share some of the same concerns
outlined by the IRT which should be resolved as the bank is finalized through the interagency
review process.
Accordingly, you may proceed with preparation of the draft mitigation banking instrument

(MBI) as directed by 33 CFR Part 332.8 (d)(6), Draft Instrument and finalization of your
mitigation plan. Thank you for your time and cooperation. If you have any questions, please
contact me at the Washington Regulatory Field Office, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
Kyle Barnes
Project Manager
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Enclosures
Copies Furnished w/out enclosures:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Mrs. Emily Wells
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services - Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Rogers Lake Depot
1718 NC Hwy 56, Room 121
Creedmoor, North Carolina 27522
Mr. Mac Haupt
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Erin Davis
Division of Water Quality
North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources

1617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
Environmental Review Coordinator
State Historic Preservation Office
North Carolina Department of Natural
And Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-4617
Ms. Twyla Cheatwood
National Marine Fisheries Service
101 Pivers Island Road
Beaufort, NC 28516

Mac's Comments on the Folly Swamp Minutes
January 24, 2019
1. Folly Ditch/Swamp- while DWR applauds WEI for engaging a project within a Drainage District,
until the roles and restrictions (and written affirmation) can be better realized by the Drainage
District regarding this proposal, DWR will reserve final judgement on the proposal on Folly Ditch
and all other proposed reaches in the prospectus.
WEI heard the concerns regarding the priority 2 approach on these type of streams from the
I RT.
The Folly Ditch is currently the only stream reach over 3,000 linear feet.
2. Jordan Branch- WEI reduced the length given the flow conditions, DWR concurred.
3. Powell Branch- This reach seemed to have some flow issues and Kyle Barnes stated the lack of
jurisdictional status in the upper reach. This reach has a red flag concerning flow and is a short
reach.
4. Greene Branch- The minutes state WEI intends to use a headwater approach in the upper
reach, however, in the proposed credits reach 1 shows a significant increase in project length.
The headwater approach utilizes valley length, DWR believes the amount of credit proposed
here would be reduced. In addition, this headwater reach will likely be dependent on the
hydrology that will come from an adjoining field outside the easement area. Until there is a
determination that 1) enough flow would be contributed to the headwater reach, and 2) there is
an agreement from the adjoining landowner that allows the flow to enter the reach, the viability
of the reach remains in question. A positive for the Greene and Pollo Branch is that there is a lot
of opportunity for nutrient abatement given the adjoining animal operations. Moreover, at the
bottom of Greene Branch, wetlands were noted and hopefully the design will incorporate
measures to maintain/enhance these resources.
5. Morgan Branch- DWR concurs with the minutes
6. Table of Proposed Stream Mitigation Credits- without getting too much into the design aspects
here, the proposed lengths seem high on several reaches, yielding a roughly calculated higher
than expected sinuosity. For example, proposed length of Folly ditch works out to roughly 1.33
sinuosity. There are similar concerns on the other reaches.
7. Overall, DWR maintains its position that the project is disconnected and most reaches are under
3,000 linear feet. Given the other comments provided by the IRT members regarding priority 2
project concerns in the coastal plain, DWR believes that for this project to move forward, some
of the issues regarding the Greene Branch would need to be resolved.
Kim's Comments:
1. The discussion on Drainage Districts is of concern, and until we have a signed agreement from them
stating that channel maintenance will not occur on Folly Ditch, or any of the project channels, I am
hesitant to continue to the Final Prospectus stage of this Bank.
2. For the project as a whole, I understand the constraint of doing Priority 1 restoration due to the risk of
flooding adjacent properties; however, with the majority of the project being proposed as P2, there is
very little functional uplift, aside from a riparian buffer, that will occur. In order to justify 1:1 credits for
restoration, you should be restoring the system to its original state, which is not what is currently

proposed. It's understood that there will be considerable earthmoving associated with the proposed P2,
but the burden of proof will be on Wildlands to justify the functional uplift associated with a 1:1 ratio.
3. Powell Branch, along with all project streams and associated wetlands, will need a JD. If it's
determined that a portion of Powell Branch is not jurisdictional, that entire reach should be dropped
from the Final Prospectus.
4. Greene Branch and Pollo Branch: a headwater valley approach through the woods seems appropriate,
if in fact you are able to divert water from the adjacent property to the east via the culvert at the fence
line, otherwise flow remains a concern here. Lower Greene Branch is of concern, especially at the lower
end, and appears to be more wetland -like, especially if the channel is raised here for P1. It's likely that
the wetlands in this area will have increased hydrology from raising the stream channel, but flow
continues to be a concern.
5. Morgan Branch would benefit from P1 for as much linear footage possible.
Kyle's Comments:
1) The Pasquotank HUC is 03010205. The prospectus indicates the Pasquotank HUC as 03020105 in
multiple locations.
2) Wetlands have been identified outside of the project area along Folly Swamp Reach 1. 1 have
concern that there may be a drainage effect on these adjacent wetlands.
3) The project as discussed will result in a significant amount of spoil and the needed area to
stockpile. Areas adjacent to Powell Branch and within the floodplain of the non -project area of
Folly Swamp have been identified as spoil stockpile areas. Removing vegetation and stockpiling
spoil within these areas are counter to the purpose of stream and wetland mitigation. These
areas should be avoided for spoil stockpiling because it removes or reduces existing
buffer/riparian area.
4) Same concern for Morgan Branch. Stockpiling spoil in the identified area only limits the function
of the buffer/riparian area outside of the project area.
5) Barker Branch: I have concern that the project will have issues with the owner/farmer when the
land outside of the easement becomes wetter. There needs to be a larger easement area to
prevent additional ditching and draining when the agricultural fields become too wet to farm.
6) Green Branch: The headwater approach in upper Green Branch is a concern due to the fact that
it is fully dependent on flow from the adjacent property that enters through a culvert. After
seeing the site in a high rainfall season and a semi drought season I have concern that the
headwater reach will only be a wetland in "normal" conditions.
7) Flow is a concern on Powell, Morgan, Green, and Barker Branch's.

btu. STATE,,
North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Ia nilton
September 19, 2019
Kyle Barnes
US Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, NC 27889
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Re: Establish Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank, Folly Swamp Mitigation Site,
SAW 2018-02026, Gates County, ER 19-2633
Dear Mr. Barnes:
We have received a public notice 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,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-807-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
�fvRamona Bartos, Deputy
State Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh ES Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 27, 2019
Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Washington Regulatory Field Office
2407 West 51 Street
Washington, NC 27889
Re: Wildlands Pasquotank UMB (Folly Swamp Mitigation Sitey SAW-2018-02026/ Gates Co.
Dear Mr. Barnes:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service(Service)has reviewed the information concerning the above
referenced project The project, based on the description inyour Public Notice to our office, and other
information, is expected to have minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. We appreciate the
proximity and potential for protected aquatic and riparian corridor connectivity to the Great Dismal Swamp
National Wildlife Refuge.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 193, as amended, (ESA) and based on the information
provided, and other available information, it appears thcaction may affect the Northern Longeared Bat
(Myotis septentrionalis). Since the proposed project site is greater than 150 feet from a known roolstree
and your project does not require prohibited intentional take, your project has met the criteria for the 4(d)
rule. Any associated lake is therefore exempt. Please email the Situation three (3) pursuant to the SLOPES
agreement to our office to satisfy the remaining requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESAFurthermore,
it appears the project is not likely to adversely affectany additional federally listed species or their critical
habitat as defined by the ESA Please remember that obligationsunder the ESA must be reconsidered if:
(1) new information identifies impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considered) this
review; or, (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified
action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North Carolina
is now available on our webs'te at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Our web page contains a complete and
frequently updated list of all endangered and threatened species protected by the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.)(Act), and a lisbf federal species of
concern' that are known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their de�gnated non-federal representative), in
consultation with the Service, insure that any actionfederally authorized, funded, or carried out by such
1 The term "federal species of concern" refers to those species which the Service believes might be in need of
concentrated conservation actions. Federal species of concern receive no legal protection and their designation does
not necessarily imply that the species will eventually be proposed for listing as a federally endangered or threatened
species. However, we recommend that all practicable measures be taken toavoid or minimize adverse impacts to
federal species of concern.

agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any federally isted endangered or threatened
species. A biological assessment or evaluation may be prepared to fulfill that requirementad in
determining whether additional consultation with the Service is necessary. In addition to the federally
protected species list, information on the species' life histories and habitats and information on completing
a biological assessment or evaluaton and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh.
Please check the web site often for updated information or changes.
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federallgisted species known to be present within
the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to adversely affect those
species. As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine the species' presence or absence
within the project area. The use of North Carolina Nitural Heritage program data should not be substituted
for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely to
adversely affect) a federal lyprotected species, you should notify his office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on listed species,
including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before conducting any activities tha
might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or
adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally listed species, then you are not required to contact our office
for concurrence (unless an Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a
complete record of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified
personnel conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographsand any other related articles.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regardingthe project, please contact Emily Wells at [phone], extension
25.
Sincerely,
2—
�fPete e 'amin
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

w
WILDLANDS
January 6, 2020
Mr. Kyle Barnes
Regulatory Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District
Washington Field Office
RE: Response to IRT comments on December 18, 2018 Field Meeting Minutes
Folly Swamp Mitigation Site, Gates County, NC
Pasquotank River Basin - 03020105
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026
Dear Mr. Barnes,
Wildlands received comments from Kyle Barnes and the NC IRT on December 6, 2019 on the Folly
Swamp Prospectus. This letter provides our responses to those comments.
Comments on Folly Swamp Prospectus
Kyle Barnes, USACE, December 6, 2019
1. The Pasquotank HUC is 02010205. The prospectus indicates the Pasquotank HUC as 03020105 in
multiple locations.
Thank you for noting that. We'll look to get it right in the mitigation plan.
2. Wetlands have been identified outside of the project area along Folly Swamp Reach 1. I have
concern that there may be a drainage effect on these adjacent wetlands.
Wildlands will install a groundwater gage(s) to monitor wetlands hydrology in this area before
and after construction to determine whether the stream design created a drainage effect. This
area will be identified in the preconstruction notification for an NWP 27. Additionally, Wildlands
will seek to minimize impacts to this area and conduct a wetlands delineation in the area by
MY5 to show that additional wetlands are created. Wildlands will offset any impacts to the
identified wetlands with onsite creation of floodplain wetlands.
3. The project as discussed will result in a significant amount of spoil and the needed area to
stockpile. Areas adjacent to Powell Branch and within the floodplain of the non -project area of
Folly Swamp have been identified as spoil stockpile areas. Removing vegetation and stockpiling
spoil within these areas are counter to the purpose of stream and wetland mitigation. These
areas should be avoided for spoil stockpiling because it removes or reduces existing
buffer/riparian area.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 919.851.9986 • 312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

The identification of spoil disposal locations included large blocks to evaluate jurisdictional
wetlands. Our intention is not to put spoil immediately adjacent to the conservation easement,
but we wanted to know where wetlands are present in the general areas. Wildlands will place
spoil in non -project areas (i.e., outside of CEs) such that the no negative effect on drainage is
created. If spoil placement causes runoff to enter the CE as concentrated flow, Wildlands will
include design measures to detain and diffuse the runoff.
Finally, Wildlands will be obtaining a no -rise certification for FEMA flood mapping so the spoil
must be placed outside of the 100-year floodplain limits.
Some concern for Morgan Branch. Stockpiling soil in the identified area only limits the function of
the buffer/riparian area outside of the project area.
See response above. A travel way is located between Folly Ditch and the proposed spoil area.
We will be targeting an area along NC 32 for spoil disposal and will keep it some distance from
Folly Ditch and the conservation easement. Any effect on drainage into the CE will be
ameliorated with design measures that promote runoff detention and diffusion.
5. Barker Branch: I have concern that the project will have issues with the owner/farmer when the
land outside of the easement becomes wetter. There needs to be a larger easement area to
prevent additional ditching and draining when the agricultural fields become too wet to farm.
We considered this when drafting the proposed conservation easement. The easement extends
more than 500 feet upstream from the start of stream credit. It also covers two ditches that
drain to Barker Branch. The valley rises quickly beyond the existing right bank so more of the
easement will be beyond the left bank. We will examine the proposed contours to determine if
the mitigation project would adversely affect agriculture. Due to wet conditions, the landowner
and farmer have low expectations, now and in the future, for crop yield from the field adjacent
to and southwest of the proposed CE.
In addition, installing the culvert to Greene Branch will remove flow from the ditch on the west
side of this field. Finally, we may widen the proposed CE if it appears doing so would include
agricultural land that will become unacceptably wet as a result of the project.
6. Green Branch: The headwater approach in upper Green Branch is a concern due to the fact that
it is fully dependent on flow from adjacent property that enters through a culvert. After seeing
the site in a high rainfall season and a semi drought season I have concern that the headwater
reach will only be a wetland in "normal" conditions.
We acknowledge your and Mac's concern. We will base our approach on the Outer Coastal Plain
Guidance and set performance standards accordingly. We will also monitor stream flow as well
as wetland hydrology and herbaceous plant communities.
Wildlands has visited several examples of the Coastal Plain headwater approach, including the
DMS Watts Site in Perquimans County, and the Nutrien Hell Swamp and Sage Gut Sites in
Beaufort County. These sites appear to be slowly showing a trend toward having stream
characteristics.

On the IRT site visit to Greene Branch in December 2018, Mac Haupt stated that, at this time,
the requirement for stream hydrology is 30 consecutive days of streamflow. This is confirmed by
the October 2016 IRT mitigation guidance. Mac suggested measuring streamflow with a camera
is probably the best method for a coastal plain headwater approach.
7. Flow is a concern on Powell, Morgan, Green, and Barker's Branch.
See the acknowledgement above. Flow is not expected to be an issue on Powell or Morgan
Branch due to the drainage area size. Barker Branch is known to have streamflow at nearly all
times according to the farmer.
We hope that these responses adequately address the IRT's comments. If not, feedback is requested as
we proceed into the mitigation plan phase.
Sincerely,
Chris Roessler
Project Manager
[e-mail]

From:
Renaldi, Ronald
To:
Chris Roessler
Cc:
Cynthia Rountree
Subject:
RE: [External] CAMA compliance
Date:
Monday, October 14, 2019 12:27:40 PM
Attachments:
imaae010.ioa
imaae001.on
imaae002.on
imaae007.on
Chris,
I got in touch with our Coastal Management NCDOT field representative, and he agreed with us that
he wouldn't take jurisdiction of the canal that NC-32 crosses (bridge designated as C6). This means
that the mitigation site is not within CAMA jurisdiction and as such, no permitting is required from
us.
If you need anything else, feel free to contact me.
Ron Renaldi
District Manager, Northeastern District
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Ronald. Rena IdiCa)ncdenr.gov
[phone]
401 S. Griffin St., Ste 300
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
0
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 6:22 PM
To: Renaldi, Ronald <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [External] CAMA compliance
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment to reoort.spamna nc. oovv
Thank you, Ron.
You may be referring to Kyle Barnes who is the Corps PM overseeing the project.
Appreciate you taking a look, have a great weekend. Chris
Get Outlook for iOS

From: Renaldi, Ronald <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, October 11, 2019 4:50:07 PM
To: Chris Roessler <croessler(@wildlandseng.com>
Subject: RE: [External] CAMA compliance
Chris,
I've read through the material, checked the site out on Google Earth and spoke with the CAMA Field
Rep for that area and it appears that the proposed mitigation sites are not within a CAMA
jurisdictional area. The canal that NC-32 goes over looks substantial, but as it heads east it appears
to disappear and transition to a flooded USACE 404 wetland swamp. I want to check with our NCDOT
Field Rep to see if he has ever made a jurisdictional call up there just to be sure.
Ron Renaldi
District Manager, Northeastern District
NC Division of Coastal Management
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Ronald. Rena ldilcr)ncdenr.gov
[phone]
401 S. Griffin St., Ste 300
Elizabeth City, NC 27909
19.
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
From: Chris Roessler <croessler(@wildlandseng.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019 1:58 PM
To: Renaldi, Ronald <ronald.renaldiPncdenr.gov>
Subject: RE: [External] CAMA compliance
External email. Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify. Send all suspicious email as an
attachment toreoort.spamCcDnc. oovv
Thanks, Ron. Sure thing on the details and info. I've attached the Prospectus main document and
figures.
Basically, we're developing a stream mitigation bank in Gates County, between Sunbury and
Cora pea ke.
We plan to work on six different streams and will be doing mostly restoration. Because we're not
including wetlands, our proposed approach is most commonly Priority 1.5. The idea is that we'll be
excavating a shallow floodplain below the existing floodplain. This will help to contain flooding within

