20181273 Ver 1_MP_2020_20201104

MITIGATION PLAN
Final

September 2020
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
DMS ID No. 100084

Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040101

USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788

PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

September 18, 2020

Regulatory Division

Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site /
Wilkes Co./ SAW-2018-01788/ NCDMS Project # 100084

Mr. Tim Baumgartner
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

Dear Mr. Baumgartner:

The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Bug Headwaters Draft Mitigation Plan, which
closed on July 23, 2020. These comments are attached for your review.

Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.

The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
appropriate USACE field office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the
project. Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in
the permit authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not
satisfactorily addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan,
but this does not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation
credit. As you are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the
project that may require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please call me at 919-554-4884, ext 60.

Sincerely,

Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division

Enclosures

Electronic Copies Furnished:

NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner, Matthew Reid—NCDMS
Jeff Keaton—WEI

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.  phone [phone]  fax [phone]  1430 S. Mint Street, # 104  Charlotte, NC 28203

September 18, 2020

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587

Attention: Kim Browning

Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Project, Wilkes County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788/DWR No. 2018-1273

Dear Kim:

We have reviewed the IRT’s comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we are submitting
revised versions of the documents along with this letter. Below are responses to each of the IRT’s
comments in your letter dated August 28, 2020. Your original comments are provided below followed
by our responses in bold italics.

USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Please include the NCSAM forms and a brief summary in the text.
NCSAM forms are included in Appendix 1 and ratings are included in the Reach Summary tables.
2. Design Sheet 3.0: In the future, please include the indicator status in the planting list (FAC,
FACW, etc.).
We have added the indicator status to the planting list.
3. Please provide a veg plot along Big Bugaboo Creek reach 3 in the wetland planting zone 4.
A veg plot has been moved into wetland planting zone 4.
4. Planting List: Please eliminate silver maple from the planting list –it is very limited in North
Carolina, and it wouldn’t be found on the smaller tributaries. Additionally, it would be
preferable to reduce the percentage of sycamore planted to less than 20%.
Sliver maple has been removed from the planting list and sycamore reduced to 18%.
5. UT1: given the small drainage area (7 acres) and that this reach is intermittent, please move the
flow gauge to the upper 1/3 of this reach.
2

The flow gauge on UT1 has been moved to the upper 1/3 of the reach.
6. UT2B: It in unclear from the description on page 10 whether this reach is spring-fed, and given
the very small drainage area, flow is a concern. If you do not plan to install a flow gauge on this
reach, please be sure to use photos/video to document flow. Small reaches with such small
drainage areas really should have a flow gauge. Both consecutive days flow and cumulative days
should be documented.
A flow gauge has been added to UT2B to the upper 1/3 of the reach. Both consecutive days and
cumulative days will be documented.
7. There are many existing headwater forest wetlands within the easement and stream relocation
is estimated to impact approximately 1.343 acres. Though it is anticipated that the total wetland
acreage will increase as a result of stream restoration, the Corps must still ensure that there is
no net loss of wetlands. If you do not plan to install wetland gauges and monitor hydrology,
please plan to reverify the extent of jurisdiction at the end of the monitoring period to
document that wetland acreage was not lost.
After our conversation with you on September 10th and some additional consideration, we have
decided not to install gauges to monitor hydrology but we will verify the extent of jurisdiction
during MY5 monitoring and include the information from that verification in the MY5 report.
8. Table 9: Please summarize the total impacts, both temporary and permanent.
This revision has been made.
9. August 28, 2020 I corresponded with Byron Hamstead, FWS, regarding the bog turtle and Rusty
Patched Bumble Bee locations in Wilkes County. His reply was that both bog turtle and rusty
patched bumble bee are not subject to Section 7 requirements and there would only be
concerns for bog turtle if its habitat was disturbed and impact avoidance was not possible. In
which case a survey would be requested. I did confirm that there were proposed impacts to
existing wetlands, but that the wetlands have been negatively impacted by cattle and that it was
very unlikely that BT habitat was present. This correspondence will serve as documentation that
threatened and endangered species were considered.
Thank you for providing this information.
10. Section 3.4: The Corps issued the PJD June 21, 2020.
The PJD date is now included in Section 3.4.
11. Section 3.7: Another item for discussion could be the wetland enhancement and potential bog
turtle habitat that may arise from stream restoration and cattle exclusion.
A sentence has been added to Section 3.7 to discuss potential wetland enhancement and bog
turtle habitat that may develop.
12. Section 3.8: Do the adjacent agricultural fields to the north provide a sediment source? I
appreciate the thoughtfulness of this section.
We don’t think this will be a significant problem but text has been added to this section to discuss
the issue.
13. Table 20: the 30-days of consecutive flow applies to all intermittent channels, annually, not just
on restored reaches. Intermittent streams dry seasonally and should demonstrate flow for
periods longer than 30 consecutive days.
3

We understand from this comment and from our phone conversation that, while we are not required
to install gauges on intermittent EII streams, that we may be asked to provide information to support
the intermittent status of streams such as UT2 Reach 1. We are not proposing a flow gauge on this
stream at this time, however, if it becomes necessary to document flow, we will add a gauge. There
was already a gauge planned for the upper third of UT2A Reach 2 which is an intermittent restoration
reach and should also represent UT2A Reach 1 which is an intermittent enhancement reach.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. DWR appreciates that the site’s conservation easement was expanded to include many of the
stream origins and riparian wetland areas.
Thanks for noting that.
2. Page 4, Section 3.3 – Please reference the completion of NC SAM in this section and include the
NC SAM field assessment forms and rating sheets in Appendix 1.
NC SAM is included in Appendix 1 and in the Reach Summary tables.
3. Page 13, Section 3.6 – a. Are there any existing stream culvert crossings that will be removed,
relocated or replaced?
This information has been added to Table 6.
b. Was there any discussion with the utility provider about the possibly of relocating the
overhead line right-of-way to along Austin Traphill Road?
No, there was no discussion with the utility company.
4. Page 15, Table 7 – Are vernal pools being proposed? If so, please provide additional design
details.
We have not planned any excavation of vernal pools on the site.
5. Page 16, 5.1 – Why couldn’t the Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 stream crossing be shifted upstream
to avoid permanent wetland impacts/loss?
The landowner requested the crossings on Big Bugaboo Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 5 be constructed
specifically at the locations they are shown on Figure 7. This will allow him to corral and route
cattle across those creeks in a similar way to how he currently does that using the existing fenced-
in area in that portion of his pasture.
6. Page 18, Table 10 – Based on the planting plan, it appears only supplemental planting is
proposed for UT4. Correct?
The left floodplain of UT4 will be planted with the species in the Buffer Planting Zone table. The
right floodplain is currently wooded and is not planned to be planted.
7. Page 22, Table 15 – Are there any concerns about the long-term stability and adequate
sediment transport along UT3 with the high design sinuosity shown on Sheets 1.38 - 1.44?
No, this reach is a little flatter that most other reaches on the site and therefore was made to be a
slightly more sinuous C stream type. The sinuosity is appropriate for a C stream type.
8. Page 24, Section 6.6 - Has the amount of available onsite woody material for proposed stream
stabilization and habitat structures been evaluated? If necessary, will offsite woody material be
sourced to complete construction of all of the structures shown on the design sheets?
4

We believe most of the woody material for construction can be sourced onsite. Some woody
material may be needed from an offsite source. We generally do not substitute rock for wood for
instream structures. However, if large enough boulders are available onsite, a few substitutions
may be practical. Any changes to structure materials will be noted in the As-Built Baseline Report.
9. Page 27-28, UT5 & UT6 – Understanding that these reaches are not for credit, can you please
include the existing/proposed reach length in the narrative.
This information has been added.
10. Page 28, Section 6.7 – Please reference the planting window specified in the 2016 NCIRT
Mitigation Update Guidance.
Planting will fall outside the 2016 NCIRT Mitigation Update Guidance due to the construction
timeline. Construction is expected to finish in April. Planting will be conducted soon after, but no
later than April 30, 2020.
11. Page 29, Table 19 – Based on the described UT4 existing conditions and proposed work, DWR
believes that 4:1 is a more appropriate credit ratio for this reach.
This change has been made.
12. Page 30, Table 20 – Please note the flow performance standard is for “each year”.
“For each year” has been added to the flow performance standard in Table 20.
13. Page 31, Section 10 – Please specify an expected maximum duration between “periodic”
inspections.
Quarterly inspections are expected each year. This information has been added to Section 10.
14. Page 32, Section 11 - DWR’s General Water Quality Certification 4134 requires notification for
any repairs that result in a change from the approved plans.
Thank you for pointing that out.
15. Figure 10 – Please shift the intermittent reach flow gauges at least 50 feet upstream. Also,
please show existing wetlands.
Flow gauges on intermittent reaches have been moved to the upper 1/3 of the reach. Existing
wetlands are now shown on Figure 10.
16. Sheet 0.3 –
a. Are channel plugs proposed? If so, please indicate approximate locations and include atypical
detail.
Channel plugs are not proposed. Properly compacted native soil and brush toes are all that is
required to ensure stable banks for the new channel.
b. Also, there were no “fill existing channel” callouts. It would help our review to see the existing
channel areas proposed to be filled as a shaded feature on the plan view sheets. Note that if
partial filling is proposed, the final grade in these areas should be designed to seasonally dry.
We have added “Fill existing channel” callouts to the plan sheets. We prefer not to hatch or shade
the existing channel. We did that in response to your comment on the recent Lyon Hills mitigation
plan submittal. However, it made it very difficult to see proposed grading and other information
on portions of the plans, so we removed it from the final construction documents.
5