From: Nicole Macaluso Millns
To: Chris Roessler
Subject: RE: Folly FEMA floodplain compliance
Date: Friday, May 1, 2020 8:26:38 AM
Lastly, I reread this email... per the regulatory considerations, I agree, FEMA floodplain compliance is
applicable and maybe list the No -Rise or CLOMR are needed to resolve it. There is no official
documentation about it at this stage. I'm targeting end of August to submit the No-Rise/CLOMR
package. That should give us time to process all the comments, etc before construction.
From: Chris Roessler <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, April 27, 2020 1:44 PM
To: Nicole Macaluso Millns <[e-mail]>
Subject: Folly FEMA floodplain compliance
Hi Nicole-> One of the tables in the MP lists regulatory considerations and whether it is applicable
and resolved.
I'd say FEMA floodplain compliance is applicable and a no -rise certification is what we'd need to
resolve it.
Sorry if I've missed your communication about this but would you put any documentation you have
in this folder:
X:\Shared\Projects\005-45022 Folly Swamp\Reports\Mitigation Plan\Appendices\Appendix 5
Regulatory Correspondence
I recall you said you were working on iterations and it sounded like achieving no rise was doable.
Maybe we just
include a cover letter you're sending to the appropriate authority about this.
I think you mentioned we'd have to do a LOMR but it would mostly be a formality since it's about the
extent changing, no the elevation.
Thanks, Chris
Chris Roessler I Senior Scientist/ProjectMonoger
0: 919.851.9986, x 111 M: 919.624.0905
Wildlands Engineering Inc•
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

GATES COUNTY DRAINAGE DISTRICT #1
05/02/2019
This document summarizes discussions between Gates County Drainage District #1,
also known as Folly Ditch Watershed, and Wildlands Engineering.
Wildlands Engineering proposes to convert a portion of the drainage district's
maintained channels to wetlands areas. The areas to be involved include a portion of
the L.B Jordan property and the Jean C. Powell property, both of which are located on
Savage Rd., in Corapeake, NC.; said locations are in the Holly Grove Township of
Gates County, NC.
Discussion between Ronald Powell, Chairman, of Gates County Drainage District #1
and Wildlands Engineering project manager Chris Roessler have been ongoing to
address concerns about maintaining the ability of the channels to continue to allow
proper water flow for flood control_ The drainage district was established in the late
1950's, early 1960's through a federal project to reclaim farm lands and establish flood
control for the surrounding area. The parties acknowledge the following:
Wildlands will design the project such that it obtains a no -rise certification
from FEMA. This will indicate to the Gates County Drainage District #1
that the project, as modeled, should not cause a rise in flood elevation
greater than 0.1 feet.
Wildlands will conduct an as -built survey after construction that shows the
project was built according to the construction plans. This will confirm that
the no -rise condition will be valid.
The Gates County Drainage District #1 will not use heavy equipment or
motorized vehicles within the project area without first consulting with
Wildlands during the mitigation project life and the long-term manager
after that time. The mitigation project is expected to close out seven years
after construction. Unique Places to Save, LLC is expected to be the long-
term .manager_
Wildlands will clear flow obstructions while it is involved with the project.
Afterwards, it will be up to the Drainage District to do that if deemed
necessary. This should be done with chain saws and hand labor to the
extent possible. This can be done without contacting the long-term
manager provided heavy equipment or motorized vehicles are not used.
A design goal of the projects is to include positive slope on the stream

valleys. This will enable floods to continue moving downstream even if the
stream channel(s) is obstructed.
WILD 7�l
EN INEE ,!INC., a North Carolina corporation
By:
Joh W. Hutton, VJ14 President
Date: 1
cl
Gates County Drain a Dist ict #1
By:
Ronald Powell, Commissioner & Chairman
Date:
�� 19 / 9

Appendix 6
Maintenance Plan

1.0 Maintenance Plan
The Site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post -construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met. These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two (2) years
following site construction and may include the following:
Tablel: Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature
Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in -stream
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental
Stream
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel. Areas where
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank erosion. Beaver dams that inundate the stream channels shall be removed
and the beaver shall be trapped.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
Vegetation
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species
shall be controlled by mechanical and/or chemical methods. Any vegetation control
requiring herbicide application will be performed in accordance with NC Department of
Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site boundary
bollard, post, tree -blazing, 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.
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site Appendix 6
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-0206 Page 1

Appendix 7
Credit Release Schedule

1.0 Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as -built survey of the
Site. Under no circumstances shall any mitigation project be debited until the necessary 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 Interagency Review Team (IRT), 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 as follows:
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Stream Credit Release Schedule
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity
Interim Release
Total Released
1
Site Establishment
15%/ 1,921.4 credits
15%/ 1,921.4 credits
Completion of all initial physical and
2
biological improvements made pursuant
15%/ 1,921.4 credits
30%/ 3,842.8 credits
to the Mitigation Plan
First year monitoring report
3
demonstrates performance standards
10%/ 1,280.9 credits
40%/ 5,123.7 credits
are being met
Second year monitoring report
4
demonstrates performance standards
10%/ 1,280.9 credits
50%/ 6,404.7 credits
are being met
Third year monitoring report
5
demonstrates performance standards
10% / 1,280.9 credits
60%/ 7,685.6 credits
are being met
Fourth year monitoring report
65%/ 8,326.1 credits
6*
demonstrates performance standards
5% / 640.5 credits
are being met
(75%* / 9,607.0 credits)
Fifth year monitoring report
7
demonstrates performance standards
o
10/ / 1,280.9 credits
75%/ 9,607.0 credits
are being met and project has received
o
(85/ / 10,877.9 credits)
closeout approval
Sixth year monitoring report
80% / 10,247.5 credits
8
demonstrates performance standards
5% / 640.5 credits
are being met
(90%* / 11,528.4 credits)
Seventh year monitoring report
90% / 11,528.4 credits
9
demonstrates performance standards
10%/ 1,280.9 credits
o
(100/ / 12,809.3 credits)
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site Appendix 7
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026 Page 1

are being met and project has received
closeout approval
. 10% of credits will be reserved for the site that can be subsequently released after four bankfull events have
occurred in separate monitoring years, provided that the channel is stable and all other performance standards are
being met.
1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
The initial allocation of released credits is defined as Bank Establishment in the 2016 Wilmington District
credit release schedule guidance document. The initial allocation can be released without prior written
approval of the DE upon satisfactory completion of the following activities:
a. Execution of the UMBI by the Sponsor and the USACE
b. Approval of the Final Mitigation Plan
c. Recordation of the conservation easement, as well as delivery of a title opinion that is
acceptable to the USACE.
d. Delivery of the financial assurances described in the Mitigation Plan.
e. 404 permit verification for construction of the site, if required.
1.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved. For stream projects, a reserve
of 10% of a site's total stream credits shall be released after four bankfull events have occurred in separate
years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards are met. In the event that less
than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period, release of these reserve credits shall be at
the discretion of the IRT. As projects approach milestones associated with the credit release, Wildlands
will submit a request for credit release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement
of criteria required for release to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring
report.
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site Appendix 7
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-02026 Page 2

Appendix 8
Financial Assurance

dotloop signature verifiration: dtlp.us/6GPX-06HD dSfX
Unique Places
To Save
May 8, 2020
Chris Roessler
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Dear Mr. Roessler,
This letter confirms that Unique Places to Save ("UP2S"), a 501(c)3 not -for -profit organization located in the
State of North Carolina, has preliminarily agreed to act as the conservation easement grantee and long-term
steward for the Folly Swamp Mitigation Project ("Site") located in Gates County, North Carolina. The Site
consists of an approximate 49-acre conservation easement area. As the conservation easement grantee and
long-term steward, UP2S has agreed to and shall be responsible for periodic inspection of the Site to ensure
that restrictions required in the conservation easement are enforced and maintained into perpetuity. Specific
responsibilities include:
• Monitoring of Site is conducted on an annual basis.
• Visits to Site are coordinated with the landowner when possible.
• Annual monitoring reports are sent to the landowner when possible.
• Signage and fencing (if applicable) for the easement boundary is maintained.
• Violations and potential violations of the conservation easement deed are addressed following
protocols contained in the UP2S Conservation Easement Violations Policy.
UP2S shall receive a stewardship endowment and administrative fee from Wildlands Engineering, Inc
("Wildlands"), the Site sponsor, to ensure annual Site inspections occur and the terms of the conservation
easement are legally defended into perpetuity. UP2S also agrees to act as the responsible party that accepts
funds from either performance/monitoring bonds or casualty insurance to successfully complete the Folly
Swamp Mitigation Project. , 0 1
kvv
dotloR8opp verified
12U H-EST
6 - M
RLR41tlAH�(iiFX-09EV
Jeff Fisher, Board Chair
Unique Places To Save
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
,l-VI'Xn I�J�
Printed Name
Date
PO Box 1183 . Chapel Hill, NC 27514 9 919-428-2040 info uni ue lacestosave.or

Appendix 9
Plan Sheets

Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank
Folly Swamp Stream Mitigation Site
Pasquotank River Basin 03020105
Gates County, North Carolina
�R�SH NA ?
i
DANIELS RD.
AQ
SITE
SCOTT LN
do
ee
S
s9G l2
9G
F_� 0
SITE
�R
0
L3�' WH1TE LN
Vicinity Map
Not to Scale
BEFORE YOU DIG! 60% PLANS
N.C.CALL NONE-CALL
ISSUED 06.18.2020
.C. ONE -CALL CENTER
IT'S THE LAW!
Sheet Index
Title Sheet
0.1
General Notes and Symbols
0.2
Project Overview
0.3
Folly Swamp Overview & Plan Sheets
1.00-1.12
Powell Branch Overview & Plan Sheets
1.13-1.17
Morgan Branch Overview & Plan Sheets
1.18-1.26
Greene Branch Overview & Plan Sheets
1.27-1.39
Planting Tables
2.00
Planting Overview
2.01
Folly Swamp Planting Overview & Sheets
2.02-2.06
Powell Branch Planting Sheet
2.07
Morgan Branch Planting Overview & Sheets
2.08-2.11
Greene Branch Planting Overview & Sheets
2.12-2.17
Erosion and Sediment Control Overview
To Be Added
Fencing Overview
To Be Added
Details
5.00-5.01
Project Directory
Engineering:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc
License No.F-0831
312 W. Millbrook Rd, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Chris Roessler, Project Manager
Nicole Macaluso Millns, PE, Project Engineer
919-851-9986
Surveving:
Draper Aden Associates
114 Edinburgh South Drive
Cary, NC 27511
919-827-0864

General Notes
(To be included with final plans.)
Construction Sequence
(To be included with final plans.)
Existing
Features
Proposed Features
100+00
SFHA
SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREA
t
PROPOSED THALWEG
— FEMA-XS —
FEMA CROSS SECTIONS
—• • • • ..... —• —
PROPOSED BANKFULL
— — — — — —
FEMA FLOODPLAIN
100
PROPOSED MAJOR CONTOUR
FEMA FLOODWAY
PROPOSED MINOR CONTOUR
-- TB --
EXISTING TOP OF BANK
CE CE
PROPOSED CONSERVATION EASEMENT
EXISTING THALWEG
—CE-IX CE-IX—
PROPOSED CONSERVATION
X X
EXISTING FENCE
EASEMENT INTERNAL CROSSING
EXISTING CULVERT/STORM PIPE
PROPOSED CULVERT
-----100-----
EXISTING MAJOR CONTOUR
PROPOSED COVER LOG
EXISTING MINOR CONTOUR
SEE DETAIL 4 SHEET 5.00
EXISTING PROPERTY LINE
PROPOSED ANGLED LOG SILL
OHE OHE
EXISTING OVERHEAD ELECTRIC
SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET 5.00
—CUE CUE —
EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY EASEMENT
EXISTING TREE LINE
�
PROPOSED LOG SILL WITH ROOT WAD
EXISTING TRAVEL WAY
SEE DETAIL 3 SHEET 5.00
-
EXISTING WETLAND
cR-wo
PROPOSED WOODY RIFFLE
SEE DETAIL 1 SHEET 5.00
EXISTING WATER
PROPOSED BRUSH TOE
EXISTING UTILITY POLE
SEE DETAIL 1 SHEET 5.01
EXISTING GUY WIRE
O
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC MAKER
0
PROPOSED TRANSPLANTED SOD MAT
SEE DETAIL 2 SHEET 5.01
EXISTING FIBER OPTIC PEDESTAL
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
EXISTING CONIFEROUS TREE
PROPOSED ROCK
�
EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREE
FLOODPLAIN OUTLET
Q
�u-
��aW
4
N
O

pi \ I
I /
I
SCOTT LN R/w
—
j
R/
Sit/
�RO FOLLY SWAMP
OVERVIEW
SEE SHEET 1.00
��J MORGAN BRANCH sti -
\ OVERVIEW
�SEE SHEET1.18
lu
n
m /
-- POWELL
I BRANCH
/
� OVERVIEW
SEE SHEET
- - - - - -
1.13 �
/ SAVAGER p�
J� MARYLAN
� D LN i
I /
4i U m
GREENE BRANCH
OVERVIEW -
SEE SHEET 1.27
CE � \ CE
I
I W H11E LN
A
G
0' 500' 1000' 1500'
(HOR120NTAL)
u'�i

\ / r 711 RL411
ac9
II p�
BAVARIAN TIMBER 2015 LLC-, 1-t II\IIi\ <\/ Ij ,_ \ / /mil ,%�%'�`- ,'} r��� �/ \ _ (' _ `•�i ,- \
\ I I \ PIN:7000697664000
D.B. 88, PG. 319 I
\ D.B. 337, PG. 313 /
\ D y / �,� '�' SAUNDERS TWINE FARM LMTD PART.,, , � 2 _h „ - I � _
/l/) !\ \\ x ux, (�\� f\ i �_,/ c \ I PIN:7000781397 ��'���- ,'� a1, `�- ( , - 'N/F
D.B. 76, PG. 147 +',
D.B. 264, PG. 114 c_ R, BRYANT FARM LMTD PART. fJ, • \ -
r Z PIN:7000871662000
•/ \ixn III r /\`m + i r % —1 D.B. 264, PG. 111 \
�� N/F u' 9�- I D; Q' 12 BEGIN JORDAN BRANCH \ F`
SAUNDERS TWINE FARM LMTD PART. \ III ��- - / -- STA. 201+79 I \ 1 Z'
`Mq NOT FOR CREDIT PIN:7000578594000 \ r"m,F �' - \'
FEMAFW FEMAFW
/ D.B. 264, PG. 108 \ 1
EXTERNAL CROSSINGI \ \ vFEMncw FEMAFw � � r 4-./
V 1 �, J m '^ cFM�Fw FEnnA FW
FOLLY SWAMP 33 FOLLYSWAMP \FM\ START FOLLY SWAMP 11 REACH 1 (RESTORATION) 3 xp �� ,Pe
REACH 1 (RESTORATION) \ '.Q r JJ
STA. 114+36 x 3 vEMq F
STA. 101+27 \ � �II '
.MSF FEMAFW FEMAFW - F c •\ _ _ <� �� ('S
1.04 1 �" 1.06 3 3D 1''�ko•:�� (1 7 �J v f END FOLLY SWAMP U
_ �F ---�. 1.09 O \ , `J' REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
F 100+00 D 105+00 - • • �. w \ - - tiy`� ' �y O \ STA. 144 65
M9� , 1.07 >30 1.08 :y
1.01 - FEMP 1.02 TB 1.03 E PFW� Fop y C
FE, - F _ 7 _ - r,�s �� M w _— E F A. 1.10 3j o
S� M4F \ \
CE��OE� \ �y��= r&\\\\� N/F END FOLLY SWAMP _ FEMA
E ^'Er" LINWOOD B JORDAN, 1R FE 8 �. ' 45i
�9 REACH 1 (RESTORATION) FE� F �+ l� 1 ,
— / PIN: 70006793840D0 STA. 119+99 W FEMAFW R/W VA EEM — 81��„
N/F ___ _ ,- _,_ J/ �`e°<< w �TR�R SSING F y D.B.329,PG.43 BEGIN FOLLY SWAMP RAW SgVgGERD `CEO C �-�Q,J
ESTELLE EDWARDS BLANTON m + '- -'�� — / •,P,i�,f REACH 2 (RESTORATION) 2 T� HE Ma
\-,�—` / EXTERNAL CROSSING \\\ m �3
PIN:7000591630000 y.�—J �� ���^rl ,_`, FOLLY SWAMP \\\ %\�
STA.119+99ND.B. 336, PG.486+� \ / rn REACH 1 RESTORATION ENDJORDAN BRANCH,lR D.B. 77, PG.481 � 1 iJ '�'' I - rn( ) \ \ STA. 202+67 ,,, /VV �J
._ I _ STA. 114+76 ? \\\ \ - m 'i - PRIMARY VOLTAGE /
- NOT FOR CREDIT �p �.� -1 U)
\ �\ -' J\J - ��F J `I D _ ( �`/'---- POWER LINE 40' i T)
I E N/F� .\ ram/ � Sb`J, - J 5 x 7-.//I•, -:�( �/ \.! EASEMENT NOT
SAUNDERS TWINE FARM LMTD PART. n ,'J"Si' RECORDED
\ PIN:7000578594
/m D.B. 264, PG.108 \ i`` \\\,\�Ei/ / I �il�I</J J�.', - - �cs�`�• ,--�
fir/
/ c / X / 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN J `\'-,�� i I \ '-,' i \\
JOSEPHBFTWINE
i PIN:700673015
NO DEED ON RECORD Q I ti � 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
R/W
/ \ 0' 150' 300' 450'
\ (HORI20NTAL) � -
/