17. Sheet 1.01 – Is the Swale callout actually for a Rock Floodplain Outlet? If so, please update
the text. If not, please add a Swale typical detail. (Same comment for Sheet1.21)
The swale is the outlet channel for the BMP. There is a BMP detail on sheet 2.01. We have
added typical cross sections for the swales to the BMP details.
18. Sheet 1.15 –Are two existing channels converging on this sheet? There appears to be four
existing top of bank lines.
There are two converging existing channels shown on this sheet. The larger channel is the
mainstem of Big Bugaboo Creek and the other is the channel that connects the overflow
spillway of the pond back into Big Bugaboo Creek. The pond and the overflow spillway and
channel will be removed during construction.
19. Sheet 1.20 –Are there any concerns about the long-term stability of the sharp bend on Big
Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 just downstream of the UT4 confluence?
There are no concerns based on past field evaluations of this stream and there are existing
trees on the outside of the bend. If it appears unstable during construction, we will take
measures to stabilize it.
20. Sheet 1.37 –Why wasn’t the steam origin of UT2B able to be captured within the conservation
easement?
We started the conservation easement at the point the stream becomes jurisdictional. However,
we will fence out the non-jurisdictional portion of the channel upstream of the easement as long
as the landowner will allow that.
21. Sheet 2.00 –Either on the design sheet or in the mitigation plan text, please indicate that the
proposed BMPs are designed to not require long-term maintenance.
A sentence has been added to Appendix 10 – Maintenance plan stating that the BMPs are not
expected to require maintenance.
22. Sheets 2.01 & 2.02–Are these BMPs designed to wet year-round? They are not included in the
planting plan, but please confirm at minimum the side slopes will be vegetated. DWR would
like to see planting within the BMP bed, if possible.
We have added herbaceous plugs to the side slopes and this is now included in the planting plan.
If they are observed to hold water most or all of the time, we will install live stakes on the side
slopes as well.
23.Sheet 3.0 –
a. DWR understands that quantity substitutions maybe necessary based on the nursery’s species
available. However, we request that no species account for more than 20 percentage of a
specified planting zone in order to promote diversity.
We do not have any species that accounts for more than 20% of the riparian buffer and wetland
planting zones. Any substitutions will be noted in the As-Built Baseline Report.
b. Have you had success planting Helesia tetrapterain restoration wetland areas? I was not able to
identify its wetland indicator status.
6

Helesia tetrapterain has been removed from the planting list.
24. Sheet 6.0 –What are the proposed stone size(s) for the Rock Floodplain Outlet?
The proposed stone sizes have been added to the detail on Sheet 6.05
25. Design Sheets–Please include an overall fencing plan indicating existing and proposed fencing
and approximate locations of anticipated gates.
The fencing plan is included in the revised plans included in this submittal.

Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.

Thank you,

Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager

FINAL MITIGATION PLAN
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7617
DMS ID No. 100084
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
HUC 03040101
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2018-01788
PREPARED FOR:

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

PREPARED BY:

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]

September 2020

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

Contributing Staff:
Jeff Keaton, PE, Project Manager
Nicole Millns, PE, CFM, Lead Designer
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge
Carolyn Lanza, Lead Scientist
Angela Allen, PE, Lead Quality Assurance

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan Sepember 2020 Page i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. i
1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 1
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection .................................................................................... 1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................... 2
3.1 Watershed Conditions .................................................................................................................. 2
3.2 Geology and Soils .......................................................................................................................... 3
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions ........................................................................................................... 4
3.4 Existing Wetlands ....................................................................................................................... 12
3.5 Existing Vegetation ..................................................................................................................... 13
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints .................................................................................. 13
3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification ............................................................ 14
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties .................................................................................................... 14
4.0 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................... 15
5.0 Regulatory Considerations ...................................................................................................... 17
5.1 401/404 ...................................................................................................................................... 17
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass ............................................................. 17
6.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan ..................................................................................................... 18
6.1 Design Overview ......................................................................................................................... 18
6.2 Reference Streams ...................................................................................................................... 19
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis ........................................................................................................... 20
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters ............................................................................... 21
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis ...................................................................................................... 24
6.6 Design Summary ......................................................................................................................... 25
6.7 Planting Plan ............................................................................................................................... 29
7.0 Determination of Credits ......................................................................................................... 30
8.0 Performance Standards ........................................................................................................... 31
9.0 Monitoring Plan ...................................................................................................................... 32
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan ................................................................................................. 32
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan .................................................................................................... 33
12.0 References .............................................................................................................................. 34

TABLES
Table 1: Project Information ......................................................................................................................... 1
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information ...................................................................................... 2
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use ....................................................................................... 3
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions ................................................................................................ 4
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation ......................................................................................................... 13
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings .................................................................................................... 14
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................... 15
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4 ....................................................................................................... 17
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands ........................................................................................ 17
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach .............................................................................. 18
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary ......................................................................................................... 20
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Big Bugaboo Creek .................................... 20
Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Tributaries ................................................. 21
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 1 ....................................... 22
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 2 ....................................... 23

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan Sepember 2020 Page ii
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 3 ....................................... 24
Table 17: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 25
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis ................................................................................................. 25
Table 19: Determination of Credits ............................................................................................................ 30
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards .......................................................................................... 31
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements ........................................................................................................... 32

FIGURES
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Figure 4 Topo Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 7 Concept Design Map
Figure 8 Reference Reach Map
Figure 9 Design Discharge Analysis Graph
Figure 10 Proposed Monitoring Components Map

APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Stream Assessment Forms
Appendix 2 Existing Conditions Cross Sections
Appendix 3 Jurisdictional Determination and Supporting Forms
Appendix 4 Categorical Exclusion and Regulatory Correspondence
Appendix 5 Post-Contract Site Walk Meeting Summary
Appendix 6 Morphological Data Tables
Appendix 7 Credit Release Tables
Appendix 8 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 9 Financial Assurances
Appendix 10 Maintenance Plan
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 1
1.0 Introduction
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is in a rural area of the Yadkin River Basin (Cataloging Unit
03040101) in Northeast Wilkes County approximately 9.5 miles northwest of the Town of Elkin (Figure
1). The site is on two adjacent crop and livestock farms in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. It is
near the border of the piedmont and mountain physiographic regions but is technically in the piedmont.
The proposed project will include restoration and enhancement of a network of streams on the property
that range in drainage area from less than seven acres to 322 acres. These include the headwaters of Big
Bugaboo Creek as well as eight unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, seven of which originate
within the project limits (Figure 2). Restoration will be performed on 6,226 LF of stream and
enhancement will be performed on 2,875 LF of stream. In addition, two in-line farm ponds will be
removed and four stormwater treatment best management practices (BMPs) will be constructed on the
site. The project will provide a total of 7,589.533 cool water stream credits. General project information
can be found in Table 1 below.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site was instituted via NCDEQ-DMS RFP # 16-007406. As approved by
the NCIRT, all projects contracted under the 16-007406 RFP have a cool or warm service type. Penalties
will not be assessed for using these project mitigation credits to satisfy cool or warm requirements.
Table 1: Project Information
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
County Wilkes
Project Area (acres) 22.50
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude) 36.32139 °N, 80.98432 °W
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted) 18.33
2.0 Watershed Approach and Site Selection
The site was selected for development as a mitigation project due to the potential to offset documented
stressors within the watershed. The Site is located at the upstream extent of the Big Bugaboo Creek 14-
digit HUC (03040101070010). Watershed characteristics are summarized in Table 2. The project is
located in a targeted local watershed (TLW) but is not in a local watershed planning (LWP) area. The
HUC is described in the 2009 Upper Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) document
(NC DMS, 2009). According to the RBRP, heavy agricultural land use is a major stressor to aquatic
resources in this watershed, including over 44% agricultural land cover and 15 animal operations. It is
also noted that 25% of riparian buffers are non-forested and that, although the HUC contains water
supply watershed (WSW) waters, only one percent of its land area is conserved. Stressors described for
the 8-digit CU include nonexistent or degraded riparian buffers as well as erosion and sedimentation
(including erosion from pasture lands), which both significantly contribute to habitat degradation and
water quality impairment. Turbidity and fecal coliform bacterial violations have been documented
across the CU. The RBRP primary watershed restoration goals include improvement of water quality and
aquatic habitat in impaired stream segments, implementation of stream and riparian buffer restoration
and enhancement, and implementation of agricultural and water quality BMPs to limit sediment,
nutrient, and fecal coliform contributions to streams from active farming operations.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 2
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
River Basin Yadkin
USGS Hydrologic Unit 8-Digit 03040101
USGS Hydrologic Unit 14-digit 03040101070010
DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01
Project Drainage Area (acres and square miles) 322 ac, 0.50 sq. mi.
Project Drainage Area Percentage Impervious Area <1%
CGIA Land Use Classification 12% Forested; 84% Agriculture; 2%
Herbaceous/Grassland; 2% Developed

The Site (Figure 2) is located in DWR Sub-basin 03-07-01. The 2008 Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basinwide
Water Quality Plan (NC DWR, 2008) indicates that fecal coliform concentrations often exceeded the
maximum regulatory limit in the CU, which creates a potential health risk. The plan also notes that major
stressors in the Yadkin River Basin include excessive sedimentation and changes in hydrology and
geomorphology due to urban development and agriculture. Agriculture was identified in the plan as the
most significant stressor leading to water quality degradation in the Yadkin River basin.
The Yadkin River basin is also discussed in the 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission’s
(NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP). The WAP notes that streams in the basin are being impacted by
excessive sedimentation and nutrient inputs due to a number of factors including agriculture. The WAP
discusses the importance of habitat conservation and restoration to address current problems affecting
species and habitats and specifically mentions a key management practice is working with farmers to
reduce erosion and fence cattle out of streams (NCWRC, 2015).
This site was selected because it provides an opportunity to address watershed stressors identified in
each of these three planning documents. Specific project goals are discussed below in Section 4.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The project includes the headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek (Figure 3). All project reaches and the
majority of the watershed areas are contained within two farms, the larger of which is owned by Horace
Randle Wood while the smaller is owned by Gaye Swaim. Mr. Wood has owned the property and used it
exclusively to graze cattle since 2012. His property was historically used for grazing cattle (at least as far
back as the 1980’s) though tobacco was also cultivated on small sections of the property. Today, the
Wood property remains mostly non-forested cattle pasture and cattle have access to all surface waters
on the property other than a 2.97-acre pond (Pond A) just below the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek
and UT2 and short reaches of both of these streams just upstream of the pond. The cattle access has
caused severe damage to most of the streams. The Swaim property has been in the family for over 60
years and has primarily been used for row crop agriculture. It is currently used to cultivate corn and
soybeans. There is an in-line pond (Pond B) on the Swaim property that receives a heavy sediment load
whenever the fields are tilled because there is no vegetated buffer to protect the pond. The remaining
portions of the watershed outside of the Wood and Swaim properties are mostly cleared and used for
pasture and row crops, although there is a pocket of forested area on the southeastern side of the
watershed and wooded riparian corridors are present on the far upstream and downstream ends of the
project. Drainage areas for the project reaches were delineated using QL1 LiDAR data and land use was

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 3
calculated using the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) for 2011. Drainage areas and land cover
classifications are summarized in Table 3 below.
The project watersheds (Figure 3) are drained by a dense, dendritic network of streams typical for the
North Carolina piedmont. There is a significant amount of relief on the site, with elevations ranging from
1,580 to 1,360 feet (Figure 4). The valleys upstream of the Pond A are narrow and deep and the streams
are generally entrenched. Downstream of the pond, Big Bugaboo Creek has a wider floodplain and less
steep valley side slopes, and Big Bugaboo Creek downstream of UT3 has a broad, alluvial floodplain.
A review of historical aerials from 1950 to 2014 indicates that onsite streams have existed in their
approximate location for over 60 years, although the land cover has changed somewhat. Pond A on Big
Bugaboo Creek was constructed between 1950 and 1976. A large forested area (approximately 45 acres)
on the east side of the property was cleared between 1993 and 2006. During this period, some mature
trees were also removed from the riparian zones of Big Bugaboo Creek, UT2, and UT2A. Later aerials
reveal that the Site has been maintained in this approximate land cover since 2006. Due to the location
and rural nature of the project watersheds along with the consistency in land cover, there is no reason
to think land cover change within the watersheds will impact the project.
Table 3: Drainage Areas and Associated Land Use
Reach Name
NC DWR Stream
Identification
Form Scores
Intermittent/
Perennial Status
Watershed
Area
(acres)
Watershed
Area (sq. mi.) Land Use1
Big Bugaboo
Creek 30.25 Perennial 322 0.50
12% Forested, 84% Agriculture,
2% Herbaceous/Grassland,
2% Developed
UT1 28 Intermittent 7 0.01 6% Forested, 94% Agriculture
UT2 29.75
Intermittent (reaches
1 and 2)/Perennial
(Reach 3)
65 0.10 94% Agriculture, 6% Developed
UT2A 25.75 Intermittent 17 0.03 82% Agriculture, 18% Developed
UT2B 33 Perennial 7 0.01 100% Agriculture
UT3 35.5 Perennial 96 0.15
4% Forested, 2% Mixed Forest.
85% Agriculture, 6% Herbaceous,
3% Developed
UT4 35 Perennial 21 0.03 16% Forested, 84% Agriculture
1. Land Use Source – National Land Cover Database 2011 (NLCD 2011), Multi-Resolution Land Characteristics (MRLC) consortium,
https://www.mrlc.gov/nlcd2011.php
3.2 Geology and Soils
3.2.1 Geology
The Site is located in the Blue Ridge geology belt near the western extent of the piedmont physiographic
province in the foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. The piedmont province is characterized by rolling,
well rounded hills and long low ridges, with elevations ranging from 300 to 1,500 above sea level. The
Blue Ridge belt is composed of sedimentary and metamorphic rocks. The underlying geology of the site
is mapped as the Alligator Back Formation (NCGS, 1985). This formation is composed of late Proterozoic-
Cambrian (500 to 900 million years in age) metasedimentary-metavolcanic rocks occurring on the
southwestern flank of the Blue Ridge anticlinorium. The rocks are primarily mica schist and phyllite
interlayered with biotite-muscovite gneiss and amphibolite.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 4
3.2.2 Soils
Project area soils are described below in Table 4. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site.
Table 4: Project Soil Types and Descriptions
Soil Name Description
CoA – Codorus
loam, 0 to 2 percent
slopes, frequently
flooded
These nearly level, very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils are on flood plains and
valleys. They formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They have a loamy surface layer and silt
loam subsoil. Permeability is poor and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is a depth of 15 inches. These soils are subject to frequent flooding.
FaD – Fairview
sandy loam, 15 to
25 percent slopes
These strongly sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded soils are on high stream
terraces. They formed from saprolite residuum. They have a sandy loam surface layer
and subsoil. Permeability is high and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water
table is below 6.0 feet.
FcC2 – Fairview
sandy clay loam, 8
to 15 percent
slopes, moderately
eroded
These moderately steep to steep, very deep, well drained soils are on uplands. They
formed from saprolite residuum. They have a sandy clay loam surface layer and subsoil.
Permeability is high and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high water table is below
6.0 feet.
Source: Soil Survey of Wilkes County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
3.3 Existing Stream Conditions
Big Bugaboo Creek originates on the Wood property in a small wooded area in the northeast quadrant
of the site. It flows southwest into a 2.97-acre pond. UT1 is a short reach that joins Big Bugaboo Creek
within the wooded area 900 feet from the upstream end of the receiving stream. UT2 also originates on
the property, then flows south/southwest and joins Big Bugaboo Creek just before it flows into the
pond. UT2A is a short reach that flows south into UT2 approximately 600 feet downstream of its origin.
UT2B is the shortest project reach, originating on the Wood property and flowing south for
approximately 200 feet before its confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. Downstream of the pond, Big
Bugaboo Creek flows south for approximately 2,100 feet before it leaves the Wood Property. UT3
originates just north of the Swaim property, flows south onto the property through a 2.16-acre pond,
and then joins Big Bugaboo Creek approximately 935 feet downstream of Pond A. UT4 flows into the
project boundary from the west and joins Big Bugaboo Creek near the downstream extent of the project
site.
In addition to the project streams described above, two non-project jurisdictional features, UT5 and
UT6, will be affected by Site construction. UT5 flows into roughly the midpoint of Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 1. It was originally a seep-fed wetland that formed a channel due to erosion and cattle trampling.
UT6 flows into UT3 just downstream of Pond B. It appears to have been an ephemeral drainage before it
was channelized. UT5 and UT6 currently meet the criteria for jurisdictional streams but clearly formed
due to disturbance and manipulation. They will be tied into their respective receiving streams in a stable
manner, but no mitigation activity or credit is proposed.
Currently, approximately 150 head of cattle are grazed on the Wood Farm. Most of the stream length on
this property is used to water the cattle. The small wooded areas within the pastures along stream
corridors (Big Bugaboo Creek at the upstream end and downstream end of the project) are used to
provide shade for the cattle. The banks of almost all of the stream length onsite have been destroyed by
trampling and fluvial erosion and there are large wallow areas on many of the channels. The aquatic

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 5
habitat in the streams has mostly been destroyed and water quality appears to be poor due to sediment
and animal waste. Several project streams have active head cuts arrested by tree roots or bedrock
features, indicating that vertical incision is occurring. As this incision has occurred, the affected channels
have become deeply entrenched. Figure 6 shows the existing stream features on the site. The stream
assessment forms and North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) are located in Appendix 1.
Surveyed cross sections of existing streams are included in Appendix 2. The existing conditions of each
project reach are described in more detail in the following sections.
Big Bugaboo Creek
The headwaters of Big Bugaboo Creek originate within the Wood property limits at a spring head.
Sparsely wooded corridors at the far upstream and downstream ends of Big Bugaboo Creek provide
shade to cattle, while the remainder of the buffer consists of open pasture. Cattle are grazed throughout
the project area and have constant access to most of Big Bugaboo Creek other than the majority of
Reach 3, which is fenced but is flash grazed several times per year. The channel substrate is classified as
sand and gravel. Some cobble is present, but significantly less common throughout, and some boulders
are present on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 has a narrow, well-defined valley, but the valley side slopes are less steep
than other portions of the site. The stream has a narrow, sparsely wooded buffer in poor condition and
is lined on the right floodplain by a wetland complex. The major stressor is cattle access, which has led
to trampled, muddy conditions, including the destruction of aquatic habitat, bed forms, and channel
banks. The channel is deeply incised (bank height ratio of 3.3) in areas where banks remain intact and
fine sediments choke the bed.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 begins downstream of the woodline and is contained in a narrow, confined
valley. Despite constant cattle access, the majority of the bed and banks are fairly stable, although there
is some trampling and bank erosion in isolated locations. Near the downstream end of the reach, there
is a crossing where the stream flows through a 30-inch corrugated HDPE pipe, and there is a significant
eroded wallow area just downstream of the crossing. This reach flows into the 2.97-acre Pond A.
Big Bugaboo Reach 3 begins at Pond A. Downstream of Pond A, the stream generally has a wider, less
confined valley than reaches 1 and 2. As mentioned, cattle have only intermittent access to this reach.
The upstream, fenced section of the reach has a bank height ratio of 2.6 while the downstream,
unfenced portion is not incised but has been impacted by cattle trampling.
Reach 4 of Big Bugaboo Creek becomes significantly larger at the confluence with UT3 and flows through
a broader, alluvial valley. The left floodplain is especially flat and has a small wetland complex which is
partially wooded but severely trampled by cattle. The stream is straight (sinuosity = 1.03), and, given its
ample floodplain with room to meander, appears to have been channelized. The channel is extensively
eroded and incised (2.7 bank height ratio), with both fluvial erosion and cattle trampling present on
both banks. Mass wasting is occurring in some locations.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 6

Reach Summary Information – Big Bugaboo Creek
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 966 1,070 1,602 465
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Moderately
Confined Unconfined
Drainage area (acres) 36 74 196 322
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) F4b/B4 B4/B4 B4/C4b F4/C4
Evolutionary Trend III II II/III IV
FEMA zone Classification X X X X
NC SAM Rating Low Low Low Medium
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 7
UT1
UT1 originates as a wetland seep within the project property limits near the head of Big Bugaboo Creek.
The valley is similar to Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 in that it is narrow but less steep than other portions
of the site. The stream flows through a small wooded area where cattle access the stream for water and
shade and have trampled it causing severe degradation of the channel. The bed material is a mix of fine
sediments, gravel, and cobble but the bed forms have been destroyed by cattle. There are multiple
wallow areas in the adjacent wetland complex as well, and cattle access points to the stream have
resulted in a network of groundwater seeps connected with the channel. The channel is incised in the
areas were banks are intact, with bank height ratios up to 5.0.