35
30
25
22
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' z 0
(HORIZONTAL)
w in
�aw xz� v
35
� w �
M
30
L�
2S
aJ
+-r
22 Cn �+
104+00 104+50 105+00 105+50 106+00 106+50 137+00 107+50 108+00 108+50 l.�
O
BANKFULL WIDTH = 16.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 21' BANKFULL WIDTH = 21'
4.45' 7.6' 4.45' 5.05' 14.2' 5.05' 15.95'
TOP OF TOP OF '.F U'~'
2.8' 1.65' 3' 1.6' 3' 1.65' 2.8' 1.75' 3.3' 5.95' 4' 4.25' 1.75' 1.75' 3.3' 10.35' 4.1' 1.5'
TOP OF BANK BANK i-+
BANK... _... _... _.... _.. ..r.... _.. . _.... _.... _... ... _.... _... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.. _.... .... _.... ... _.... _... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _... ... _ .. _ 4-
0.7' 0.T 0.T 2. C$
4:1 Dmax = 1.7 4. 5I 5I 1 �
PROPOSED 3:Z 3¢ PROPOSED Dmax=2.4' Dmax=3' PROPOSED Z 3
GRADE BANKFULL PROPOSED 3.s:1 1 PROPOSED 4.5:1 BANKFULL cn �.
FOLLY SWAMP - REACH 1 FOLLY SWAMP -REACH 1 GRADE 2`'' BANKFULL FOLLY SWAMP - REACH 1 h' �
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE 8.25 TYPICAL SECTION: POOL TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT PROPOSED
STA: 101+27 TO 119+99 STA: 101+27 TO 119+99 -- 8' STA: 101+27 TO 119+99 GRADE
SCALE: 1" = 3' SCALE: 1" = 3' SCALE: 1" = 3' w
v r0 v
\.J
r ``---- — 3'3 �- 37` =�-�
3� �- _ _ _ .30
_ — 91 •\ \ '. EXTEND EXISTING DITCH TO �, �"'p;,
II _-91--:: N\\. PROPOSED FOLLY SWAMP 3p,y� �\ rry�ryry,
_ _�
F
_---- ------------------- '\ 2� EXISTING TRAVEL WAY TO �.< �. I O
- --- ----- —----g 33 - 9 BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF. `,
-=i __—=��— ••\ CONSERVATION EASEMENT.\\ \�\` +
00
-� FOLLY SWAMP
.... .....Jul
,3 H
rNIZOx /
% .......
I CE / CE \
CE
CE t�
CE _
CE / CE___ v
>; I CE---- --CE—� CIE I z e
C
�/ - v CE
/ f�, � CE
N
7-O
O� M
II
9
N
CO
�I1
h
a0
G
h
of
C O
+ W
EXISTING
GROUND
N
O
W
tD
v�
+
M
M M
O ul
--+ .O
+ N
ON
—
O
N
O
W
N
+
^
O
W vl
—
--
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
....
_.
.. _
...
...
....
....
....
_..
.....
_..
-
-0.8%
TIE-IN
= 106+38
DITCH
STA
0.3%
0.7%
PROPOSED
GRADE
o+ m
O N
II
Q w
.M.
W
N
II
m
ti
W
N
II
+
II
m
G
�
"
o
+
II
m
ri
II
Q
N
O�
II
H
N
'+ a
O� N
II
Q w
+ a
O� N
II
Q w
a
m
N
II
w
C
O
II
a
O
II
"
II
J
II
�
O
ci
Q
�w
�w
Gw
Gw

35
30
25
20
18
135+50
Vl
+
a
+
M N•
N
41l
\
+
M
M
EXISTINGGROUND
c-I N
vi
�.
+
O
w
Q
/
v~i
WI
\
WI
w
v~i
W
Q
\
/
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
\
//
_.
..
... _
...
..........
....
_ \.
_..
! _.
.......
_
.........
......._
.....
. _....
_._..
..
....
...._...L/.
.. ....
_
...
....
....
...
0.3%
0.8%
/
0.4%
0.5%
0.2%
PROPOSED
GRADE
ti
+
N
m
N
M
N
m
O N
�
r
u'
a
N
r a
+ M
+
M
N
a
+
t0
n
ti N
0
+
r.0
rm-I
II
a
N
ti
II
+
�
to
Q>
Q
N
rm-I
II
ti
II
N
>
ti N
II
II
Q
C
N
W
M
C
N
ti
Q>
J
J
Q
H
to
t/r
W
tli W
W
J
W
Q
H
to
J
W
TOP OF
BANK
PROPOSED
GRADE
136+00 136+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 17.5
4.7' 8.1' 4.7'
— 3' 1.7 3.3' — 1.5' 3.3' 1.7 — 3
4.0:1 Dmax = 1.85'
3'0:1 30'1 PROPOSED
FOLLY SWAMP - REACH 2 BANKFULL
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE -- 8.75'
STA:119+99 TO 144+65
SCALE: 1" = 3'
137+00 137+50 138+00 138+50 139+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 22'
5.27' 16.73'
TOP OF 1.87' 3.4' 6.83' 3.15' 6.75' TOP OF —
BANK BANK
0.75' 0.75' 2.g:I 0.75'
Dmax = 2.7'
3.51 S:1 PROPOSED
35
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' z 0
(HORIZONTAL)
w in
�aw xz�
~l6
FBI Z
� w �
30 M
4
25
20
18
139+50 140+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 22'
5.27' 16.73'
1.87'�3�4'••• ••11.
4.1'— •• ....
—•••
Dmax = 3.2'
FOLLY SWAMP - REACH 2 2 BANKFULL FOLLY SWAMP - REACH 2
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT
PROPOSED
STA: 119+99 TO 144+65 GRADE STA: 119+99 TO 144+65
- 8.325' GRADE
SCALE: 1" = 3' SCALE: 1" = 3'
aD
�3J� of
1 m 3J _
FOLLY SWAMP n 3J 3J �+/
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY 3J 3J
I I IQ
I
-29----------------------------------------------
_ EXISTING TRAVEL WAY TO
Cn
---------- - BE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF Lu
T---�_f_
---------29 ----- ---z3g+--= c,------------------- ---- .,,CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
L 00----�,------- ----- D ---
-------------- 30- '
------------------- ---- -- _
-- -__- .: —----------------- - — - — ------ ------
- - "-- --- --- --
Q
--�
� t,
__ s=I6 - --- --- _ _ _ — --- _
_ - - _ e \�
30 — - -
139+00'
TB +---
•�. - --31k00� �--�_------ "-__ --- '- �-
-- ----- - -- = -- �= I 1 _ _ ; -
25 1
z1 _
QC1 �`.
—1 CE ICE—CECE—CE�'
CE CE — m CF�
SCE—CE—CECE—CECE— g 41 CF
I c�CE
3.65'
1.6'
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
v

35
30
25
20
18
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20, 40' 60'
35 HORIZONTAL
Y
30
25
20
18
(n
+
O
II
II
<
r
N
II
I� ci
N
+ r
N
N I I
t~h W
W
EXISTING
GROUND
PROPOSED
GRADE
----
--
----
--
-
-
---
--
----
_
-0.8%
200+00 200+50
-- - `
201+00 201+50
-_
,.s, ;;1
JORDAN BRANCH
5'
3 5
-
_ --_
-
--
- .
--
'_ -----
-
---'- -----
---�--- - / i
36 ' '
- -- -
-- -"
-----"-
''---
----- ----
3`
' --'--------- --------"
-"-- ----- --"
- -- - _ -- __ __ _ _ - _____ -__
_ _ _ -_-__ _-_-_-_ _ _- _--_ -_-------- _s
-_9-
i
'
-----------------
----'
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
-------------------------
202+00
m
202+50 202+70
m i i BEGIN JORDAN BRANCH',
(ENHANCEMENT II)
\
' NOT FOR CREDIT
m STA.201+79
--- --
JT---- -_
_- _ ---
m
j EXISTING FENCING TO BE
REMOVED WITHIN THE
j• CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
1
33-------
nl
-------- ' END JORDAN BRANCH EXISTING 36
��(ENHANCEMENT II) `INFORCED CONCRETE /
�\ PIPE PIPE TO BE
NOT FOR CREDIT \�
® STA.202+67 `REMOVED
END FOLLY SWAMP
/ REACH 1 (RESTORATION)
ot`\\
d STA. 119+99
BEGIN FOLLY SWAMP
Q REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
STA. 119+99
\ `\V--
3 EXISTING TRAVEL WAY TD BE
IL RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF
CONSERVATION EASEMENT
v
u"�i

i C O
/
a�
O
SP�P I II �c
/
/ 6a
I
I
\\ �c
j
O
-SX VW33
—SX-VW33
/SX-VV93J —
SX-VW33
USX-VW33
�SXVW33— O
SX-VW33 SX-VW3j SYy-VW33
SX-VW33
SX-VW33 SX-VW3j SX-VW33
O �
POWELL BRANCH
CF I -
/
END POWELL BRANCH
REACH 1 (RESTORATION)
EXTERNAL CROSSING I
Cf�
., BEGIN POWELL BRANCH
POWELL BRANCH O „Z' p I ''
REACH 1 (RESTORATION) CfSTA.
CEO STA.304+44 I -,,,o—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE—Cf
REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
313+02
BEGIN POWELL BRANCH J
REACH 1(RESTORATION)
STA.3OO+02
�POND\\`„�
TO / 040 /305+00 i 'i 3O8+00 1,
y 1.14 ,:ems. '��xo
-DO_.`: ;°�,;'��.:�,; ,TB\.? 1.15 XTTB .�°=� B--`=
S -�----TB----
y n�-TB--c=\
EXTERNAL CROSSING \
/ POWELL BRANCH
i
\
SX-VW33 SXxmi —
v- N/F
N/F \ '� JEAN C POWELL \ `
JOSHUA P POWELL \ PIN: 7000944759 \
D.B. 98, PC. \
PIN:70OD94515O \
D.B. 327, PG. 150
P.C. 3, SLIDE 56, PLAT 6
\51 /
� I
\'A
\ TB - - - - - TB
TB -----TB
3�3D-39�
�C ZO REACH 1 (RESTORATION) a� 39 O
STA.304+87
O
,�C O
O / PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE
C 40' CLAIMED EASEMENT
NOT RECORDED SX-VW33
1
I
I
/
I
I
/
I /
3
I �a
a3
SX- W33 SX-VW3c
I I
Cf CE �
\Cf`�CE_C
v~—TB--
--T13-----T3j�
END POWELL BRANCH
REACH 2 (RESTORATION)
ISTA.316+71
SX-V W 33 S -V W 33 SX-V W 33 SX-Vt
I /
n /
I
I
1 OJ0
p/ OJT/
I
a)
2
eo��
0' 60' 120' 180,
(HOR12ONTAL)

_ FEMA-XS
LL
_ - — FEMq-XS
\ FEMA-XS Fi
\ FEM4-k5 � FEMA-Xs
FEMA-XSFEMA XS
FE/yq-kS \ FEMA-XS
3 me Tc FM9 ks \ \ FEMA
N/F
C mC RICK H MORGAN � s
PIN: 7010368536
D.B. 209, PG. 756
IO ����c Mks ��F \
z �_� E%jA-ks\ LL
END MORGAN BRANCH
C FFMq FEMA-XS (RESTORATIDN)
/- NAnD(_ANI DDANiru -Fo i STA.43S+54
4
ti
/ /p SCE ,XS
O%._1 _ CE
12i 1.21�Mq-
p ' 3J ♦... • r y -I'S
3\'rya o --
f 1.19 —33_30 �3J�3D�d �.... .�?;\\\\ i \I� \l
j D�3D —3J dJ �41SX �/ \\ ,\1 _'"-FF�q-' L, ••/ � I '� U
,0+00 ♦; _ ; JO - - r91 \ I kg / I wia
1.22
'+� o
BEGIN MORGAN BRANCH ♦ 'i � ,� �'`w'�, V 1.25
CE 'rS w �
(RESTORATION)
�.....
STA. 400+46 FEMA-S
`�'J \ ; �:. ���� 0� �' FEM -XS
' \ • :!� `� I ' :' / / / X� � (n
U
�r 1.23 -
N/F 1.24 tih-• ��
DOLORES J TOWNES I - - - - -�/•
PIN: 7010388046000 ' �\
D.B.291,PG. 588 1 ••
P.C. 1, SLIDE 158, PLAT 6 / a� 3no 3n0 3n0 -�-
O
PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE JJ �3F10�3(1� 3nO- NC32 �FEMv1A4XS w
I 20' CLAIMED EASEMENT \` 3 _�\ -� ` F.E /
NOT RECORDED \�yiOBI I .,3(10 %3 O 3 F' M /FEM \-,F� X����/— FEMA X55� � FEMA-XS
3no �T -XS-- _ qq x5 w
1 300 3(l0 __ — FEMA-XS— �- M/8-"-FET`/Ip"-XS LL
3n0 3nO FE FEMA-XS M/b FEMA X5�\ LL
3(10�3n0— nnl!�t FEM - `� I—FEMA-XXS— —FEMA-XS�
3nD 3n0 •elaiA-XS FEf/1A-X�� M/A—FEMA-XS— \,,•`_� �^-r-)
3i10 —3i11 FEMA-XS FEMA-XS IY�\/a , — FEMA-XS — _ _ /� •,
3F10 3n0 — � FEMA-XS FEMA-XSM/b �tl MAfYs /-
NC32 FF MA-X5 FEMA-XS / i i
FEMAXS� M/ FEMA-XS� / ��
XS
FEMA-XS� FEM
\- J
,-- ----\
l LL
M/a /
Al
i
\
\
X
j
�\ �A, %FEMP
FEMP�
FEMP x5
(HORIZONTAL)
z
�
�

40
35
30
25
23
400+00
Pi
N
o�
m
+
+
m
o
m
M
m
c
O
w
o
o
"
ww
¢
+
+
II
T
II
O
II
O
't
O
O
n
0c-I
N,
m
+
N
w
m
¢
J
EXISTING
GROUND
m
ti
"
a
w
"
w
w
¢
�
w
PROPOSED
BANKFULL-
....
-0.2%
0.2%
/
-0.8%
-0.5%
-0.7%
-0.8%
i
I�
PROPOSED
GRADE
0
m
N
o
o
No
m
Ow^
—o
V
0ou
II
0
oC
oa
a
m
II
a
C,
¢
W
¢
>
>
N
Na,M
O
¢
O
N O
w
Oi
N
w
0C+
II
w
¢
¢
¢
400+50 401+00 401+50 402+00
402+50 403+00 403+50
40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
Q
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL) � Z � o
�w emu,
�aw xz�
Z
Qll 'v. v
I-y Z
35 z W M
25
23
404+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
4.4' 2.2' 4.4' 8' 1.5' 4' 9.8' 3.7
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK
..._...._...._.... ....T.... ...._...._.. ._......._.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... ... .._.... _... _.... ...._.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _....
_... _...._... _....
Dmax = 1.1'
4:1 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax-2' PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL GRADE 4.1 'L•1 BANKFULL GRADE 4:1 Dmax=2.45' 1y.1 BANKFULL
MORGAN BRANCH f'� 5 5' MORGAN BRANCH MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL W
f TYPICAL SECTION: POOL ITH BANK REVETMENT
STA:400+22 TO 435+37 STA:400+22 TO 435+37 4.75' STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 3'7
\ CE /
CE\ -�
-----------------------------
CE \ CE /ocl
BRANCH 3 \
El-
�;. ,'Qp _
/kY
114
40
\ 31
--------------
My BCD/ ;\\,,- -------- t
'MORGAI
BEGIN MORGAN BRANCH `
(RESTORATION) �4,
STA.401+22
`
EXISTING 24" HDPE
PIPE TO REMAIN
v