Reach Summary Information – UT1
Parameters UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 380
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 7
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend III
FEMA zone Classification X
NC Sam Rating Low
UT1 UT1

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 8
UT2
UT2 begins at the north end of the Wood property near King Billings Road and is contained entirely
within the project property. A utility easement intersects UT2 Reach 2 and continues through UT2A. UT2
is generally entrenched in a tight valley (ER < 2.2) and flows through cattle pasture for its entire length.
Cattle trampling is evident throughout but more severe on the downstream portion of the stream. The
downstream portion is characterized by incision, bank erosion, and degradation of bed forms. Bed
material is mostly a mix of fine sediments and gravel with some small cobble present farther
downstream. Multiple patches of exposed bedrock provide grade control for Reach 4.

Reach Summary Information – UT2
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3 Reach 4 Reach 5
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 506 124 450 314 778
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately
confined, unconfined) Confined Confined Confined Confined Moderately
Confined
Drainage area (acres) 15 16 44 45 65
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C C C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4a/B4a A4/B4 B4/B4 B4/B4 F4b/C4b
Evolutionary Trend II II III III III
FEMA zone Classification X X X X X
NC SAM Rating Medium Medium Low Medium Low
UT2 Reach 2

UT2 Reach 3

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 9

UT2A
UT2A originates at the north edge of the Wood property near Austin Traphill Road and continues to the
confluence with UT2. There is a large head cut at the upstream end before the stream flows underneath
an overhead electric line through a relatively stable wetland complex. Downstream of the wetland
complex, UT2A is similar to UT2 Reach 2 in that it is entrenched in a narrow valley, often bordered by
small pocket wetlands, and buffered by open, active cattle pasture. It has a bank height ratio of 4.8 and
the constant, reachwide cattle access has led to destruction of bed forms and severe erosion of the
streambanks. The bed material is a mix of fine sediments and gravel.

Reach Summary Information – UT2A
Parameters Reach 1 Reach 2
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 211 450
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined Confined
Drainage area (acres) 13 17
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Intermittent Intermittent
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4a/B4a A4/B4a
Evolutionary Trend II III
FEMA zone Classification X X
NC SAM Rating Medium Low
UT2A Reach 1 UT2A Reach 2
UT2 Reach 4 UT2 Reach 5

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 10
UT2B
UT2B is a short stream that begins on the project property and has a buffer zone consisting of open
pasture. It initially flows through a confined, entrenched valley but widens and flattens somewhat as it
approaches the confluence with UT2. It is not significantly incised but cattle have access to the entirety
of the stream. Although not widespread nor severe, trampling, bank erosion, and degradation of bed
forms are all evident, especially on the downstream portion of the stream.

Reach Summary Information – UT2B
Parameters UT2B
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 168
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Confined
Drainage area (acres) 7
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend II
FEMA zone Classification X
NC SAM Rating Medium
UT2B

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 11
UT3
UT3 originates just upstream of the Swaim property near King Billings Road. It flows south onto the
Swaim property and through a wooded area where the stream is stable and in good condition. After
entering the project area, UT3 flows into an existing farm pond (Pond B) with a dam that is in poor
condition. The original pond outlet structure has been destroyed and the earthen dam is now partially
breached. All outflow now exits the pond through the breach and has created a head cut from UT3 to
the dam. The dam is covered with trees, is seeping, and is in imminent danger of failing. Immediately
downstream of the dam, the UT3 channel has been abandoned due to the breach and head cut. The
outflow eventually flows back into the UT3 channel approximately 200 feet downstream of the dam.
The stream then flows through a short section of forest and into open pasture, where it is incised (2.1
bank height ratio) and the banks have been heavily trampled by cattle. The stream appears to have been
channelized through the cattle pasture; it is somewhat over-widened and has a sinuosity of
approximately 1.0 despite the valley being only moderately confined.

Reach Summary Information – UT3
Parameters UT23
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 1,281
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined
Drainage area (acres) 96
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) G4/C4
Evolutionary Trend III
FEMA zone Classification X
NC SAM Rating Low
UT3 UT3

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 12
UT4
UT4 originates off the project property to the west and is impounded by a farm pond approximately 200
feet upstream of the project property. It flows through a fairly tight valley that becomes less confined as
it reaches the floodplain of Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4. Cattle have access to the entire length of UT4
within the project property. There are a few scattered trees within the UT4 buffer zone, which cattle use
as shade, and some adjacent herbaceous vegetation, which is grazed. UT4 is generally vertically and
laterally stable, although the upstream portion appears to be somewhat incised.
3.4 Existing Wetlands
On November 19-21, 2018, Wildlands investigated the extent of Waters of the United States within the
project area. All jurisdictional resources were located by sub-meter accurate GPS or conventional
survey. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) issued the Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination on
June 21, 2020. The supporting forms are included in Appendix 3. The Preliminary JD is also included in
Appendix 3.
There are 17 jurisdictional wetland features located within the project area (Figure 6). Jurisdictional
wetland features exhibited evidence of prolonged saturation within the upper 12 inches of the soil
profile, a low chroma soil matrix, and wetland plant communities. Each wetland was evaluated using the
North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM). All wetlands are the headwater forest type
except for Wetland O which classifies as the bottomland hardwood forest type. Wetlands generally
scored low for the hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions and low for the overall wetland
ratings. Wetland O was an exception which scored medium for hydrology and water quality functions,
low for the habitat function, and medium for the overall rating. Poor wetland quality at the site is due
Reach Summary Information – UT4
Parameters UT24
Length of Reach (Linear Feet) 128
Valley confinement (Confined, moderately confined, unconfined) Moderately Confined
Drainage area (acres) 21
Perennial, Intermittent, Ephemeral Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Classification C
Stream Classification (Existing and Proposed) B4/B4
Evolutionary Trend II
FEMA zone Classification X
NC SAM Rating High
UT4 UT4

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 13
streams infrequently accessing floodplains, livestock trampling and waste inputs, lack of appropriate
riparian vegetation structure and species, and limited water storage capability. NCWAM forms are
provided in Appendix 3. Wetlands B, E, F, G, I, P, and Q appear to have formed as a result of stream
incision, overwidening, and bank trampling as they occur between the current ordinary high water mark
and historic floodplain elevation. Wetland N and portions of Wetland C are hydrologically supported by
backwater from the Swaim Pond (Pond B) and the Wood Pond (Pond A). Wetlands L and M are shallow
ditch features that previously served to convey discharge from the Swaim Pond (Figure 6).
3.5 Existing Vegetation
The site is a maintained cattle pasture with mature trees mainly growing along Big Bugaboo Creek.
Herbaceous vegetation that can be found throughout the site are tall fescue (Schedonorus
arundinaceus), cut-grass (Leersia oryzoides), juncus (Juncus effuses), and white clover (Trifolium repens).
The riparian vegetation is shown in Table 5 below by stream.
Table 5: Existing Riparian Vegetation
Scientific Name Common Name Big Bugaboo
Creek UT1 UT2 UT2A UT2B UT3 UT4
Acer rubrum Red Maple X X X
Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven* X
Betula nigra River Birch X
Fraxinus pennsylvanica Green Ash X
Glechoma hederacea Creeping Charlie* X
Ilex opaca American Holly X X X
Ligustrum sinense Chinese Privet* X X X
Liriodendron tulipifera Tulip Poplar X X
Melia azedorach Chinaberry* X
Oxydebdrum arboreum Sourwood X
Platanus occidentalis American Sycamore X X
Quercus rubra Red Oak X X X
Rosa multiflora Multiflora Rose* X X X
Rubus allegheniensis Blackberry X
Smilax rotundifolia Green Brier X X X
*Invasive Species
3.6 Utilities, Site Access, and Site Constraints
A power utility right-of-way crosses UT2 just upstream of the confluence with UT2A and continues east
to also cross UT2A near its headwaters. Utility crossings will be fenced with gates on both sides and
there will be no crossing features for the stream channel. There will also be three internal easement
breaks for culvert crossings (Table 6). Maintenance of crossings will be the responsibility of the
landowner once the project is closed by the regulatory agencies (IRT) and transferred to NCDEQ
stewardship. These are on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 5 just upstream of their
confluence as well as Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 just upstream of the confluence with UT3. All three
culvert crossings will be fenced and gated. The Site can be accessed via a driveway leading to the Wood
property from King Billings Road.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 14
Table 6: Easement Breaks and Crossings
No. Width (ft) Location Internal or
External Crossing Type Existing/New/
Replacement
1 40 UT2 Reach 2 Internal Utility Existing
2 40 UT2A Internal Utility Existing
3 50 UT2 Reach 5 Internal Culvert New
4 50 Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 2 Internal Culvert Replacement
5 50 Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 3 Internal Culvert Replacement

3.7 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification
The main stressors on the site are cattle access to streams, removal or narrowing of riparian buffers,
runoff from agricultural fields, installation of farm ponds, and some historical channelization of streams.
These stressors have led to degraded aquatic habitat and bed forms, erosion of stream banks, head
cutting, and disconnection of streams from floodplains. Water quality problems created by these
stressors include sedimentation, bacteria entering the system from livestock waste, channel erosion and
pasture runoff, increases in water temperatures, and decreased dissolved oxygen. These ecological
problems are very similar to those described in the watershed planning documents discussed in Section
2 above. These problems will be reduced or eliminated through the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to floodplains.
• Eliminating bank erosion and associated pollutants.
• Providing grade control in streams to eliminate head cutting.
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and filter runoff and overbank
flows.
• Removing farm ponds to restore hydrology, lotic habitats, and fish passage
• Installing stormwater BMPs to treat runoff from adjacent pastures.
• Fencing out livestock.
• Protecting the site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 4 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for the
project and in greater detail in Section 6, where the project site mitigation plan is outlined. Another
potential benefit to the project is wetland enhancement and potential bog turtle habitat that may
develop as a result of raising of the stream beds.
The project offers an excellent opportunity for ecological uplift with low risk of failure (Section 3.8
below). Project risks and uncertainties are described in the next section. The risks most likely to cause
real problems are all manageable. Therefore, the uplift potential given the site constraints is very high.
There is little concern that if the site is properly constructed and maintained that the project goals will
not be met.
3.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
The level of overall risk on this project is low. Due to the rural nature of the surrounding area, it is
unlikely that large tracts of land will be developed in the project watersheds. All of the project streams
except for UT3 and UT4 originate on the project property and the project watersheds are also mostly
within the property. There is very little timbering or development that could occur that would affect the
project. Foreseeable problems that may arise on the site include easement encroachments, large floods,
beaver activity, spreading of invasive species, and sedimentation due to agricultural practices on

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 15
adjacent lands. The main area of concern for easement encroachments is on the Swaim property
adjacent to UT3 because this is the only area where there will be no fencing adjacent to an area that is
routinely mowed or planted with crops. Wildlands will install closely spaced (approximately every 50
feet) easement signs along the boundary in this location and work with the landowner to make sure
they do not mow within the easement. If necessary, Wildlands will install horse tape between the signs
to show the easement boundary. Large floods will eventually occur on the site, but the grade control
structures and bank revetments are designed to handle large flows. There is a dam approximately 200
feet upstream of UT4 on an adjacent property. The dam currently appears to be in good condition but
there is a possibility of failure at some point in the future. While there have been no indications of
beaver activity on the site that Wildlands is aware of, there is potential for beaver dams after
construction. Wildlands will contract with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to
remove beaver from the site and dismantle the dams. There are invasive species on the site as noted in
Table 5. Wildlands will do pre-construction treatment of these species and will provide ongoing
treatments as needed throughout the monitoring period. Adjacent crop fields are located to the west
and north of some project reaches creating some potential for sedimentation in project streams due to
runoff from these fields. While this is not expected to be a significant problem, wildlands will monitor
this situation and take steps to remedy any problems with sedimentation that occur.
4.0 Goals and Objectives
The overall goal for stream restoration elements of the project is to restore natural/historical functions
to degraded stream channels. The overall goal of enhancement reaches is to enhance specific aquatic
resource functions. The specific goals and objectives for this mitigation site have been carefully
developed so that the project results in 1) alleviation of the specific watershed stressors discussed in
Section 2 above and 2) provides maximum ecological uplift to project streams and riparian zones. The
goals and objective for this project are described in Table 7 below.
Table 7: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objectives Expected Outcomes
Improve the stability
of stream channels
Construct stream channels that will
maintain a stable pattern and profile
considering hydrologic and sediment
inputs to the system; install bank
revetments and grade control; install
bank vegetation.
Reduce erosion and sediment inputs;
maintain appropriate bed forms and
sediment size distribution; support water
quality and habitat goals.
Reconnect channels
with floodplains and
riparian wetlands
Reconstruct stream channels with
appropriate bankfull dimensions and
depth relative to the existing floodplain.
Reduce shear stress on channel; hydrate
adjacent wetland areas and vernal pools;
filter pollutants out of overbank flows;
provide surface storage of water on
floodplain; increase groundwater recharge
while reducing outflow of stormwater;
support water quality and habitat goals.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 16
Goal Objectives Expected Outcomes
Improve instream
habitat
Install habitat features such as cover logs,
log sills, and brush toes into
restored/enhanced streams. Add woody
materials to channel beds. Construct a
variety of riffle features and pools of
varying depth. Fence out livestock.
Support biological communities and
processes. Provide aquatic habitats for
diverse populations of aquatic organisms.
Improve water quality
Stabilize stream banks. Plant riparian
buffers with native trees. Construct BMPs
to treat pasture runoff. Fence out
livestock.
Reduce sediment and nutrient inputs from
stream banks; reduce sediment, nutrient,
and bacteria inputs from pasture runoff;
keep livestock out of streams, further
reducing pollutants in project streams.
Restore/improve
riparian buffers
Plant native tree species in riparian zones
where currently insufficient.
Provide a canopy to shade streams and
reduce thermal loadings; stabilize stream
banks and floodplain; support water
quality and habitat goals.
Permanently protect
the project site from
harmful uses
Establish conservation easements on the
Site
Ensure that development and agricultural
uses that would damage the site or reduce
the benefits of the project are prevented.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 17
5.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 8, below, is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site. A Categorical Exclusion (included
Appendix 4 along with agency correspondence) for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site was submitted
to DMS on November 5, 2018 and approved on November 7, 2018.
Table 8: Project Attribute Table Part 4
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404 Yes Yes PCN1
Water of the United States - Section 401 Yes Yes PCN
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 4
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance No N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PCN to be provided to DMS with Final Mitigation Plan
5.1 401/404
Many of the Site wetlands are within the floodplain adjacent to the existing streams and will be partially
impacted during realignment of the stream channel. Two open water features (Pond A and Pond B) and
Wetlands C and N formed behind man-made dams. The design includes removal of the man-made dams
and restores the valley and stream channel through the area that is currently backwatered. A portion of
Wetlands C and N and the entirety of both open water features will be permanently impacted by the
dam removal. These features are currently at risk of loss if the dams fail.
The impacts to wetland and open water features are summarized below in Table 9. Detailed, itemized
impacts are provided in the PCN.
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional
Feature Classification Acreage Permanent or
Temporary Type of Activity Impact Area
(acres)
Pond A Open Water 2.973 Permanent Dam removal, stream
realignment 2.973
Pond B Open Water 2.158 Permanent Dam removal, stream
realignment 2.158
Wetlands A-Q
Headwater Forest,
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
6.612 Permanent Channel Relocation,
Pond Removal 1.238
Wetlands A-Q
Headwater Forest,
Bottomland
Hardwood Forest
6.612 Temporary
Floodplain Grading,
Haul Road, Bank
Grading
1.050
5.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The site is represented on the Wilkes County Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) Panels 4902 and 4904,
both with an effective date of March 2, 2009. None of the project streams are mapped as Special Flood
Hazard Areas (SFHA); all streams within the project limits are located in Zone X. Wildlands will
coordinate with the Wilkes County floodplain administrator to obtain the appropriate floodplain
development permit for the project, if required.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 18
There is no concern for hydrologic trespass on adjacent properties as a result of this project. All of the
project streams except for UT3 originate on the project parcels. The stream work on UT3 will be
constructed far downstream of the property line and there is approximately 15 feet of drop between
the property line and the work area. Due to the slopes of the streams and valleys, there is no possibility
of creating wetlands on upstream properties.
6.0 Project Site Mitigation Plan
6.1 Design Overview
The design for this mitigation site (Figure 7) was developed to maximize the potential uplift described in
Section 3.7 above. The approaches for each reach were initially devised by Wildlands but some
approaches were modified as a result of IRT input during the post-contract site walk conducted on
September 26, 2018. Meeting notes from that site walk are included in Appendix 5. Three approaches
will be used for the project reaches including stream enhancement I, stream enhancement II, and
stream restoration. The least amount of manipulation will be performed on the enhancement II reaches.
Enhancement II activities will primarily consist of fencing out livestock, planting riparian buffer zones,
and repairing localized bank erosion/instability. Enhancement I activities will include fencing out
livestock, planting riparian buffer zones, adding structure to the bed, localized reshaping of channel
dimensions, and cutting a floodplain bench to allow flows higher than the design bankfull discharge to
access the floodplain. Restoration will involve the most extensive manipulation and activities will include
rebuilding the channel with the appropriate dimensions, plan view pattern, and profile to transport the
water and sediment loads. Bed features including riffles, pools, cascades, and step-pool sequences will
be constructed. The cascades and step-pool sequences are necessary due to the high slopes of many of
the design reaches. Grade control structures such as log sills will be added to the beds to protect against
future degradation and revetments such as brush toe and log vanes will be used to protect restored
stream banks. Restored reaches will be reconnected with their floodplains and existing wetlands will be
recharged by the raising of channel beds. Livestock will be fenced out and riparian buffer zones will be
planted. The entire project area will be protected by a conservation easement. Specific mitigation
activities are listed below by reach in Table 10.
Table 10: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach Primary Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 1
Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lateral instability, poor
buffer quality/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement; pocket wetland at
upstream end
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 2
Cattle access, some erosion and
trampling, lack of buffer,
significant wallow area
EI
Restoring dimension and profile, replanting
buffers, fencing out cattle, protecting with
conservation easement
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3
Cattle access, erosion and
trampling, incision,
channelization, in-line farm pond
lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 4
Cattle access, erosion and
trampling, some incision,
channelization, lateral instability,
poor quality buffer
EI
Fencing out cattle, creating floodplain bench,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 19
Project Reach Primary Stressors/Impairments Approach Mitigation Activities
UT1
Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, incision, poor quality
buffer/lack of buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement, pocket wetland at
upstream end
UT2 Reach1 Cattle access, isolated erosion
and trampling, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, bank repairs where needed,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement, ephemeral step-pool stabilization at
upstream end
UT2 Reach 2
Cattle access, isolated erosion
and trampling, some incision,
lack of buffer
EI
Restoring dimension and profile, fencing out
cattle, replanting buffers, protecting with
conservation easement
UT2 Reach 3 Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2 Reach 4
Isolated erosion and cattle
trampling, some lateral
instability, lack of buffer
EI
Bank grading to reshape channel, bank repairs
where needed, fencing out cattle, replanting
buffers, protecting with conservation easement
UT2 Reach 5 Erosion and cattle trampling,
incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2A Reach 1 Cattle Access, active head cutting
at headwaters, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement, ephemeral step-
pool stabilization at upstream end
UT2A Reach 2 Severe erosion and cattle
trampling, incision, lack of buffer R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT2B Cattle Access, some erosion and
trampling, lack of buffer EII
Fencing out cattle, bank repairs where needed,
replanting buffers, protecting with conservation
easement
UT3
Erosion and cattle trampling,
some incision, channelization,
lateral instability, active head
cutting of farm pond dam, lack of
buffer
R
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile;
replanting buffers; fencing out cattle; protecting
with conservation easement
UT4 Cattle access, some incision,
sparse, narrow buffer EII Fencing out cattle, replanting buffers, protecting
with conservation easement
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference reaches were selected from Wildlands’ reference database and other sources to develop the
range of design parameters for each of the design streams. References were selected for specific design
reaches based on design stream type and similarities in drainage area, slope, and physical
characteristics. Design reaches were separated into three groups based on the similarities between
these characteristics and a distinct set of reference reaches was selected to describe each group.
Reference reach information is provided in Table 11. More detailed reference reach geomorphic data
are included in Appendix 6. Six additional reference reaches were used along with those in Table 11 to
create the reference reach regional curve for the discharge analysis discussed in Section 6.3. Locations
of reference reaches are shown on Figure 8.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 20
Table 11: Reference Reach Summary
Design
Stream
Group 1
(Big Bugaboo Creek R1, UT1, UT2
R2, UT2A R2)
Group 2
(Big Bugaboo Creek R2,
UT2 R3-R5, UT3)
Group 3
(Big Bugaboo Creek R3-R4)
Reference
Reach
Shrew
Trib A
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Magnolia
Trib R1
LKN Group
Camp Trib –
US
UT to
Varnals
Creek
UT to
Catawba
River
UT to
Lyle
Creek
County Wilkes Wilkes McDowell Wilkes Iredell Alamance Catawba Catawba
Reference
Type
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Discharge
Pattern,
Profile
Pattern,
Profile,
Discharge
Region Piedmont Piedmont
Inner
Piedmont
Belt
Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont Piedmont
Basin Yadkin Yadkin Broad
River Yadkin Catawba Cape
Fear Catawba Catawba
Drainage
Area (sq. mi.) 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.31 0.10 0.41 1.60 0.25
Stream Type A5 B4 B4/B4a B4c E5b C4/E4 E3b/C3b C5
Bkf Q (cfs) 3.5 17 23 64 12 54 80 18
Sinuosity 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.26 1.6 1.2 1.1 1.1
Valley Slope
(ft/ft) 0.05 0.04 0.049 0.017 0.023 0.02 0.029 0.009
Channel
Slope (ft/ft)
0.03 –
0.065 0.03 0.03 –
0.065 0.016 0.017 0.017 0.027 0.004
D50 (mm) 2 6.5 - 28 5.2 15 75.9 0.2