40 -
35 -
30 -
25 -
23
404+00 404+50 405+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11'
4.4' 2.2' 4.4'
TOP OF BANK
4.1 Dmax=1.1' 4'
PROPOSED .1 PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL
MORGAN BRANCH 5.5'
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2'
o
+
O
+
C
m
+
O
v
O
+
O
v
O
II
N m
O o
v II
n
O
v
m
p
II
H
to
w
n O m
0
O
a0i
�„
m
O
o
m
+
n
O
t
O
om
II
Q
II
II
O
M
m
w
II
Q
w
II
Q
w
W
II
Q
W
W
a II
a
II
Co
II
II
'T
II
a
II
w
~
J
w
~
w
Q
w
+
w
¢ w
w
J
Q
w
J
Q
II
Q
w
m
Q
W
W
"'
EXISTING
GROUND
STA
J
—
--
—
ELEV=
30.85
w
_
--
----
--
--
— —
— — 4
--
--
—
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
...
..
.......
_
...
..
....
....
0.1%
-0.4%
-0.6%
-0.7%
-0.7%
-0.3%
0.3%
PROPOSED
GRADE
N
+ o
°+'
m
a—�
+
o
o
m
O
C
O
II
G
a
O
C
+
uj
m
0
N
w
N
N
N
T
N
m
�
M
n
M
O
vi
w
J
II
Q w
Q
II
w
Ol
N
4l
al
N
a
C
II
Q
II
II II
w
II
w
+
N
+
nO
twD
N
Oi
N
m
O
N
N
Q
a
II
C
II
II
Q
On
N
n
O
t/�
w
t/�
F J
w
F
tli
J
w
II
II
w
J
w
J
Q
Q
J H
J
v
II
II
v
II
II
II
II
�
w
J
w
Q
of
w
J
to
w
to
w
VI
w to
w
Q
W
J
W
Q
H
Vf
W
W
J
W
Q
H
Vf
W
J
W
U]
w
H
VI
J
W
Q
H
�
405+50 406+00 406+50 407+00 407+50 408+00
E—CE—CE—CE—CE—Lt—
ACE—CE—CE—CI
I
I
TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
8' 1.5' 4'
._...._...._...._...._.... _....
... .._.... _... _....
PROPOSED 4.1 Dmax = 2' ti.1
GRADE
MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 4.75'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
MORGAN BRANCH
---Bi — .-=.=gi---=� » _
30-----_ - — — — — _
- — — _
---- ----- - - - - - - - -
----------------------- —
40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' z 0
(HORIZONTAL) Z o
II ll P v
I-y Z
�w
�35 M
2
ti
4
- 30
L�
- 25
23
408+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
TOP OF BANK 9.8' 3.7
PROPOSED PROPOSED
BANKFULL GRADE 4:1 ITT
ax=2.45' y.1 BANKFULL
1•
MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT
STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2' 3.7
I
I
-$f---- --- -
- ---------- --
-- ------ — — a� — -- - - - — -- _
IT
/. ..... J
� i' III •*
fir- � •
.... i•RO�kpO % � m i I �.
O
Lo
00
PROPOSED VERNAL POOL
TO INTERCEPT FLOW I
FROM DRAIN TILES
I I
�30�30 W
30 �30 � 30 �3J Iz
30
30 — 30— 30
30�37� I
30-30� I1 U_
3J�3D� —3D 3D 3730IC
—
v
N

0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
35
�Dl uMl
M
m
tp
OMJ,,,
ci
lD
0M„
�y
Mw
ci
M
O
NMw
w
_
+
m
II —T
w11
F
T n
+
+ m oMw
II—
II
Q w
(HORIZONTAL)
nN 35
II
J
W
++pCv~i
0JWII
t
+C
ci
E,
WO
+
¢
oWOMII
WL,
1
Q
�
Q
II
Q
Q
W
II
n
EXISTING
GROUND
11
w
w
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
30
-0.2%
-0.2%
-0.49/0.4
-1.3%
30
/
\
PROPOSED
GRADE
'0
Q ai
�+
m ai
N
w Q w
N tLM
�
Q 1iQ
tD
W
W
+
11
T
+
w II w
�y
a
11
Q
U
O
+
Qi
II
w
+
II
w
ti25
Q
WNc-1
O
II
W Q
MmON
tia+
C
Q
II
'N.+-o 1
tiNN
25
W
ci
a
11
Q
V
c0
N
11
N
11
w
W
II
¢
II
¢
II
W
II
h
+
w
W
J
J
Q
�
l/i
J
W
22
22
408+50 409+00 409+50 410+00 410+50 411+00 411+50 412+00 412+50 413+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
4.4' 2.2' 4.4' 8' 1.5' 4' 9.8' 3.7'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK
..._...._...._.... ....T.... ...._...._.. ._......._.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... ... .._.... _... _.... _...._...._...._...._...._...._.... _.... _... _....
Dmax = 1.1'
4�1 4'.1 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax-2' PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL GRADE 4.1 'L•1 BANKFULL GRADE 4:1 Dmax=2.45' 1y.1 BANKFULL
MORGAN BRANCH 5.5' MORGAN BRANCH MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL f TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT
STA:400+22 TO 435+37 STA:400+22 TO 435+37 4.75' STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' 3'7
----------------
-CE�—CE—CE—CE—CE—CE CE CE CE—CE—CE—CE—CE CE�CE—CEO_ I
-34-------- CE CE O
- —CE_ 10
- - - CE +
_ CE � Im
MORGAN BRANCH CECE
CE __ I�
CE
�CE� Q
------ -
------33----------------------------
---------
------ -- ---
- -' __- - _
1 - -_��
- --F---------=-=-_34------_---_-_---_-_-_---_- -
-_ -- --- - --_-30_==-=- _--__-_ - _--- _ __ _—=--T6-==--- -
-�-�--
of -.... _. .. _..
Ln
I
00
oI
QI
`^ I I
wl
z
J I ---
- 30 -------------------------a�----- _ --�1_--- 12 _--------------------------7 -- ---- S�
---------------
_ -- - — _ _ ----- u
---------------------------------------------- _
— - - ---- -----------------
_ - ,---
rs -- - -_ -_---_-_-- _---- ---
_----------- _ i--B=----_ ---- _-------_-_
---------- 33 - �\ \ - - plli,30
-- -------- • '
-' ,..
-QIT) -33-33-33-33-33-33-33-33=33-33—
G 1 _
zu
z
v

35
30
25
2
0' 2-
4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
35 0' 20' 40' 60' W
Qa^�
Z
(HORIZONTAL) z
--Z
�25
30
2S
0 Mn�cF"
o�.7
20 tz�+
413+00 413+50 414+00 414+50 415+00 415+50 416+00 416+50 417+00 417+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' ++ o
tt S-4 4:
TOP OF BANK 44 22 44 TOP OF BANK 8 1.5' 4' TOP OF BANK 98 -37
..._...._...._.... ....T.... ...._...._.. ._... _.... _...�4,*
..._...._.... ... _. .._.... _... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _....
_... _...._... _.... v r
Dmax = 1.1'
41 4'.1 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED S-a � 75
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=2' PROPOSED
BANKFULL 0,:1 BANKFULL Dmax=2.45' 1 BANKFULL LLi
GRADE GRADE GRADE 4:1 15' �p
tt
MORGAN BRANCH f'� 5.5� MORGAN BRANCH MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL f TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT CIS ,8
bA -.
STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 4.75' STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 3.7.
O
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' Y"
_ o
CE—`-E' CE—CE—CE—
\ CE—CE—CE—CE— CEZz2 :a Cn
CE
�''= CE — CE — --
CE-------------
-------------------------
CIE
;3
� V
MORGAN BRANCH
POOL
�9V' --------30-------------�_�_ i�� 0
3
i,
PROPOSED VERNALPO �
'Z
__-----&�—r-_---------------- i9,, ,-''%,:; ;:�� TO INTERCEPT FLOW
---- _ _ 81 FROM DRAIN TILES
:- -- ---8---=_= =_= =_
y—zzm
I
o - /
. O i------------------ 415+00 �•
D
417+00
�\ y
31------------ _ I n
2F� 33-------
z�
��\ 31 I= --zN
u N
_ 3J 30 3J � I m z V
3J �33 10 3J � 3J
- 3J 3J -----
m
a
a
n
N
Q1
N

35
30
25
20
18
422+00 422+50 423+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11'
4.4' 2.2' 4.4'
TOP OF BANK
4.1 Dmax=1.1' 4'
PROPOSED .1 PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL
MORGAN BRANCH 5.5'
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2'
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
u�
N
N
N
a
a
~
^
h
N
II
w
W
tD
ip
+
N
Q
l0
M
tp
W
iD
✓l
G
+
C
N
a
C
N
C
N
OMl M
C
N N
C
a W
M
N
N W
N N
+ N
N N
w
F- ;
G
T
+
N
}
N
7
N
II
J
W
N
N
II
a
M
411
N
II
w
W
M
a
l/1
N
II
w
W
t�D
+
a
N
M
N
a
a
N
N
N
M
t+0
C
<
�n
W
N
W
J
Q
w
W
II
H
H
a
W
7
w
;
EXISTING
GROUND
W
....
_.
.. .....
_
.........
...
....
_..
_....
_.
.....
-0.3%
_.
.. _..
. _
...
....
....
....
_...
.....
_..
. .....
-0.5%
-0.41
-0.4%
-0.2%
PROPOSED
GRADE
a
^
N
N
V~i
N
�I
w
W
lD
N
a
N
II
wV~i
W
N
N
N
M
C
II
a M
N a
II II
J a
a
N
II
J
N
`^
N
N
N
O
TN
}
N C
II II
a w
J �
p�j
N
II
w
J
}
V1
M }
C—�h
N N
—a
M
C
N
tJ C
N N
II
a w
�w
N
N
C
N
II
II
a w
w
II
a w
V~i w
+
C
N
a
a
II
a
GwGw
423+50 424+00 424+50 425+00 425+50 426+00
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF BANK
35
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60' z 0
(HORIZONTAL) Z o
w in
�aw xz= v FBI Z
� w
30 M
Z
25
L�
20
18
426+50
- BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
9.8' 3.7
PROPOSED PROPOSED J
BANKFULL GRADE 4;1
MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT
STA:400+22 TO 435+37
SCALE: 1" = 2'
CE _ CE CE --- CE 1
I � CE
SCE_ �GE� _ 1
CE CE _ ' CE GE -27 1 _
CE '-
CE CE CE CE ct ct ct
___ -=- 25==— -=_= -_- a�MORGAN BRANCH= —
_
o l 423+00 ... _ — — _
of
+ :4
�I
V)
V)I
wl
zl
= I --------
U _
Q 3J
-------------
- - 3J 32- - _ - _ 13
300 V-�f1---- '------- , 35 �3
O r—
I �3f103n
O ann - „- - 3J
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
8' 1.5' 4'
._...._...._...._...._.... _.... ... .._.... _... _....
PROPOSED 4.1 Dmax = 2' ti.1
GRADE
MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 4.75'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
' • ..... .....
�. 1
. �� : • Iz
3J G
_2� ------' 1
3J --- _ 1
Dmax = 2.45'
�3.7
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
zu
z
v
N

30
25
20
17
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
w in
�aw xz�
l6
30 -y z a
�w
M
25
L�
20
W
426+50 427+00 427+50 428+00 428+50 429+00 429+50 430+00 430+50 431+00
C)
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5' ++
tt S-4 4:
TOP OF BANK 44 22 44 TOP OF BANK 8 1.5' 4' TOP OF BANK 98 —37
_...._...._.... ....T.... ...._...._.. ._......._...._...._...._...._...._.... ... _. .._...._... _........_...._...._...._...._...._...._...._... _...._... _.... " v
Dmax = 1.1'
41 4'.1 PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED S-a C "�
PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=2' PROPOSED
BANKFULL 4:1 7,:1 BANKFULL Dmax=2.45' 1 BANKFULLi
GRADE GRADE GRADE 4:1 15' �p
MORGAN BRANCH 5.5' MORGAN BRANCH MORGAN BRANCH
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL f TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT a�
CIS ,8
STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 4.75' STA: 400+22 TO 435+37 3 7 O
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' Y" O
r�
�ILL
CE�CE�
I CE�CE�
---------------
----27----------CE � CE I
Cn
l-------
C7
_�1 / -- CE�CE�CE�CE�CE�CE� GE/L0 I O
CEO CE
�� I �L
----------------------------- _
�CE_,�L
25--_ 8� — — 27 ---
�94 ��� .... _...
MORGAN BRANCHLn
CD
Ln
LID
Fri
Uj
Lu
�•..._.. • lu
-�
0 0
N N
Q>
O
c0
O
M
O h tD
N�
N
II
N
'7
N
N
II
^
N
a
a
^
N N
II C
o
N
II
w
N
+
W
a
a
0o
+
N
h
+
N
h
a
+
1
+
N
N tD
+�
p
+
p
tD
C
N
II
N
N
N
Q
H
J
w
II
F
W
W
II
Q
W II
J Q
W
w
Ql
W
II
¢
II
W
C
II
J
II
J11
Q
II
w
F-
II
W
C
Q
II
a
Q
II
W
Q
Q
w
w
W
J
J
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
a
�
w
J
EXISTING
GROUND
....
_.
—
.. .....
---
_
..
--
....
----
....
....
—
_...
—
_.
..
. _....
_.
—
.. _...._
--
—
--
--
—
--
—
--
—
----
--
—
----
—1
--
—
.
. ....
.
. ...
...
.. .
. .
. ..
.
...
.
-0.3%
-0.4%
0.7%
-0.3 %
-0.4%
-0.4%
I
�
I/
PROPOSED
GRADE
I
m
p
u
rn
rn
N
II
O+
+
M
M
p
OO
a NN
a
!T
C
G
01
N
M
N
n
Ol
O
ql
II
w
h
N
^
N N
N
II
II
II
II
G
II
II
7
II
II
+
N
+
Nj
N-N
Hj
N
N
II
N
II
+
O
N
+
O
N
M
w
W
w
V~i
Q
Q
W
w
W
W
II
II
II
II
<
N
N
Q
H
of
w Q
J H
w—tn
w
J
w
V~i
V~i
V~i
w
V~i
w
Q
w Q
W-�
w
J
J
J
H
to
II
II
w
J
W
H
to
J
W

�Q
k
k /
l c�
BEGIN BARKER BRANCH
CP HEADWATER APPROACH
STA.700+00
r�
-\0
0
o �
�o
ull
I /
v�
V
V/
EXTERNAL CROSSING
BARKER BRANCH
CP HEADWATER APPROACH
\ I STA.705+14 /
m Cr / �P
I CE
/ (�
1.29 EXTERNAL CROSSING
w` V BARKER BRANCH p
C. /11 CP HEADWATER APPROACH
STA.705+56 Z/ /
1
Cl-
S'\ _ C; �1
" '' -- 1.30
END BARKER BRANCH I u CE / -,
CP HEADWATER APPROACH
STA.715+06
QZ
�aw xz�z
N/F
RONNIE M & MICHAELI BARKER Q v
PIN: 7010732954
D.B. 258, PG. 198 DRAINAGE ALTERATION H
P.C. 2, PG. 151, PLAT 2/CF" // RESTRICTION AREA M
\\
BEGIN GREENE BRANCH REACH 1 5
CP HEADWATER PPROACH
STA. 5 0+01IV
w b /
I
�W
END GREENE BRANCH
REACH 2B (RESTORATION)
STA. 528+42 --I
4
� II
w
�CIE ----
I / CE e - -
CE
,� 1.31 u
06) - \
3
LL
1.38 w
FEMA-XS,
„� T FNMA-XS
NSF
TOMMY ALAN & LOIS GREENE
PIN: 7010438918
FF' /
D.B. 216, PG. 772
m \
END POLLO BRANCH
NOT FOR CREDIT
INTERNAL CROSSING `r'
STA.602+32 _
GREENE BRANCH
GREENE BRANCH
X REACH 2A (RESTORATION)
GREENE BRANCH
CP HEADWATER APPROACH
STA.510+78
P+'
STA.518+31
CE
XSE
Al
CE
C
_SCE '
\
\SP /CE
�. •- �; mom_ CE
1.37 '
LL FEr'
/'v X
X�
1.35
-1.36 Eli
E�7 1
X 520+00 / � � 30
/ l
f �I
INTERNAL CROSSING END GREENE BRANCH REACH 1
END GREENE BRANCH GREENE BRANCH CP HEADWATER APPROACH
REACH 2A(RESTORATION) REACH 2A(RESTORATION) BEGIN GREENE BRANCH
BEGIN GREENE BRANCH STA.517+89 REACH 2A(RESTORATION)
REACH 2B(RESTORATION) STA.512+23
STA.518+75
F
1.32
C
\
1
I
l
�
/I
/ I
7 / —
CE v
1.34
�O
3' 3J --_ 1.39
00
0`
BEGIN POLLO BRANCH
\ \ NOT FOR CREDIT
STA.600+00
0' 80, 160, 240'
(HOR120NTAL)
3 v
u�i