6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional
curve data (Harman et al. 2003 and Walker, unpublished), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) gage sties, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a
design discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. Slightly larger design
discharges relative to drainage areas were established for the upper reaches of Big Bugaboo Creek and
small tributaries to drive designs of slightly larger channels for these reaches. This design consideration
helps prevent channels from clogging with vegetation and then accumulating sediment after
construction. Results of each method and the final design discharges are shown in Tables 12 and 13 and
illustrated in Figure 9.
Table 12: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Big Bugaboo Creek
Discharge Estimate Method
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 1
(35.5 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 2
(73.9 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 3
(196.0 ac)
Big
Bugaboo
Creek
Reach 4
(321.6 ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 11 19 38 54
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve 5.7 10 22 32

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 21
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year
event 9.2 16 32 47
1.5-year
event 14 23 47 67
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 13 21 38 52
Final Design Q 12.4 20.4 34.0 48.3

Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis for Tributaries
Discharge Estimate Method UT1
(6.6 ac)
UT2
Reach 2
(16.2 ac)
UT2
Reach 3
(43.7 ac)
UT2
Reach 5
(65.3 ac)
UT2A
Reach 2
(16.5 ac)
UT3
(96.5 ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 3.3 6.3 13 17 6.3 23
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve 1.5 3.1 6.9 9.3 3.1 13
Regional Flood Frequency
Analysis (cfs)
1.2-year
event 2.7 5.2 11 14 5.2 19
1.5-year
event 4.0 7.8 16 21 7.9 28
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs) 4.6 8.1 15 19 8.2 25
Final Design Q 3.9 7.2 14.6 18.8 7.3 24.6

6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for
each of the enhancement I and restoration reaches. Key morphological parameters are summarized in
Tables 14-16. Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 6.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 22
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 1
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R1
UT1 UT2
R2
UT2A
R2
Shrew
Trib A
Timber
Trib R1
UT to
Kelly
Branch
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R1
UT1 UT2
R2
UT2A
R2
Valley Width (ft) 30-60 70-120 20-35 20-40 - - - 30-60 70-120 20-35 20-40
Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
35.5 6.6 16.2 16.5 12.8 25.6 51.2 35.5 6.6 16.2 16.5
Channel/Reach
Classification F4b B4 A4 A4 A5 B4 B4/B4a B4 B4 B4 B4a
Design Discharge
Width (ft) 11.3 11.6 4.7 4.6 3.6 8.9 7.9 6.5 4.2 5.3 5.1
Design Discharge
Depth (ft) 0.3 0.2 0.5 0.4 0.5 0.7 1.1 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.4
Design Discharge
Area (ft2) 3.5 2.7 2.3 1.9 1.1 4.6 5.7 3.3 1.4 2.1 2.0
Design Discharge
Velocity (ft/s) 3.1 2.6 3.8 4.4 3.3 3.7 5.9 3.8 2.9 3.4 3.7
Design Discharge
(cfs) 10.9 6.9 8.5 8.3 3.5 17.0 23.0 12.4 3.9 7.2 7.3
Channel Slope
(ft/ft) 0.033 0.035 0.052 0.049 0.063 0.033 0.065 0.034 0.036 0.039 0.045
Sinuosity 1.04 1.01 1.14 1.04 1.1 1.1 1.2 1.02 1.0 1.05 1.03
Width/Depth
Ratio 36.3 50.7 9.7 11.3 12.1 17.0 10.9 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Bank Height
Ratio 3.3 5.0 1.4 4.8 1.0 1.0 2.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment
Ratio 1.2 1.7 1.8 2.5 2.1 1.5 1.2 >1.4 >1.4 >1.4 >1.4
d50 (mm) 37 36 29 18 2.0 6.5 - - - - -

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 23
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 2
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference
Parameters Proposed Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R2
UT2
R3
UT2
R4
UT2
R5 UT3 Magnolia
Trib 1
LKN
Group
Camp
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R2
UT2 R3 UT2 R4 UT2
R5 UT3
Valley Width
(ft) 30-80 35-55 40-
125
40-
140
60-
110 - - 30-80 35-55 40-
125
40-
140
60-
110
Contributing
Drainage Area
(acres)
73.9 47.3 45.2 65.3 96.5 194.4 65.7 73.9 47.3 45.2 65.3 96.5
Channel/Reach
Classification B4 B4 B4 F4b G4 B4c E5 B4 B4 B4 C4b C4
Design
Discharge
Width (ft)
4.2 9.3 9.3 9.3 6.6 15.6 4.2-4.4 9 7.1 7.1 8.8 9.5
Design
Discharge
Depth (ft)
0.8 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.8 1.0 0.8 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.7
Design
Discharge Area
(ft2)
3.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.3 16 3.4-3.6 6.0 3.8 3.8 5.5 6.8
Design
Discharge
Velocity (ft/s)
4.2 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.1 4.0 3.5 3.6 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.7
Design
Discharge (cfs) 14.1 13.8 13.8 13.8 21.7 64 12.2 20.4 14.6 14.6 18.8 24.6
Channel Slope
(ft/ft) 0.023 0.027 0.037 0.020 0.020 0.016 0.017 0.021 0.027 0.027 0.017 0.016
Sinuosity 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.01 1.04 1.26 1.6 1.02 1.04 1.04 1.06 1.21
Width/Depth
Ratio 5.3 21.4 21.4 21.4 8.3 15.2 5.2-5.5 13.5 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0
Bank Height
Ratio 1.6 3.6 3.6 3.6 2.1 1.6 0.9-1.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment
Ratio 3.9 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.4 1.9 2.0-2.5 >1.4 >1.4 >.14 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 17 20 20 20 28 28 5.2 - - - - -