40
35
30
25
23 4--
700+00
ROU
D
700+50 701+00 701+50 702+00 702+50
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
20:1 VARIES PER PROFILE
BARKER BRANCH
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER APPROACH
VALLEY TYPICAL SECTION WITHOUT DEFINED CHANNEL
STA. 700+00 - STA. 704+84
SCALE: 1" = 3'
BEGIN BARKER BRANCH
CP HEADWATER APPROACH BARKER BRAnICL'
701�=00
\ Jopk o � ` ' �2+00
----------------------------------------------
a I-
1-
703+00 703+50
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
-----_----------------
CE—
GE�'--
CE — Err,.--_-_ ---- ----_- ----- --------
-
CE
CE�CE _--- `-----30-------
CE _ _ _
/E CE - _------- -------- --_----- --
'�—CE -- — -'--
BCEj�CE-----_ - _ -- - -- 30--=_--gt��—� CE'
ai � _ _-------
---ar=—__� _ --2i�= oE�
CE CE $j s--� /
CE
�CE�CF— moo/ 1
40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VeancnL)
Q
0' 20' 40' 60' z 0
(HORIZONTAL)
w in
�aw xz� v
35 M
25
--+ 23
704+00
v
N
u�,

40
35
30
25
23 -�--
500+00
TO EXISTING GROUND
PROPOSED GRADE
EXISTING
500+50 501+00 501+50 502+00 502+50 503+00
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
10:1 VARIES
PER PROFILE
10:1
GREENEBRANCH
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER APPROACH
TYPICAL SECTION WITHOUT DEFINED CHANNEL
STA. 500+00 - STA. 501+83
SCALE: 1" - 2'
—r----4--
503+50
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
40
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
Q
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
w in
�aw xz�
Q6 a ��
�w
35 M
N
30
,1
25
--+ 23
504+00
CE CE ----
CE
CE'- -'
%I — — CE I
i ----CE CE O
—'
__ = = CE CE ------- +
,
CE -
I'
- _---- CE
CE E CE -
-- —` � r-------'----------
.'CE r
I r 1 CE 1H
CE -� r
- = ;,G
----Lu
-
� REEVE BRA--------------
CE
- -------- - ---------
, / - �--------' , ---- BRAN " �. �
EXISTING FENCING TO BE_ z
----------------------
REMOVED
WITHIN THE ----\'
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. 500 — ��--------"-- -- ------ --
; — — —'
_ __502+00
-5004
j
------------- - _ - —
D--------- `��� _
- 504�OD
-� ------�.�'. mac �
; } BEGIN GREENE BRANCH��' �' I
CP HEADWATER APPROACH-
STA.500+00
,
_ --
3D - __ _ --- --
AD— - - -- — —_-
-------
_ X _ -- ----------------
AD — AD— '3J � 3D � � 3J � 3J �.. 3D —`-� ��-------------------------
31,
3D
v

0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
Q
0' 20' 40' 60'
35
u
35
(HORIZONTAL)
z
i,u
Q�i
W
ON N
z a zone v
II °
Q
+
0
N
II
z
v~
j w
II
w
� w i
�
w
GROUND
EXISTING
30
--
--
--
--
—
TIE
TO EXISTING
GROUND
30
--
----
--
C,
TIE TO
EXISTING
G
ROUND
PROPOSED
GRADE
L�
25
25
4.1
FE
21
21
.may
504+00
504+50
505+00
505+50
506+00
506+50
507+00
507+50
508+00
O
+� O
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
U
:•�
-
O
c,
10:1
VARIES PER PROFILE
10:1
S-a
�I •�
GREENEBRANCH
O
z
= C7,
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER APPROACH
C
TYPICAL SECTION WITHOUT DEFINED CHANNEL
;-+
r
STA. 505+86 - STA. 506+92
�%
C
SCALE: 1" = 2'
% n i
CE CE
F"
CE
E CE
\\ -`� \
CE
CE
CE
"I ------
CE CE
BRANCHCl
Y
GREENE
w°
----------------
.:
0
1,
505+00
_,--"30 i - - -
50 I+00
_
— — —
1501
______
00
-----
v1
V
-----------'
- 0
EXISTING FENCING TO BE
�
-
\
''----'----------------------------'--'
-----
—"
REMOVED WITHIN THE
'
CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
,
\ - - -"-
3J
---------------------- / — 3J — 3J
------
I U
_
/
3J
\
'
— ------------------
- — —_ =�_
D
30,
-_
\
•3J
�3-----------------------

0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
35 35 0' 20, 40' 60'
zz U�-x
N 'T (HORIZONTAL) .J
+ O M l
� w
z � M
POLLO BRANCH TIE-IN
30 EXISTING GROUND STA = 510+78 30
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND PROPOSED GRADE TIE TO EXISTING GROUND
L�
25 2S
4J
.may
20 20 C) z�+
508+00 508+50 509+00 509+50 510+00 510+50 511+00 511+50 512+00 y
O
+� O
TIE TO EXISTING GROUND TIE TO EXISTING GROUND U
� O
c,
10.1 VARIES
PER PROFILE
10:1 S-a �I •�
GREENEBRANCH z
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATER APPROACH C
TYPICAL SECTION WITHOUT DEFINED CHANNEL �-
STA. 508+24 - STA. 510+59 �% C r
SCALE: 1" = 2'
\`7�_ - 2s, , \ ` c��s. ------ U
�g
29-------- fig-
EXISTING FENCING TO BE �I
,} L� `Tg�\ •\ o•• 8�`,, REMOVED WITHIN THE --- X
c �i9 CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
Ck
/ 00
END BRANCH g \
_ NOTOT FOR CREDIT
STA. 602+32
GREENE BRANCH _
EXISTING FENCING TO BE -_- ' CP HEADWATER APPROACH
G REMOVED WITHIN THE STA.510+78
C, -- CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
Ye / \SZ2kn0
-30
2
I
33

35
30
25
20
19
512+00 512+50 513+00
BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.0'
4.0' 3.0' 4.0'
TOP OF BANK
..._.... _.... _..._.... 1.... _.... _.... _.... ...
Dmax = 1.0'
PROPOSED 4'1 q'1 PROPOSED
GRADE BANKFULL
GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2A 5.5
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE
STA:512+23 TO 518+97
SCALE: 1" = 2'
m
a
+
.6
N
h
In-ttl
^+
tiII
Nww
W
M�a+II
cO—�
hJII
�CG
a
NI�wwyj
O�
CNQV+i
tiwwII
+IJI
HWyIjI
IaNnI0I
mL�++l�0l
NOrwW
QNW6II1
IlNnp
w'11
11
-
--VI+l1i
N
tiDI
-
+Qw
,,
a �NcwwpIiI
HII
I
,
iQI
w
I
_Qw
a
F-
Q
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
EXISTING
GROUND
7
.OI1.++hI.I
. .....
.....
.. _.
.. _....
_mn+.
..QwwIIJ.1
.
..
....__...._....
_.
0.6%
0.6%
0.3%
-0.5%
-0.6%
-0.3%PROPOSED
,
1-71
GRADEa
m
N
N
IO
M
+
O
M
O
lD
+
m0
n
+
m0
Ol
Ol
N
N
N
lD tD
N
1p
pp
IA
II
rll
II
c-I
'n
N
fi
N
1p �p
W
M
ti
rp
N
.p
ca-I
N
lD
N
rD
N
Vl �p
O C
r,p
a
+
+
N
N
N
+
+
li
}
II
Q
W
II
Q
W
II
Q
II
w
II
Q
w
Vt
N
V]
II
Ilt
N
V]
II
H
II
w
w
Vt
II
Q
II
N
II
¢
II
W
N
II
a
II
W
✓]
N
'� II
+
IA
N
Ill
II
a
N
II — II
w a
II
w
II
W
�I II
Q W
w
J
II
Q
Q
In
w Q
w In
w
w
In
w
In
w
in
w
w
In
w
w
a w
< w
rn w
<
in
aLl
w
w
v~i
w r~i,
w
v~,
w
513+50 514+00 514+50 515+00 515+50 516+00
TOP OF BANK
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
8.0' 1.5' 4.0'
._...._...._...._...._...._....... .._.... _.... ....
PROPOSED J Dmax = 2.0'
GRADE 4:1 N
GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2A
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL
STA: 512+23 TO 518+97 4.8
SCALE: 1" = 2'
TOP OF BANK
'
35
30
2S
20
19
516+50
BANKFULL WIDTH = 13.5'
9.8'
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
(HORIZONTAL)
3.7
PROPOSED PROPOSED J Dmax = 2.5' PROPOSED
BANKFULL GRADE 41 1y1 BANKFULL
GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2A
TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANI< REVETMENT -
STA: 512+23 TO 518+97 �- 3.7'
SCALE: 1" = 2'
CE
/CE/—CECE�
/CEO`/CE CE�CE�CECE
E>. CIE CE
—CE�CE�CE�
_ CIE CE �
END GREENE BRANCH REACH 1 --------- -"--------------
CP HEADWATER APPROACH
-- ------- --- -- -
GRE - - -
---
BEGIN GREENE BRANCH - EXISTING FENCING TO BE — x ENE
REACH 2A (RESTORATION)
STA.512+23
-------------
REMOVED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
'•513+00'�••••`•
r' -I�
-"T
-TBTB
--�
I06 X�
jl
BRANCH
1 /
�E
C / E,
CIE /
CE 1
==-=X TB -_T
=TB�az= �1
- —
_x _N_ _—= 27— — — — ---- — — — 2s — — — —
-Ta_�x
--_-- -
_ --------- .. X
�X 1RkGo � � � �• • • % / 1 '
IN, . •
-------------
--- - ® 1
_"" ' 1 Ul
�- EXISTING FENCING TO BE _ I
REMOVED WITHIN THE "%"'r -------
CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
"
Iz
33 -------___--- -
— 3J � 3J � 3J � ---
U
33�31 33�3J la
3J G
UZ
L4cAc
/1 �z
Z
! 4 H a
z u
z

35
30
25
20
18
516+50
m
6
a m
+
N
N
T
N
Q
� N
w
Q
Ill n
O
n ri
n
a
r
to
W
W
w
N
N
N
l�D ll^j
lN0
tN0
M Ilml
w
ci
N
w
O l0
O
N
ci
ti
N
N
N
N
r�-I
w
Q J
W
Q
Q
w N
J
w
Q
wQ
w
J
Q
II
Q
C
W
Vl II
to
N
to
N_0
ul
Vj
N
J
W
W
N
N
t~!I
F
W
W
J
W
w
Q+i
N
>
rNO
N
EXISTING
GROUND
W
Q J
Q
W I I
W
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
w
¢
II
v
�
W
�
_..
. _..
r
—
—
— —
_.
_....
_ ...
...
....
....
_...
069/
_
..
....
_
--
-0.7%
—
1
I
-1.0%
I
r
I
I
I
t
\
I
1
I
I
I
PROPOSED
GRADE
ti
� �
N
II
w
f
II
11
I
I
I
I I
O
m
W
++'a
M
m
O[,.u
ipr.o�+i
N
vt
+
+
+ Ill+I
++
QQH
J
H
J
N
QW
w
J
w
w
Q
V~i
w
II
w
II
ai
ILO
w
H
Q
V~i
H
J
H
J
''
Q
Qww✓I
Q
a
J
t~it
w
V~i
w
V
J
w
of
w
517+00 S17+50 S18+00 518+50 519+00 519+50 520+00 520+50
35
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
z 0
(HORIZONTAL)
w
�aw
Z
in
xz= v
FBI Z
Ci F i-1
2
30
Iti w
M
25
L�
20
18
521+00
32 BANKFULL 2WIDTH =9.0' 32 68BANKFULLWIDTH=108' 3.4' BANKFULL WIDTH =11.0' 3.0'
TOP OF BANK 1 — f
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK
_...._... _.... _...._...._...._...._.... ...._...._.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _.... _
4r1 Dmax PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=1.7' PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED
q;1 til Dmax=2' 1GRADE BANKFULL GRADE BANKFULL GRADE q:l 15 BANKFULL
GREENEBRANCH- REACH 2B GREENEBRANCH - REACH 2B GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2B
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL 3.8' TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT
STA: 518+97 TO 518+75 STA: 518+97 TO 528+42 STA: 518+97 TO 528+42 3.0'
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2'
o
�I CECECE�
+CE�CE� _.
_�I IE CE �
Lo
NI
B I F\
� 22_ INTERNAL CROSSING
=-_�__--
�U� _ GREENE BRANCH
-__�----------- - TB- - REACH 2A (RESTORATION)
'I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
IEXISTING FENCING TO BE
x ll i REMOVED WITHIN THE
GREENS BRANCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
X _
I �-'S20+00'k• \.
28-26
X EXISTING 24" HOPE � �" 4�---- 26
I
----------
X — X X (IL. • 521100 • .
--- STA. 517+89 X x _ —; PIPE TO BE REMOVED. e--- _--- — ---- �. • • .
'-4�-----�;-28-��-- T6 �---- ---_ --- ---_ --�--,ir----------- 519+00 �� � %%-:-------27
—TB--_ &_ —T�'� //'r Z9 �X I-O
- _ IO_
_'_-�__---- -- - ---27r-------- X X� fV
—i" i X
END GREENE BRANCH �X"
EXISTING FENCING TO BE
x
EXISTING BRIDGE w - REACH 2A (RESTORATION) REMOVED WITHIN THE
TO BE REMOVED. �X u m .. _ BEGIN GREENE BRANCH CONSERVATION EASEMENT. y� I W
�X _ X IN I tKII CROSSING REACH 2B (RESTORATION) �; w g'
Z
X - GREENE BRANCH STA.518+75
IJ
x __ __ -- `, REACH 2A (RESTORATION) /
EXISTING FENCING TO BE -'Wj �) ; STA. 518+31IU
REMOVED WITHIN THE
CONSERVATION EASEMENT. PROPOSED CULVERT CROSSING. 1
✓-------- 3D 3D '+ I
x 37
3� �-
\\ I
m 37 33
�33�3D�3D�3D�D33�Xi33�y`3D�30
v

y
30
25
20
16
w
0' 2' 4' 6'
(VERTICAL)
0' 20' 40' 60'
Z
30
(HORIZONTAL) � t j rn
�w
41
Z
a Hw
N
I 3 M
25 C,
ti Al
L�
20
W
521+00 521+50 522+00 522+50 523+00 523+50 524+00 524+50 525+00 y
c
BANKFULL WIDTH = 9.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.0' BANKFULL WIDTH = 11.0' ++
3.2' 2.6' 3.2' 6.8' 0.8' 3.4' 8.0' 3.0'
TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK TOP OF BANK U '
N
4:1 Dmax=0.8' f
..._....PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED Dmax=1.7' PROPOSED PROPOSED PROPOSED ;-4
q; 1 Dmax=2' 1 nz
GRADE BANKFULL GRADE BANKFULL GRADE 1 1 BANKFULL
GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2B GREENE BRANCH - REACH 2B GREENE BRANCH - REACH 213 C
TYPICAL SECTION: RIFFLE TYPICAL SECTION: POOL �- 3.8' TYPICAL SECTION: POOL WITH BANK REVETMENT a�
STA: 518+97 TO 518+75 STA: 518+97 TO 528+42 STA: 518+97 TO 528+42 3.0' C�
SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2' SCALE: 1" = 2'
CE
E
-- E — CE CE R$
28--------- 4': ' =/ rr ryry
--- /S'LShs''• CF7—CE�CE I� V
�yA /C EXISTING FENCING TO BE i I , CE CE j C)
i--'='
REMOVED WITHIN THE ,spy;;;.%/;a-9` S CE �fV w
!i CONSERVATION EASEMENT.] `=
GREENE BRANCH "' E
ILU
-`RAND
` �� \'`•• 523+00 _ �• Iu
/ »cc
• f't!�-�. i • / EXISTING FENCING TO BE %•`•, \ �'
i REMOVED WITHIN THE -- .•` �' / ♦ \
j$--_ / CONSERVATION EASEMENT. \ ._
524+00 CR-WD• \ S,•.
0
\ ,---------------------
�'�� I u�
rl
+
N
N
+
�
D
�
N
N
N
W
�11
II
>
N
ul
II
W
W
¢
II
ro
w
Q
J
w
II
u1
w II
W H
II
W
II
II
W
J
N
N II
II
N
N N
ul
II
N to
N
N
II
N
N
N
✓l
N
II
M
N
Ql
a
V~i
r
C
Q
W
N
V]
w
V1
W
w
Q
Q
w
H
w
II
r
N
Va~I
w
W
W
Q1
w
a
PROPOSED
BANKFULL
EXISTING
GROUND
'^
II
Q
N
Q
N
W
�+
a
N
w
Q