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 24
Table 16: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for Reference Group 3
Parameter
Existing Parameters Reference Parameters Proposed
Parameters
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R3
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R4
UT to
Varnals
Creek
UT to
Catawba
River R2
UT to
Lyle
Creek
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R3
Big
Bugaboo
Creek R4
Valley Width (ft) 100-180 100-220 - - - 100-180 100-220
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres) 196.0 321.6 262.4 1024.0 160.0 196.0 321.6
Channel/Reach Classification B4 F4 C4/E4 E3b/C3b C5 C4b C4b
Design Discharge Width (ft) 6.0 18.6 9.3-10.5 12.3 7.0 10.4 11.8
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1.1 0.8 1.1-1.2 1.1 0.47 0.8 0.9
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 6.6 14.1 10.3-12.3 13.2 3.5-4.1 8.2 10.3
Design Discharge Velocity
(ft/s) 5.3 3.9 4.4-5.2 6.1 4.7 4.2 4.7
Design Discharge (cfs) 34.9 54.5 54 80 18 34.0 48.3
Channel Slope (ft/ft) 0.023 0.016 0.017 0.027 0.004 0.018 0.020
Sinuosity 1.01 1.03 1.2 1.1 1.1 1.16 1.02
Width/Depth Ratio 5.4 24.6 8.1-9.3 11.5 14.9 13.0 14.0
Bank Height Ratio 2.6 2.7 1.0-1.0 0.8-1.3 0.6-0.9 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.5 1.2 5.7-10.0 4.3 5.7-6.4 >2.2 >2.2
d50 (mm) 25 49 15 75.9 0.2 - -

6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
A qualitative assessment of sediment supply and sources in the project watershed was performed based
on visual inspection and review of historic aerial photos. The watershed assessment indicates that the
watershed is stable and there is no reason to believe that land use will change significantly in the
foreseeable future. Due to the rural nature of the watershed, the stable land use, and the lack of
sediment accumulation in the project streams, the sediment load to the project streams is expected to
be low and stable. BMPs at the upstream ends of UT2 and UT2A will stabilize eroding areas that
contribute sediment to those streams and pocket wetland features above UT1 and Big Bugaboo Creek
will capture sediment that would go into those streams. As a result, design channels are expected to
remain stable and pass the sediment delivered from the watershed.
A competence analysis was performed to analyze the ability of the proposed streams to transport the
sizes of sediment supplied to them. The results of the competence analysis are shown in Tables 17 and
18. The competence analysis on these reaches indicates that the reaches will be able to transport the
sediment supplied to them by the watersheds.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 25
Table 17: Results of Competence Analysis
Parameter Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 1
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3
Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 4
Abkf (sq ft) 3.3 6.0 8.2 10.3
Wbkf (ft) 6.5 9.0 10.4 11.8
Dbkf (ft) 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.9
Schan (ft/ft) 0.034 0.021 0.018 0.020
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.7
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 1.02 0.85 0.86 1.07
Movable particle size (mm) 80 66 66 84
Largest particle from bar sample (mm) 30 -- 30 --
Table 18: Results of Competence Analysis
Parameter UT1 UT2 Reach 3 UT2 Reach 5 UT2A Reach 2 UT3
Abkf (sq ft) 1.4 3.8 5.5 2.0 6.8
Wbkf (ft) 4.2 7.1 8.8 5.1 9.5
Dbkf (ft) 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7
Schan (ft/ft) 0.036 0.027 0.017 0.045 0.016
Bankfull Velocity (fps) 2.9 3.9 3.4 13.7 3.7
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft) 0.69 0.87 0.63 1.07 0.70
Movable particle size (mm) 53 67 48 84 54
Largest particle from bar sample (mm) -- -- 50 -- --

6.6 Design Summary
Below are descriptions of the designs for each of the reaches. The entire site will include include fencing
out cattle, planting riparian buffers with native tree species, and permanent protection by a
conservation easement.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Restoration
Reach 1 of Big Bugaboo Creek begins directly below an existing headcut that has been formed by
shallow concentrated flow over cattle pasture. The reach flows from the east-northeast until it reaches
the confluence with UT1. The reach is proposed as restoration and a new channel will be rebuilt mostly
offline within the existing valley as a Rosgen B4 type stream with a Priority 1 approach. As is common
with natural B-type channels, the sinuosity of the restored channel will be very low. The alignment will
be designed to limit impacts to existing riparian wetlands and, due to the steepness of the reach, many
wood and stone drop structures will be used. An eroding headcut exists upstream of the jurisdictional
channel. A pocket wetland BMP will be installed above the headcut to treat runoff from surrounding
pastures. A rock-lined swale will convey flow out of the BMP to Reach 1 and stabilize the existing
headcut.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 – Enhancement I
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 begins at the confluence with UT1 and flows from the northeast until the
confluence with UT2. Some sections of the channel require only minor repairs, planting, and livestock
exclusion in order to restore functionality. Other sections of the reach will be rebuilt as a B4 stream type
with low sinuosity and confined to the extents of the incised existing channel. This reach is proposed as
enhancement 1 due to the combination of restoration and enhancement II approaches. As with Reach 1,

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 26
wood and stone drop structures will be used extensively throughout. The existing culvert crossing on
this reach will be replaced with a new crossing utilizing a much larger culvert. The larger culvert will
better accommodate fish passage and high stream flows.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Restoration
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 begins at the confluence with UT2, just upstream of an in-line farm pond
(Pond A) and at the downstream end of a wetland complex. It travels through a relatively unconfined
valley with slopes ranging from 1.4 to 2.7 percent and was designed as a C4b type stream. Due to the
relatively high slopes for a C type stream, drop structures and bank revetments will be utilized for grade
control and bank protection. The Pond A dam will be removed. The upstream portion of Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach 3 will be constructed along the old pond bottom, mostly on existing grade other than at the
very upstream downstream ends of the pond. In these locations, sediment wedges will be removed in
order to return the channel to its original, pre-impounded grade. These sediment accumulations will be
removed and spread on adjacent fields. Along the channel corridor through the pond, existing substrate
will be removed and replaced with compacted fill material from the dam or other borrow areas. This will
create more stable bed material in which to cut the channel while leaving the adjacent floodplains
comprised of material from the pond bed. This will likely result in wetland features adjacent to the
channel. The dam will be completely removed to the original valley side slopes. Downstream of the dam,
the channel appears to have been channelized and realigned to the valley’s edge while a wetland
complex occupies much of the center of the valley. In this area, the proposed pattern avoids existing
trees and mostly follows a slight ridge that travels the length of the valley. Bankfull elevations were set
at or above minimum wetland grades and floodplain grading will tie into existing grades in a manner
that minimizes impacts to the existing wetlands. There is a proposed internal culvert crossing
approximately 350 feet upstream of the confluence with UT3.
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 – Enhancement 1
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 begins at the confluence of Big Bugaboo Creek and UT3 and extends to the
southern boundary of the property. The reach was designed as a C4 type channel with narrow belt width
as it is confined primarily to the extents of the over-widened existing channel due to a large wetland
(wetland O) on the left floodplain and steep hill slopes on the right floodplain. Reach 4 will transition
from a priority 1 restoration upstream of the wetland to an on-line priority 2 approach through the first
half of the reach. After transitioning to the existing bed grade, the channel will follow the existing
channel alignment for the remainder of the reach. A bankfull bench will be constructed on either side of
the on-line channel segment within the incised existing channel to reduce shear stress during storm
events. The adjacent wetland (Wetland O, Figure 6) on the left floodplain will be protected by the
conservation easement. Rock stabilization will be used to protect the confluence with UT4.
UT1 - Restoration
UT1 begins at the point where the channel transitions from ephemeral to intermittent. As with Big
Bugaboo Creek Reach 1, this transition occurs directly below an existing headcut formed by shallow
concentrated flow over cattle pasture. The concentrated flow and headcut will be addressed by
constructing a small pocket wetland and stable outlet at the top of the reach. The reach flows from the
northeast and extends to the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. This reach is proposed as restoration
and the rebuilt channel will be tied into Big Bugaboo Creek at the approximate location of the current
confluence. New channel will be constructed mostly offline using a priority 1 approach. Due to the
steepness of this stream and the shape of the valley, the design Rosgen stream classification is B4.
UT2 Reach 1 – Enhancement II
UT2 Reach 1 also begins at the upstream extent of the intermittent channel. There is an ephemeral step-
pool stabilization measure to arrest an active headcut proposed for upstream of the jurisdictional

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 27
channel. This measure is proposed to eliminate erosion and a source of sediment and help maintain the
functions of existing wetlands adjacent to the ephemeral channel. The enhancement II reach begins with
a rock step pool to arrest another headcut with bank revetments at the downstream end. There will also
be some minor grading of hillslopes adjacent to the channel to stabilize erosion.
UT2 Reach 2 – Enhancement I
UT2 Reach 2 is a short section of EI near the confluence with UT2A. UT2 Reach 2 has been designed to
be a steep B type channel with the primary purposes of restoring dimension and profile as well as
providing a stable confluence with UT2A. The bed was raised to achieve priority 1 restoration on Reach 3
and it was designed mostly on-line with a short offline portion at the downstream end to create more
stable confluence conditions. Due to the steep grade that characterizes this reach, the design has
incorporated step pool sequences to dissipate energy and hold grade.
UT2 Reach 3 - Restoration
UT2 Reach 3 begins at the confluence with UT2A and ties into a large bedrock feature at the start of UT2
Reach 4. Although it is somewhat less steep than Reach 2, UT2 Reach 3 was also designed as a B type
channel that is moderately entrenched within the existing valley. Due to the lower slope and
occasionally more open valley, the UT2 Reach 3 design includes some subtle meander pattern where the
valley allows. Existing bankfull features were identified in the field and these features were used to
guide bankfull slopes and placement of bankfulll elevations.
UT2 Reach 4 – Enhancement I
UT2 Reach 4 is an enhancement 1 reach that is characterized by a series of bedrock features that serve
as effective grade control as well as a wetland that lines the right bank for approximately half of the
reach length. Although the profile appears stable, some erosion and bedform degradation is occurring
due to the cattle access. The proposed design will leave the bedrock features intact and will include the
addition of riffles in several areas where bedrock is not present. Bank grading will also be performed
where necessary to reshape the channel and increase the stability of streambanks.
UT2 Reach 5 - Restoration
The UT2 Reach 5 design contains elements of both a B4 type stream and a C4b type stream, at different
locations along the reach. It was designed to provide a gradual transition between the upstream B4 type
reaches and the downstream C4b type reaches. Reach 5 begins in a very tight and entrenched valley.
The valley is straight and there is little opportunity for meander pattern despite the relatively low slope,
so this portion of the reach employs in-line pools similar to natural B type channels. Approximately 150
feet downstream of the Reach 5 starting point, the valley becomes less entrenched and the design
incorporates slightly more meander pattern. In this configuration, bed form mostly follows pattern, with
C-type, asymmetrical pools in the arcs and riffles in the tangents. Continuing downstream, the meander
pattern becomes more pronounced and riffle-pool sequences become more regular as the valley allows
for a greater belt width. By the end of UT2 Reach 5, the design pattern closely resembles that of a
standard C type channel as it reaches the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. However, the slope
remains typical of a B stream until the final 100 feet of the reach as the channel enters a wetland
complex just upstream of the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. Bankfull elevations were set to
increase access to the floodplain during higher flows.
UT2A Reach 1 – Enhancement II
The headwaters of UT2A originate at the downstream end of a large head cut. Upstream of the
intermittent reach, the head cut will be stabilized with a step pool stabilization measure. UT2A Reach 1
is proposed as enhancement II as it flows through a stable wetland complex before the restoration reach
begins at a second head cut where the channel exits the wetland. Special consideration was taken to