Pit
I /
I � �
I �
I
7rll
MORGAN BRANCH
OVERVIEW
SEE,SHEET 2.08
u
n
\/ SCOTT LN
- �YW
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1 - Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
000000 Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
�I
I
1 — —
I
1
GREENE BRANCH
1 OVERVIEW
SEE SHEET 2.12
dJ
\ CE
U 1.
/ n
� 1II
I W HtTE LN
A
G
N
W4 N =
0' 500' 1000, 1500,
(HOR120NTAL)
F

Zone 1 - Streambank Planting Zone 1 - Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
- - - - - - - - - - (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
I
I
I
I
I
BEGIN FOLLY SWAMP \
ZONE 1 STREAMBANK
PLANTING
STA.101+27 \ \
R/W x
�9G
9G
Flo
2.04
v/ I INTERNAL CROSSING
INTERNAL CROSSING FOLLY SWAMP ZONE 6
FOLLY SWAMP ZONE PERMANENT SEEDING
PERMANENT SEEDING OUTSIDE EASEMENT
OUTSIDE EASEMENT STA. 114+76
STA.114+36
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
1
\
2.05
FOLLY SWAMP
i
2.06
R/W
R/W
R/W
SAV
AGE
RD
W-
RIVV
R/W
END FOLLY SWAMP
ZONE 1 STREAMBANK
PLANTING
STA.144+65
0=0 3 _
3f)
PRIMARY
VOLTAGE POWER
LINE 40'
EASEMENT NOT
RECORDED
0' 150' 300' 450'
(HOR120NTAL)
0
w

lOD+00
-- 91-----1fl1+� °�
-- _Ts----�
—
—TB — 1
BEGIN FOLLY SWAMP
I.
ZONE 1 STREAMBANK
I
PLANTING
I
STA.101+31
II
mI
I
II
'► �► �► �► . o ..
•►.0►.p►..► .► ..
log
I I!I! I!I! I!I! I!■I �!■C IliIil!'i" �I■■--�i'r■-rrrr'-- ■�-- .�-- ':�• --.► IE'I! I! �r -�,o _
! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!! I!I! I!I!I!I! I!I! �!■I �!•■ Il•� !! I!I! I!I! I!I! 11
�,IIIlIl11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111�� �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII���:. /�i' .i-■Illlrf!!■
.�I..Ie!!IlIl1e11111111111e11I!111111111e111111111e1111lllllllllllllllllllllllllelll!► !��e11;!■e�!llielllllllllll�► / .. -. �l�I�ijllllljllllllll!
I! I! I! I! I! I! I �e■.■I�e._n - -.I�e I!I! I� // -,LI"ill1ejlllllllllle�lllll�!!!I!
■1�131
1!■1!!��IIII��Il11��I11111�11Illlllllll�!!!■111�11e�1■e_! ��IIIIIIII�ro� ■i�i I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I! ! I! llll�
..�e,��llellllllll��;e.■■�I� .,-11l�Il11j����Ij�ll11jelllLj�llllj�llllj�l!lli:■�'I�_Il--■- .
�� -11•.■�I!_ � dellllllllllllll1elll�,1ee■�II�� - .
IIOI�jI
I
1!I!I!I!IlI�. �- IIIII III lo .'
� I!I! IlIL' I�__ III III III � ■ - —ICI-'1i, �.
►1lIlIllllllllllllllrlllr ■r 7C11■�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�r',■C�Ir 1■ ..
IIIIII II
I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!■. rr ■■ ■�,.■-■ j�11! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I!I! I�•• III I ° 1e1! 1!■■ ■■--
�.Il��,/,�I! I!I! I!1! I!I! I!I! I! .. - .I I! I! I! I! I! IL I! ■�-- 1! I! I! ■■--
- �ll���_I!�!�l�l��!!I!!�!!I!�!!�I!!!i!_II!!l1e11�!!!�I!!!i!�!!!!i%���111�C�I��'�l;�IllllllllllllllllL'■i'_r. 1!IlIII�IIIIIIIIIII�IIII��j�111e��1!
11..��111..■��L.■�!_L'■.■e_____._■I111...Il...e11..■e11..■��_L'■.I■!�■.l e!!
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
EXISTING CEMETERY j
Y I
I
I
i
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
l
O
N

0
:0
I
I
I
I
I
I
%:�.�..... �r
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
INTERNAL CROSSING
FOLLY SWAMP ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
STA.114+36
I � ,
I
I �
I \W I r
I U
' � z
' � Q
FOLLY SWAMP 0ID
W I Q
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
Now
_ bI„OI„OI„OI„OI„OI„OI„Oi
��OI,��OI,�IOI,��OI,�I„��I�I�►�I�,��I
OI OI OI OI 0��. •�01
I � ,,OI,I��OI ��OI ���I •�a�
mi ei ei ei ei ei ei
\ INTERNAL CROSSING
FOLLY SWAMP ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
STA.114+76
'lk
j •.���wO��j���01
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
A
O
N

PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
z' Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
x Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
one 6 -Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
SAVAGE ROAD
R/W —
R/W
R/W
i
tCD
10
I
I�
I
I
— R/W
I
I
I
I
I
I
0' 40' g0' 120'
EME
(HORIZONTAL)

al
i
FOLLY SWAMP
PROPOSED TRAVEL WAY
----- -- �owIL► ��I ���I ���I g31I ,1110
ON
VA
.����r4I�II�WIN
��IOI�j��.o.
�e OI OI OI OI OI 01 ;°• oI OI OI OI OI OI OI o. �� O���O�p�O���OI�.�Oj/�.�jc'•�••..
' � '' OIL O��I���O����O����I��������OI����I���O���Oj/' OI � � ��!�ww.O.Ia!�w��O.����O�p��O�����:?;;►�4
-i OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI OI �
�.� � . -COI OI OI OI OI OI O OI ` . _ ww••. _ � •• _.
i -OI �'�OI ��OI ��OI ��0�.�!Iw���lw.a�.l..�e�..eis�w.:!�..�!�����IOI�rj ' , a��'`-�`;►��°''1
�L;4, /lwwOlw�OIwwOIw�OIww� ��.►�OI �a�I +g••,
I II I
I
I
R/W
I
I
R/W
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
R/W SAVAGE ROAD
R/W
R/W
R/W
R/W
-R/\v
R/W R/W
END FOLLY SWAMP
ZONE 1 STREAMBANK
\ \\ PLANTING
STA.144+65
io 3-no 3no=
'a ONE — OHE —
w "' 3no
LE
o � 3no
I Igo \
O
C
m w
O O \
R}W-
w
0
s
R/W
0' 40' g0' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
Q
7
N'
W
O
N

N �c �0
/ /
e4' /
">c C
m� Q,
nC n� N
I
� S
1\
BEGIN POWELL BRANCH
ZONE I STREAMBANK
PLANTING
STA.300+02
INTERNAL CROSSING
POWELL BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
/
STA. 304+44
DSO C
�C
/ O /
_
,.COS �� O
INTERNAL CROSSING
POWELL BRANCH ZONE 6
O
PERMANENT SEEDING
C O
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
O /
STA.304+87
PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE
rc C
40' CLAIMED EASEMENT
NOT RECORDED
� 1
1
POWELL BRANCH
208
' � Off► 4�
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1 - Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
END POWELL BRANCH
ZONE 1 STREAMBANK PLANTING
BEGIN POWELL BRANCH
ZONE 2 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.313+02
own�I'�s��Am�
END POWELL BRANCH
ZONE 2 STREAMBANK
PLANTING
STA.316+50
g�11
0' 60' 120' 180,
(HOR120NTAL)

Zone 1 - Streambank Planting Zone 1 - Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
1O / C
c, 2
/0
� MORGAN BRANCH
m O PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE
cc 40' CLAIMED EASEMENT
2 NOT RECORDED
O
C
O � �
\\ 2.10
400+0 BEGIN MORGAN BRANCH 2.09
V ZONE 2 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA. 401+22
I \
I PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE 2\
20' CLAIMED EASEMENT `33 3n0 3�3n
NOT RECORDED 3n0
3n0 �3n0
¢ / 300 �3n0
3n0 � 3n0
3n0 �3n0
3n0�3n0� �
3no M/a
�3n0 M/a
3n0 3n0 NC32 M/a
M/a
M/a
M/a
END MORGAN BRANCH
ZONE 2 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.435+37
CV
/ CE / 435+00
>� a
2.11
3n0 3n�
3n0-3no
�03n0 � 3n0
3n0 �3n0
NC32
M/a
a
M/a -
0' 100, 200' 300'
(HOR120NTAL)
a)
W
O
N

/os� �co
V)
o ,�c
o / /
PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE ">c
40' CLAIMED EASEMENT °� 1c°
NOT RECORDED /
�\ co
o�
mac°
o� �c
o
o� c
S' �
BEGIN MORGAN BRANCH
ZONE 2 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.401+22
MORGAN BRANCH
ti►:►'�►�►'.�°��OIOIs�I����'�'---------- �z.:��►Iwi!:I�Li�i'I�I��'I�iI��'I�iI��'I�iI��'I�iI��►I��'IOI��'IOII�iI��'IW, M-1I4i -404 I�5151 ��i
e�OI O� O� OI Os O� OI
,..r;,•...,.a♦:Iw• OI.►���:I��.:Ia��.�Iai�.�:Ia��.�Iw�O�..����I�I ��OI ��OIN ON S N
w OI OI OI OI OI
EXISTING HDPE''
PIPE TO REMAIN
R
0 F 00+00 �
Os �
00-
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
KXXXXXXXXXX Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
VIEWWOM
MONSOON VMS I
�� i��IpOj�O����OI���Oio.
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I�
0
I�
Z_,55r�
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
11.
O
N

Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
I
I
I
I
cD CO
MORGAN BRANCH Ln
I+
\ \ N
INN
\ \ IQ
Iw
z
U
4 Z16+OO
IQ
420+00
/I
/
��
m �, ✓ goo PO
PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER LINE
20' CLAIMED EASEMENT
NOT RECORDED �t\0/
goo
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
11.
O
N

J
_=.425+0o" i MGRGAN BRANCH
\� PRIMARY VOLTAGE POWER 3J
�p LINE 20' CLAIMED EASEMENT 30
NOT RECORDED
J
C�j, 3J
\3o
o\
0
0
0
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
CEi��F
CE/ \FF
F
70
2'
3J -
30 w w 30 ® Ln
END MORGAN BRANCH /R
ZONE 2 STREAMBANK PLANTING
F-a
STA. 435+37 / CZ
' 4-
U
R ;-4
O
• � w
/
z U
0' 40' go, 120'
(HORIZONTAL) w Z
i
ER

Zone 1 - Streambank Planting Zone 1 - Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
— — — — — — — — — — (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
END BARKER BRANCH ZONE 3
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATERS
BOTTOM PLANTING
STA.714+90
END GREENE BRANCH ZONE 2
STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.528+30
2.14
I _ CE
_ CE
CIE
BEGIN BARKER BRANCH ZONE 3
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATERS
BOTTOM PLANTING
STA.700+00
INTERNAL CROSSING
BARKER BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
STA.705+14
INTERNAL CROSSING
GREENE BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
STA.518+31
GREENE BRANCH
37 �37 �37
C,
GE/
c�\
U \
IF\\
BEGIN GREENE BRANCH ZONE 3 ` 30
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATERS (I
BOTTOM PLANTING �o
STA.500+00 o
INTERNAL CROSSING \
BARKER BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING \
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
STA.705+56 2.15 �'
END GREENE BRANCH ZONE 3
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATERS
BOTTOM PLANTING
BEGIN GREENE BRANCH ZONE 2
2.16 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.512+23
_CEO
37 __''J
INTERNAL CROSSING
GREENE BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDE EASEMENT END POLLO BRANCH ZONE 2
STA. 517+89 STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.602+27
L�
q
m
�O I
BEGIN POLLO BRANCH ZONE 2
STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.6D0+83
J �
6p6xOo
cy
\ \ QZ
\ Q? "a
\ � M
0' 100, 200' 300'
(HOR120NTAL)
I
ER

INTERNAL CROSSING
BARKER BRANCH ZONE 6
U
r
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be 0' 40' g0' 120'
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur (HORUONTAL)
within the Limits of Disturbance.

MgTC' \
"F Z I
0
I
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
.ND GREENE BRANCH ZONE 2
iTREAMBANI< PLANTING
iTA.528+30
MATCHLINE -.SHEET 2.17
BARKER BRANCH ZONE 3
STAL PLAIN HEADWATERS
rOM PLANTING
714+90
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
m
Q
7
U
r

DRAINAGE ALTERATION 11
RESTRICTION AREA 1 I
CIE
cE � II I
CE r
.il�CE I
gl R"1
�� II
9,� I
03
�J
i i I I
i i 1
i i I
m I
3 I
i \ 3J \ p I
II3J \ 3J I
m
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
KXXXXXXXXXX Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
/ GREENE BRANCH
� /CE\
CE
/ / CE \ C
CE f
/CEO \Cf\
� CE CE
� /CEO \Cf
/
/ CE \ Cf CE/ \CE
_CE \ram
10
IC)
to
I<
IN
Iz
I�
I=
U
la
0' 40' g0' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)

INTERNAL CROSSING
GREENE BRANCH ZONE 6
BEGIN POLLO BRANCH ZONE 2
STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.600+83
_--TB-----TB-----TB/
TB — — — — — TB— — — — — TB
—/
k I
/ u
k
l�
MATCH LINE - VITA
W
I
W
U
W
U
I
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
m
Q
7
W
N

INTERNAL CROSSING
GREENE BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
OUTSIDESTA5518ENT
31 1 GREENE BLANCH
c�
I
�I
INTERNAL CROSSING
LID
+
GREENE BRANCH ZONE 6
PERMANENT SEEDING
rll
OUTSIDE EASEMENT
Ln
STA. 517+89
LU
zl
JI
�I
<I
I
I
I
L— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
MATCH LINE - SHEET 2.14
Zone 1- Streambank Planting Zone 1- Folly Swamp,
Powell Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 4, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 2 - Streambank Planting Zone 2 - Powell Branch
Reach 2, Morgan Branch, Greene Branch Reach 2
(See Detail 1, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 3 - Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting -
Barker Branch, Greene Branch Reach 1
(See Detail 2, Sheet 5.02)
Zone 4 - Buffer/Upland Planting Zone
(See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 5 - Wetland & Floodplain Planting Zone
---------- (See Detail 3, Sheet 5.01)
Zone 6 - Permanent Seeding Outside Easement
Note: Non -hatched areas within easement are currently vegetated and will be
planted as needed to achieve target density. Buffer planting will occur
within the Limits of Disturbance.
x
/x/
x/x �
/ X
X I I
G,QFFtiF
B,Q
gticy
A,
END GREENE BRANCH ZONE 2
STREAMBANK PLANTING
STA.528+30
END BARKER BRANCH ZONE 3
COASTAL PLAIN HEADWATERS
BOTTOM PLANTING
STA.714+90
0' 40' 80' 120'
(HORIZONTAL)
Q
7
p�5

3" TO 6" DIAMETER
WOODY DEBRIS WORKED MICRO POOL HABITAT
INTO RIFFLE SUBSTRATE BEHIND LARGER WOODY DEBRIS
SEE PROFILE
FOR LENGTH OF RIFFLE
6" LOCALLY MINED
PEA GRAVEL/COBBLE MIXTURE
B
A A'
RIFFLE
Section A -A'
RIFFLE BOTTOM FLOW
WIDTH PER
TYPICAL SECTIONS
TOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
TOP OF BANK (TYP)
—B'
MICRO POOL HABITAT 3" TO 6" BRUSHY MATERIAL
BEHIND LARGER TOP OF BANK WORKED INTO ROCKY SUBSTRATE
WOODY DEBRIS
TOE OF SLOPE
Plan View
6" LOCALLY MINED LOG EXPOSED 1" TO 3" ABOVE
PEA GRAVEL/COBBLE MIXTURE FINISHED RIFFLE ELEVATION
10°-
SILL ELEVATIC
PER PROFILE (TY
FL
BACKFILL
NOTES:
1. USE MINIMUM 12" DIAMETER LOGS.
2. ONE 24"-30" LOG MAY BE USED IN PLACE OF TWO 12" LOGS
3. LOG IS TO BE AT GRADE IN CENTER OF CHANNEL.
4. JUNCUS PLUGS TO BE INSTALLED AT TOE OF SLOPE UP AND
DOWNSTREAM OF LOG DROP ABUTTING LOG
1 Woody Riffle
00 Not to Scale
SEE NOTE 1 FOR LOG SIZE SILL ELEVATION PER PROFILE
FLOW
LOCALLY MINED PEA
GRAVEL/COBBLE MIXTURE
ABTOP OF BANK (TYP) POOL LENGTH PER PROFILESILL ELEVATION STREAMBED PER PROFILE (TYP) POOL DEPTH PER PROFILETOE OF SLOPE (TYP)
A'
FLOW NONWOVEN FILTER FABRIC
EXTEND FILTER FABRIC
LOCALLY MINED PEA EXCAVATE BANK AROUND 5' MIN. UPSTREAM
GRAVEL/COBBLE MIXTURE POOL25% OF BANKFULL
iB
WIDTH AND INSTALL SOD MAT Section A -A'
ROOT WAD RIFFLE BOTTOM WIDTH
SOD MAT PER TYPICAL SECTIONS
Plan View SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE (TYP)
0.2'
SEE NOTE 1 FOR LOG SIZE
EMBED LOG EMBED LOG
NOTE: 5'
Section B - B'
1. LOG DIAMETER SHALL BE 12" ATA MINIMUM.
2. ON STREAMS WITH BOTTOM WIDTH LESS THAN 5',l-,p Sill With Root Wad
BRUSH SHOULD BE USED IN PLACE OF ROOT WAD. 3
BRUSH SHOULD BE EMBEDDED AT A MINIMUM OF 3' .0 Not to Scale
INTO BANK.
LOCALLY MINED PEA
GRAVEL/COBBLE MIXTURE
TO DEPTH OF FOOTER LOG
EXCAVATE BANK AROUND
POOL 259AOF BANKFULL
Fl MAI
Section A - A'- FACING DOWNSTREAM
2 Angled Log Sill
\k.0V Not to Scale
Plan View
c?
J
@y
COVER LOG
FOOTER LOG 1
BURIED 6" BELOW
MAX POOL DEPTH
4 Cover Log
0 Not to Scale
SILL ELEVATION
PER PROFILE
EXCAVATED
SCOUR POOL
FILTER FABRIC
. UPSTREAM
SOD MAT
OG - SEE NOTE FOR LOG SIZE
OG - SEE NOTE FOR LOG SIZE
TRANSPLANT/
BRUSH TOE
UZ
Q
�rc
Z
Qz
�Z
�4
5
10
J

ELEV. 0.3' ABC
DOWNSTRE,
RIFFLE INVE
ELEV. 0.5' BE
POOL
NOTES:
Section A -A'
1. OVEREXCAVATE 3' OUTSIDE OF TOP OF BANK (BANKFULL).
2. INSTALL A LAYER OF BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS, WHICH SHALL
CONSIST OF SMALL BRANCHES AND ROOTS COLLECTED
ON -SITE. LIGHTLY COMPACT BRUSH/WOODY DEBRIS LAYER.
3. BRUSH SHOULD BE ALIGNED SO STEMS ARE ROUGHLY
PARALLEL AND IS INSTALLED POINTING SLIGHTLY
UPSTREAM.
4. LAY EROSION CONTROL MATTING OVER BRUSH/WOODY
LAYER.
5. INSTALL EARTH BACKFILL OVER MATTING ACCORDING TO
TYPICAL SECTION DIMENSIONS.
6. WRAP MATTING AROUND COMPACTED SOIL AND
STABILIZE.
7. TRIM BRUSH SUCH THAT IT IS FLUSH WITH BANK.
8. TOP MATTING WITH SOD MAT IF SOD MAT AVAILABLE.
1 Brush Toe
0 Not to Scale
BUFFER WIDTH
VARIES
BANKFULL
RESTORED
CHANNEL
SPACING PER
PLANTING PLAN
DIBBLE BAR
PLANTING BAR SHALL HAVE A
BLADE WITH ATRIANGULAR CROSS
SECTION AND SHALL BE 12" LONG,
4" WIDE, AND 1" THICK AT CENTER.
ROOTING PRUNING
ALL ROOTS SHALL BE PRUNED TO
AN APPROPRIATE LENGTH TO
PREVENT TROOTING.
OIL MATTING
'ACKED WOODY DEBRIS
MATERIAL TO BE
.LED FLUSH WITH BANK
NOTES:
1. SOD MATS SHOULD BE FREE OF ANY INVASIVE SPECIES
2. SOD MATS SHOULD PREFERABLY ONLY BE HANDLED ONCE
AND NOT ALLOWED TO DRY PRIOR TO PLACEMENT
3. PREPARE THE BANK WHERE THE SOD MAT WILL BE
TRANSPLANTED BY RAKING.
4. EXCAVATE TRANSPLANT SOD MATS WITH A WIDE BUCKET
AND AS MUCH ADDITIONAL SOIL MATERIAL AS POSSIBLE.
S. PLACE TRANSPLANT ON THE BANK TO BE STABILIZED. (SOD
MAT ONLY TO BE TOUCHED ONCE.)
6. SECURE WITH SOD STAPLES.
7. FILL IN ANY HOLES AROUND THE TRANSPLANT AND
COMPACT.
8. ANY LOOSE SOIL LEFT IN THE STREAM SHOULD BE
REMOVED.
9. PLACE MULTIPLE TRANSPLANTS CLOSE TOGETHER SUCH
THAT THEY TOUCH.
10. INSTALL EROSION CONTROL MATTING ABOVE
TRANSPLANTED SOD MATS.
PILOT CHANNEL
TOP OF BANK
TOP OF
BANK
FLOW
TOP OF BANK
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
a
Section View
Riffles Inctallati—
TRANSPLANTED SOD AND ROOTMASS
TOP OF BANK
TOE OF SLOPE
plan Via ,
i2lTransplanted Sod Mats
\k.Oy Not to Scale
BUDS (NODES)
POINTED UPWARD
2" DIAMETER
2-3' LIVE STAKE
BASE CUT AT 45' TAPERED AT BOTTOM
m
Q
Z
��c
5
L0
O O O O O O Ilk] 3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
4' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS Live Stake Detail
Plan View
Zone 1 (Folly Swamp, Powell Branch -Reach 1)
EROSION CONTROL
MATTING
INSERTTHE DIBBLE, OR REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR INSERT THE DIBBLE, OR PUSH THE DIBBLE, OR PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE TO REMOVE THE DIBBLE, OR LIVE STAKE AT BACK
SHOVEL, STRAIGHT DOWN SHOVEL, AND PUSH THE SHOVEL, SEVERAL INCHES IN SHOVEL, DOWN TO THE CLOSE THE BOTTOM OF THE SHOVEL, AND CLOSE AND FIRM OF INNER BERM
INTO THE SOILTOTHE FULL SEEDLING ROOTS DEEP INTO FRONT OF THE SEEDLING FULL DEPTH OF THE BLADE. PLANTING HOLD. THEN PUSH UP THE OPENING WITH YOUR
DEPTH OF THE BLADE AND THE PLANTING HOLE. PULL THE AND PUSH THE BLADE FORWARD TO CLOSE THE TOP, HEEL, BE CAREFUL TO AVOID HERBACEOUS PLUGS AT PILOT
PULL BACK ON THE HANDLE SEEDLING BACK UP TO THE HALFWAY INTO THE SOIL. ELIMINATING AIR POCKETS DAMAGING THE SEEDLING. CHANNEL TOP OF BANK
TO OPEN THE PLANTING CORRECT PLANTING DEPTH TWIST AND PUSH THE AROUND THE ROOT.
HOLE. (DO NOT ROCK THE (THE ROOT COLLAR SHOULD BE HANDLE FORWARD TO TOE OF SLOPE
SHOVEL BACK AND FORTH 1-3" BELOW THE SOIL CLOSE THE TOP OF THE SLIT
AS THIS CAUSES SOIL IN THE SURFACE). GENTLYSHAKETHE TO HOLD THE SEEDLING IN BASEFLOW W.S.
PLANTING HOLE TO BE SEEDLING TO ALLOW THE PLACE.
COMPACTED, INHIBITING ROOTS TO STRAIGHTEN OUT. / \�\C'\ \ �� NOTES:
ROOT GROWTH. DO NOTTWIST OR SPIN THE
SEEDLING OR LEAVE THE ROOTS
1-ROOTED. \/\/ \ � 1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW - N
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE z u
NOTES: 2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
WITHIN HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
1. ALLsoILswITO
3 Bare Root Planting Section View 3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY CONDITIONS
PLANTING A LDISKED, AS
REQUIRED, PRIORPRIOR TO PLANTING, .O Not to Scale Zone 1 (Folly Swamp, Powell Branch -Reach 1) TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
TPu J
2, ALL PLANTS SHALL BE PROPERLY 4. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
HANDLED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION TO PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
SURVIVAL.INSURE 4 Zone 1 Streambank Planting_ v
5. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
\k._OY Not to Scale CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF o ; . 5
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.

LINEAR SPACING
3' SPACING FOR LIVE STAKES
4' SPACING FOR HERBACEOUS PLUGS
Plan View
Zone 2 (Powell Branch Reach 2, Morgan Branch,
Greene Branch Reach 2)
EROSION CONTROL LIVE STAKE AT
MATTING TOP OF BANK
HERBACEOUS PLUGS _
AT NORMAL BASEFLOW
TOE OF SLOPE i, i�i
BASEFLOW W.S. \ \ \
Section View
Zone 2 (Powell Branch Reach 2, Morgan Branch,
Greene Branch Reach 2)
(a:) Zone 2 Streambank Planting
0 Not to Scale
BUDS (NODES)
POINTED UPWARD
1-2" DIAMETER -
2-3' LIVE STAKE
BASE CUT AT 45' TAPERED AT BOTTOM
NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN VIEW
DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
2. REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS FOR PROPER STORAGE,
HANDLING AND INSTALLATION.
3. FORM PILOT HOLE IN HARD SOIL OR STONY CONDITIONS
TO PREVENT DAMAGE TO LIVE STAKES.
4. LIVE STAKES TO BE PLANTED IN AREAS AS SHOWN ON
PLANS AND DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER.
S. INSTALL DORMANT PRIOR TO LEAF OUT. DEPICTED
CONDITION WITH LEAVES NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF
STAKES AT TIME OF INSTALLATION.
LINEAR SPACING
8' SPACING FOR 1 GALLON
CONTAINERIZED TREES
Plan View
Zone 3 (Greene Branch Reach 1, Barker Branch)
TOE OF SLOPE
c—i— A_A'
TOE OF SLOPE
NOTE:
CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO FOLLOW PLAN
VIEW DETAILS BY REACH SHOWN ABOVE
z Zone 3 Coastal Plain Headwaters Bottom Planting
0 Not to Scale
m
Q
z
a��
N
O

Version March 2020
AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH THE WILDLANDS PASQUOTANK
UMBRELLA MITIGATION BANK IN THE PASQUOTANK RIVER
BASIN WITHIN THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
USACE approval of this Instrument constitutes the regulatory approval required for
the Wildlands Pasquotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank to be used to provide
compensatory mitigation for Department of the Army permits pursuant to 33 C.P.R.
332.8(a)(1). This Instrument is not a contract between the Sponsor or Property Owner
and USACE or any other agency of the federal government. Any dispute arising under
this Instrument will not give rise to any claim by the Sponsor or Property Owner for
monetary damages. This provision is controlling notwithstanding any other provision
or statement in the Instrument to the contrary.
This Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument (UMBI) is made and entered into on
the day of , 20 , by Wildlands Holdings VI, Inc., hereinafter Sponsor, and
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), and each of the following agencies,
upon its execution of this UMBI; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS), the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), the State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the North Carolina Division of Water
Resources (NCDWR). The Corps, together with the State and Federal agencies that
execute this UMBI, arehereinafter collectively referred to as the Interagency Review
Team (IRT).
WHEREAS the purpose of this agreement is to establish an umbrella mitigation bank
(Bank) providing compensatory mitigation for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts
separately authorized by Section 404 Clean Water Act permits and /or Section 10 of the
Rivers and Harbors Act permits in appropriate circumstances;
WHEREAS the agencies comprising the IRT agree that the Bank site(s) is/are
suitable mitigation bank site(s), and that implementation of the Mitigation Plan(s) is/are
likely to result in net gains in wetland and/or stream functions at the Bank site(s), and
have therefore approved the Mitigation Plan(s);
THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed among the parties to this agreement that the
following provisions are adopted and will be implemented upon signature of this UMBI.
A. The Sponsor is responsible for assuring the success of the restoration, creation,
enhancement and preservation activities at the Bank site(s), and for the overall
operation and management of the Bank. The Sponsor assumes the legal
responsibility for providing the compensatory mitigation once a permittee secures
credits from the Sponsor and the District Engineer (DE) receives documentation that
confirms the Sponsor has accepted responsibility for providing the required
compensatory mitigation.

Version March 2020
B. The goals of the Umbrella Bank site(s) is/are to restore, enhance, create and
preserve wetland and/or stream systems and their functions to compensate
in appropriate circumstances for unavoidable wetland and/or stream impacts
authorized by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act permits and or Section 10
of the Rivers and Harbors Act permits in circumstances deemed appropriate
by the Corps after consultation, through the permit review process, with
members of the IRT.
C. Use of credits from the Bank to offset wetland and/or stream impacts authorized by
Clean Water Act permits must be in compliance with the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations, including but not limited to the 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the
National Environmental Policy Act, and all other applicable Federal and State
legislation, rules and regulations. This agreement has been drafted in accordance
with the regulations for Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources
effective June 9, 2008 (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) (Mitigation Rule).
D. The IRT shall be chaired by the DE of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington
District (District). The IRT shall review documentation for the establishment of
mitigation bank sites. The IRT will also advise the DE in assessing monitoring reports,
recommending remedial measures, approving credit releases, and approving
modifications to this instrument. The IRT's role and responsibilities are more fully set
forth in Sections 332.8 of the Mitigation Rule. The IRT will work to reach consensus
on its actions.
E. The DE, after consultation with the appropriate Federal and State review agencies
through the permit review process, shall make final decisions concerning the amount
and type of compensatory mitigation to be required for unavoidable, permitted
wetland and/or stream impacts, and whether or not the use of credits from the Bankis
appropriate to offset those impacts. In the case of permit applications and
compensatory mitigation required solely under the Section 401 Water Quality
Certification rules of North Carolina, the NCDWR will determine the amount of credits
that can be withdrawn from the Bank. Any credits used to offset impacts solely
authorized by Section 401 cannot be used for other impacts authorized under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.
F. The parties to this agreement understand that a watershed approach to
establish compensatory mitigation must be used to the extent appropriate
and practicable. Where practicable, in -kind compensatory mitigation is
preferred.
Section II: Geoaraahic Service Area
The Geographic Service Area (GSA) is the designated area within which the Umbrella
Bank is authorized to provide compensatory mitigation required by DA permits. The GSA
for this Bank shall include the Pasquotank Hydrologic Unit 03010205 in North Carolina.
Credits are to be used in the same HUC in which they were generated, and credits within
each HUC should be tracked on separate ledgers.
2

Version March 2020
Section III: Mitigation Plan
Any Mitigation Plan submitted pursuant to this agreement must contain the
information listed in 332.4(c) (2) through (14) of the Compensatory Mitigation Rule.
A. The Sponsor will perform work described in the/each site -specific approved
Mitigation Plan(s).
B. The Sponsor shall monitor the Bank Site(s) as described in the approved
Mitigation Plan(s), until such time as the IRT determines that the performance
standards described in the Mitigation Plan(s) have been met.
C. Mitigation Plans submitted for inclusion in this bank must meet the requirements of
any District guidance that is current at the time the new site is submitted to the
District, including any updates made to monitoring requirements, credit releases,
long term management, or any other provisions that are required and/or specifically
addressed in the Mitigation Plan. The addition of any site to this instrument shall be
considered as a modification to this instrument and processed in accordance with
the procedures set forth in the Mitigation Rule.
D. The members of the IRT will be allowed reasonable access to the Property
for the purposes of inspection of the Property and compliance monitoring of
the Mitigation Plan.
Section IV: Reaortina
A. The Sponsor shall submit to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT,
an annual report describing the current condition of the Bank Site(s) and the
condition of the Bank Site(s) in relation to the performance standards in the
Mitigation Plan(s). The Sponsor shall provide to the DE any monitoring reports
described in the Mitigation Plan(s).
B. As part of each annual monitoring report, the Sponsor shall also provide ledger
reports documenting credit transactions as described in Section VIII of this
UMBI.
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall provide
notification to the DE within 30 days of the transaction. This notification shall
consist of a summary of the transaction and a full ledger report reflecting the
changes from the transaction. Additionally, signed copies of the Compensatory
Mitigation Transfer of Responsibility Form shall be submitted to the Corps Project
Manager for the permit and the Corps Bank Manager for the bank site.
3

Version March 2020
Section V: Remedial Action
A. The DE shall review the monitoring reports, as required in the Mitigation Plan(s),
and may, at any time, after consultation with the Sponsor and the IRT, direct the
Sponsor to take remedial action at the Bank site(s). Remedial action(s) required
by the DE shall be designed to achieve the performance standards as specified
in the Mitigation Plan(s). All remedial actions required under this section shall
include a work schedule and monitoring criteria that will take into account
physical and climactic conditions.
B. The Sponsor shall implement any remedial measures required pursuant tothe
above.
C. In the event the Sponsor determines that remedial action may be necessary to
achieve the required performance standards, it shall provide notice of such
proposed remedial action to all members of the IRT. No remedial actions shall be
taken without the concurrence of the DE, in consultation with the IRT.
A. Description of credit classifications and provisions pertaining to the use of those
credits shall be provided in the Mitigation Plan(s) to be included in this bank.
Credit classifications (e.g., cold water stream, cool water stream, warm water
stream, coastal wetlands, non -riparian wetlands, riparian non-riverine wetlands,
and riparian riverine wetlands) will be in accordance with current District guidance
at the time the Mitigation Plan is submitted to the District. In general, these
classifications will be used to determine if a particular credit qualifies as 1n- Kind"
mitigation. Exceptions to the use of "In -Kind" mitigation may be allowed at the
discretion of the permitting agencies on a case -by -case basis.
B. Wetland and stream compensation ratios are determined by the DE on a case -by -
case basis based on considerations of functions of the wetlands and/or streams
impacted, the severity of the wetland and/or stream impacts, the relative age of
the mitigation site, whether the compensatory mitigation is in -kind, and the
physical proximity of the wetland and/or stream impacts to the Bank Site.
C. Notwithstanding the above, all decisions concerning the appropriateness of using
credits from the Bank to offset impacts to waters and wetlands, as well as all
decisions concerning the amount and type of such credits to be used to offset
wetland and stream impacts authorized by Department of the Army permits, shall
be made by the DE, pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and
implementing regulations and guidance. These decisions may include notice to
and consultation with the members of the IRT through the permit review process if
the DE determines this to be appropriate given the scope and nature of theimpact.
M

Version March 2020
Section VII: Credit Release Schedule
A. All credit releases must be approved in writing by the DE, following consultation
with the IRT, based on a determination that required performance standards have
been achieved.
B. A credit release schedule shall be provided in the/each site -specific Mitigation
Plan(s) that are included in this bank. The release schedule will list all of the
proposed credit releases and any performance standards associated with those
releases.
C. In general, the initial allocation of credits from any site included as part of this bank
shall be available for sale only after the completion of all of the following:
1. Execution of this UMBI by the Sponsor, the DE, and other agencies eligible for
membership in the IRT who choose to execute this agreement, to include the
approval of any modifications to this agreement when new sites are added to it;
2. Approval of a final Mitigation Plan;
3. Confirmation that the mitigation bank site has been secured;
4. Delivery of executed financial assurances as specified in thesite-specific
Mitigation Plan;
5. Delivery of a copy of the recorded long-term protection mechanism as
described in as specified in the site -specific Mitigation Plan, as well as a title
opinion covering the property acceptable to the DE; and
6. Issuance of any DA permits necessary for construction of the mitigation
site (if necessary).
The Sponsor must initiate implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan(s) no
later than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (i.e.,
construction of the initial physical and biological improvements proposed in the
approved Mitigation Plan(s) must be started by the end of the first full growing season
following the initial sale of any credits from the Bank. This provision does not apply to
preservation -only sites that do not include any physical or biological improvements.
Subject to the Sponsor's continued satisfactory completion of all required performance
standards and monitoring, additional restoration mitigation credits will be available for
sale by the Sponsor as specified in the final Mitigation Plan.
Section Vill: Accountina Procedures
A. The Sponsor shall develop accounting procedures acceptable to the DE for
maintaining accurate records of debits made from the Bank. Such proceduresshall
include the generation of a ledger by the Sponsor showing credits used at the time
they are debited from the Bank. All ledger reports shall identify credits debited and
remaining by type of credit and shall include for each reported debit the Corps
ORM ID number for the permit for which the credits were utilized and the permitted
impacts for each resource type.
5

Version March 2020
B. When credits from the bank are sought by a permit applicant, the Sponsor
shall prepare a reservation letter for the applicant to include with the Corps
permit application, that documents the number and type of credits available to
bedebited from the bank, and the amount of time (if any) that those credits will
be held for that applicant (with an expiration date for the letter of availability).
C. Each time an approved credit transaction occurs, the Sponsor shall notify the DE
within 30 days of the transaction with a summary of the transaction and a full
ledger report showing the changes made. Signed copies of the Transfer of
Mitigation Responsibility form shall also be submitted to the Corps permit Project
Manager and the Corps Bank Manager for that bank.
D. The Sponsor shall prepare an annual ledger report, on each anniversary of thedate
of execution of this agreement, showing all credits used, any changes in credit
availability (e.g., additional credits released, credit sales, suspended credits, etc.),
and the beginning and ending balance of remaining credits. The Sponsor shall submit
the annual report to the DE, for distribution to each member of the IRT, until such
time as all of the credits have been utilized, or this agreement is otherwise
terminated.
A. Financial assurances for the Bank site(s) will be detailed in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan(s). The Sponsor shall provide financial assurances in a form
acceptable to the DE, sufficient to assure completion of all mitigation work, required
reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work required pursuant to this UMBI.
The financial assurance value should be based on the cost of doing the mitigation
work, including costs for land acquisition, planning and engineering, legal fees,
mobilization, construction, and monitoring. For preservation only Bank Sites, no
financial assurances will generally be required unless there are specific activities
necessary to ensure the successful preservation of resources on the site, in which
case appropriate financial assurances may still be required.
B. All financial assurances shall be made payable to a standby trust or to a third -
party designee, acceptable to the Corps, who agrees to complete the project or
provide alternative mitigation. Financial assurances structured to provide funds to
the Corps in the event of default by the Bank Sponsor are notacceptable.
C. The form and amount of financial assurances must be stated in the site -specific
Mitigation Plan(s) in order for the Mitigation Plan to be approved. This must
include the name of the specific provider of those assurances and the method by
which the financial assurances will be provided in the event that they must be
utilized. Original copies of the financial assurance documents must be provided to
the DE prior to the initial release of credits.
D. A financial assurance must be in the form that ensures that the DE receives
notification at least 120 days in advance of any termination orrevocation.

Version March 2020
A. The Sponsor shall grant a Conservation Easement (CE) in form acceptable to the
DE, sufficient to protect the Bank Site(s) in perpetuity. The CE shall be perpetual,
preserve all natural areas, and prohibit all use of the property inconsistent with its
use as mitigation property, including any activity that would materially alter the
biological integrity or functional and educational value of wetlands or streams
within the Bank Site, consistent with the Mitigation Plan. The purpose of the CEwill
be to assure that future use of the Bank Site will result in the restoration,
protection, maintenance and enhancement of wetland and/or stream functions
described in the Mitigation Plan. The name and contact information for the Corps
approved easement holder and a draft copy of the CE will be provided in the site -
specific Mitigation Plan(s).
B. The Sponsor shall deliver a title opinion acceptable to the DE covering the
mitigation property. The property shall be free and clear of any encumbrances that
would conflict with its use as mitigation, including, but not limited to, any liens that
have priority over the recorded CE.
C. Subsequent to the recording of the CE, the Sponsor may convey the Bank Site
property either in fee or by granting an easement to a qualified land trust, state
agency, or other appropriate nonprofit organization approved by the Corps. The
Sponsor is responsible for ensuring that the CE is re -recorded so that it remains
within the chain of title. The terms and conditions of this conveyance shall not
conflict with the intent and provisions of the CE nor shall such conveyance enlarge
or modify the uses specified in the easement. The CE must contain a provision
requiring 60 day advance notification to the DE before any action is taken to void or
modify the CE, including transfer of title to, or establishment of any other legal
claims over, the project site.
Section XI: Lona-term Manaaement
A. The Sponsor shall implement the long-term management plan as described in
the site- specific Mitigation Plan(s). Unique Places to Save is responsible for
long-term management. They may be reached at: P.O. Box 1183; Chapel Hill,
NC 27514-1183; info(a)unigueplacestosave.org; and
https://www.uniqueplacestosave.org/contact .
B. The long-term management plan will include a list of annual maintenance,
monitoring, and/or repair activities for the/each mitigation site, the associated
annual cost for each activity, and the required total amount necessary to provide
all future site management. The long-term management plan should explain how
the funds will be managed and provided to the designated long-term manager
(e.g., an endowment managed through a separate account holder). The long- term
management plan should include a contingency section that addresses how the
responsibility and funding for the long-term site management will be passed on to
a new manager in the event that the selected long-term management entity is no
7

Version March 2020
longer able to provide for management of the site.
A. It is agreed to establish and maintain the Bank site(s) until (i) credits have been
exhausted or banking activity is voluntarily terminated with written notice by the
Sponsor provided to the DE and other members of the IRT; and (ii) it has been
determined and agreed upon by the DE and IRT that the debited Bank site has
satisfied all the conditions herein and in the Mitigation Plan. If the DE determines
that the Bank site is not meeting performance standards or complying with the
terms of the instrument, appropriate action will be taken. Such actions mayinclude,
but are not limited to, suspending credit sales, adaptive management, decreasing
available credits, utilizing financial assurances, and terminating the instrument.
B. As projects developed as part of this bank are specifically intended to restore
streams and/or wetland systems that are subject to periodic flooding and drought
conditions, they should be designed to withstand any such events that are
anticipated to occur in the natural environment. This is not limited to routine or
minor flooding or droughts, but also specifically includes flooding events resulting
from hurricanes, or other extreme weather events as well as extended periods of
drought. Additionally, this includes conditions resulting from sea level rise that
adversely impact projects that are part of this bank.
C. Any delay or failure of Bank Sponsor shall not constitute a default hereunder if and
to the extent that such delay or failure is primarily caused by any act, event or
conditions beyond the Sponsor's reasonable control and significantly adversely
affects its ability to perform its obligations hereunder including: (i) acts of God,
subject to the exceptions contained in Paragraph B above, lightning, earthquake,
fire, landslide, or interference by third parties; (ii) condemnation or other taking by
any governmental body; (iii) change in applicable law, regulation, rule, ordinance
or permit condition, or the interpretation or enforcement thereof; (iv) any order,
judgment, action or determination of any federal, state or local court, administrative
agency or government body; or (v) the suspension or interruption of any permit,
license, consent, authorization or approval. If the performance of the Bank
Sponsor is affected by any such event, Bank Sponsor shall give written notice
thereof to the IRT as soon as is reasonably practicable. If such event occurs before
the final availability of all credits for sale, the Sponsor shall take remedial action to
restore the property to its condition prior to such event, in a manner sufficient to
provide adequate mitigation to cover credits that were sold prior to such delay or
failure to compensate for impacts to waters, including wetlands, authorized by
Department of the Army permits. Such remedial action shall be taken by the
Sponsor only to the extent necessary and appropriate, as determined by the IRT.
D. At the end of the monitoring period, upon satisfaction of the performance
standards, the Sponsor may submit a request to the DE for site close out. The DE,
in consultation with the IRT, shall use best efforts to review and comment on the
request within 60 days of such submittal. If the DE determines the Sponsor has
achieved the performance standards in accordance with the mitigation plan and all
0

Version March 2020
obligations under this MBI, the DE shall issue a close out letter to the Sponsor.
Section XIII: Miscellaneous
A. Modification of this UMBI shall be in accordance with the procedures set forth in
332.8 of the mitigation rule.
B. No third party shall be deemed a beneficiary hereof and no one exceptthe
signatories hereof, their successors and assigns, shall be entitled to seek
enforcement hereof.
C. This UMBI constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the
subject matter hereof and supersedes all prior agreements or undertakings.
D. In the event any one or more of the provisions contained in this UMBI are held to
be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or
unenforceability will not affect any other provisions hereof, and this UMBI shall be
construed as if such invalid, illegal or unenforceable provision had not been
contained herein.
E. This UMBI shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of
North Carolina and the United States as appropriate.
F. This UMBI may be executed by the parties in any combination, in one or
more counterparts, all of which together shall constitute but one and the
same instrument.
G. The terms and conditions of this UMBI shall be binding upon and inure to the
benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors.
H. All notices and required reports shall be sent by regular mail to each of theparties
at their respective addresses, provided below.
Sponsor:
Mr. Shawn D. Wilkerson
Wildlands Holdings, VI
1430 S. Mint St., Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Corps:
Mr. Kyle Barnes
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
2407 W. Fifth St.
Washington, NC 27889

Version March 2020
USEPA:
Mr. Todd Bowers
Wetlands Section - Region IV Water Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency 61 Forsyth Street, SW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
USFWS:
Mr./Ms. Emily Wells
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
NCWRC:
Mr. Travis Wilson
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1142 1-85 Service Rd.
Creedmoor, NC 27522
Ms. Gabriela Garrison
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
1712 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
NCDWR:
Ms. Erin Davis
Division of Water Resources
North Carolina Department of Environmental
Quality Post Office Box 29535
Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
NCSHPO
State Historic Preservation Office
Ms. Renee Gledhill -Earley
4617 Mail Service
Center 109 E. Jones
Street Raleigh, NC
27699-4617
NMFS:
Mr. Ken Riley
National Marine Fisheries,
NOAA Habitat Conservation
Division Pivers Island
Beaufort, North Carolina 28516
NCDCM:
Mr. Ronald Renaldi
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management

Version March 2020
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
401 S. Griffin St., Suite 300
Elizabeth City, NC 27909

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Wildlands Pasauotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank In
Gates County, North Carolina":
Sponsor:
By: Date:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers:
By: Date:

Version March 2020
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement entitled
"Agreement To Establish The Wildlands Pasauotank Umbrella Mitigation Bank,
Pasauotank River Basin in the State of North Carolina":
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
By: I Date:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
By: I Date:
N.C. Division of Water Resources:
By: I Date:
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission:
By: I Date:
NC State Historic Preservation Office:
By: I Date:
National Marine Fisheries Service:
By: I Date:
N.C. Division of Coastal Management:
By: I Date:

Version March 2020
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Geographic Service Area Map
Appendix B: Mitigation Plan (Each plan should include construction costs, maintenance
and monitoring costs, draft copy of financial assurance documents, draft copy of site
protection instrument, and a long-term management plan as appendices to the plan.)