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 28
include the wetland surrounding UT2A Reach 1 (Wetland D, Figure 6) in the conservation easement and
to protect the wetland by stabilizing bed erosion.
UT2A Reach 2 - Restoration
UT2A Reach 2 is incised throughout and flows through a tight, entrenched valley. The proposed
approach for this reach is restoration. The design channel will be a steep B4 type stream; bankfull slopes
mostly range from four to five percent and the stream has little ability to meander within the confined
valley. The in-line pools and step pool sequences that are typical of B systems will be utilized to dissipate
energy and drop grade in this steep reach. Many of the constructed riffles will feature angled log sills,
relatively large bed material, or a mixture of the two in order to control grade and protect the bed. The
bed will be raised to improve floodplain access. UT2A ties into UT2 at an identified existing bankfull
feature.
UT2B – Enhancement II
UT2B is a short enhancement II reach that flows into UT2 Reach 4. The main treatment for this reach will
be bank grading to stabilize an area of erosion. No channel realignment or raising of the bed will be
necessary to tie into UT2.
UT3 – Restoration
UT3 is proposed for restoration and begins just above the existing Pond B and flows south to the
confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek. UT3 is designed as a C4b type channel with meandering pattern and
a moderately steep profile through the existing pond bed. The pond will be removed and the channel
will be constructed with similar methods to the Pond A removal. Pond sediments along the channel
corridor will be removed, this material will be replaced with compacted fill material mostly from the
existing dam, and the restored channel will be constructed through the fill. The dam will be completely
removed. The reach downstream of the pond bed is slightly steeper with a narrower valley and will have
a less sinuous pattern. The majority of meander bends along this reach will be reinforced with bank
revetments. To preserve the function of the wetlands upstream of Pond B to the extent possible, the
designed channel bankfull profile has been kept near the existing grade to minimize changes in
groundwater patterns in the area around the channel. Approximately 140 feet downstream of the dam,
the channel flows off the project property and onto that of an adjacent, non-participating landowner,
before meandering back onto the project property approximately 70 feet further downstream. The
pattern was designed so that the adjacent landowner, whose property borders the right side of the
channel, could retain access to the channel as requested. On-line restoration will occur through this
section of UT3 in order to reconnect the channel with its natural floodplain while satisfying the non-
participating landowner. The remaining section of UT3 down to the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek
has been designed as a meandering C4b stream type and will be constructed mostly offline on the left
floodplain.
UT4 – Enhancement II
UT4 is a short channel that flows into Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 at the downstream end. This reach
was identified during the site assessment after the proposal and IRT site visit. It was determined to be
jurisdictional by the USACE. The reach is a natural, perennial stream channel that has a gravel and
cobble substrate that will provide good aquatic habitat once cattle are excluded. The only treatment on
this reach will be adding a rock outlet at the confluence with Big Bugaboo Reach 4 to protect a steep
section of the UT4 from headcutting in the future.
UT5 – Not for Credit
UT5 is a short reach (86 LF) that flows into Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1. This reach is not proposed for
credit. The only treatment proposed is to raise the bed on the channel sufficiently to create a stable tie-
in to Big Bugaboo Creek.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 29
UT6 – Not for Credit
UT6 is another short reach (244 LF) that is not proposed for credit. The reach flows into UT3 just below
the existing dam. This reach has very steep side slopes and the bank on the left will be laid back to
increase stability. It is not possible to lay back the right bank because it is up against a hill slope. The bed
will also be raised slightly to tie into UT3.
6.7 Planting Plan
The wetland and buffer planting zones will be planted bare root seedlings, at a maximum spacing of 12
feet, from the tops of bank to the extents of the conservation easement or extents of disturbance where
currently forested. Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 and Reach 4, UT2 Reach 5, and UT3 will be planted with a
single row of live stakes along both tops of banks of the riffles and the outside bends l at a linear spacing
of six feet. Both sides will also be planted with herbaceous plugs at normal baseflow stage at a linear
spacing of 3 feet along the outsides of bends and 4 feet-spacing along both sides of the riffles. For the
restoration and enhancement reaches on Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 and Reach 2, UT1, UT2 Reaches 2
through Reach 4, UT2A, and UT2B, a single row of live stakes will be planted offset 1-2 feet from the
tops of bank along both sides of the riffles and the outsides of bends at a linear spacing of 6 feet.
Herbaceous plugs will be planted between normal baseflow stage and tops of bank along outsides of
bends at a linear spacing of 6 feet and on both sides of locations where log or rock sills are keyed into
insides of bends. Permanent seed will be spread on streambanks, floodplain areas, and all disturbed
areas within the conservation easement. Construction is not expected to finish until April 2020. Planting
will fall outside the NCIRT recommended planting timeframe from November 15 through March 15
(NCIRT, 2016). However, planting will conclude before April 30, 2020. See Sheets 3.0 and 3.01 of the
construction plans for the species lists and planting zones layout.
Construction practices are intended to minimize effects to soil properties, but some impacts are
unavoidable. Ripping may be implemented to ameliorate soil compaction resulting from haul roads,
stockpile areas, etc. Areas of compacted soil such as haul roads will be ripped to a depth of 18 inches in
a grid-like pattern with a maximum rip shank spacing of six feet. Ripping will be performed during the
driest conditions feasible to maximize shatter of the plow pan. Where grading is required, topsoil will be
stockpiled and reapplied. Soil amendments may be incorporated to enhance survival and growth of
planted vegetation as determined necessary by soil testing.
There are infrequent occurrences of multi-flora rose on the site as well as a few other invasive species
(Table 5). The existing small rose plants will be treated and/or mechanically removed during
construction. Invasive species presence will be monitored and treated as necessary throughout the
monitoring period. Additional monitoring and management issues regarding vegetation are included in
Sections 10 and 11.
The pasture grass that occurs throughout the project includes tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea).
Wildlands will treat the existing fescue within the conservation easement to prevent any adverse effects
on tree growth. The treatment will be a part of the site management plan and will include spraying the
fescue throughout the easement with a boom sprayer and/or ring sprays around planted trees.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 30
7.0 Determination of Credits
The final stream credits associated with the Site are listed in Table 19. Stream restoration is at a length
to credit ratio of 1:1, enhancement I is at a ratio of 1.5:1, and enhancement II is at a ratio of 2.5:1.
Approximately 0.2% of project buffers do not meet the minimum 50-foot requirement due to the fact
that a short section of UT3 flows through the property of a non-participating landowner. The design
approach and credit ratio for UT2 Reach 4 was agreed upon at the post-contract IRT site walk. The credit
release schedule is located in Appendix 7.
Table 19: Determination of Credits
Mitigation Assets and Components
Project Segment
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Plan
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority
Level
Mitigation
Ratio (X:1) Notes
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 1 966 868 Cool R PI 1
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 2 1,070 981 Cool EI PI 1.5
50 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 3 1,602 1,764 Cool R PI 1
51 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
Big Bugaboo Creek
Reach 4 465 394 Cool EI PII 1.5
UT1 380 389 Cool R PI 1
UT2 Reach 1 506 505 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT2 Reach 2 124 80 Cool EI PI 1.5
44 ft. not for
credit due to
utility crossing
UT2 Reach 3 450 436 Cool R PI 1
UT2 Reach 4 314 314 Cool EI N/A 1.5
UT2 Reach 5 778 741 Cool R PI 1
50 ft. not for
credit due to
internal
crossing
UT2A Reach 1 211 135 Cool EII N/A 2.5
76 ft. not for
credit due to
utility crossing
UT2A Reach 2 450 445 Cool R PI 1
UT2B 168 168 Cool EII N/A 2.5
UT3 1,281 1,412 Cool R PI 1
70 ft. not for
credit due to
non-
participating
landowner
UT4 128 128 Cool EII N/A 4

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 31
Project Credits
Restoration Level Stream Riparian
Wetland Non-Riparian Wetland Coastal
Marsh Warm Cool Cold
Restoration 0 6055.000 0 0 0 0
Enhancement I 0 1179.333 0 0 0 0
Enhancement II 0 355.200 0 0 0 0
Preservation 0 0.000 0 0 0 0
Totals 0 7589.533 0 0 0 0
8.0 Performance Standards
The stream performance standards for the project will follow approved performance standards
presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (Version 2.3, June 2017), the Annual Monitoring
Template (June 2017), and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update issued October 2016 by the USACE and NCIRT. Annual monitoring and routine site visits will be
conducted by a qualified scientist to assess the condition of the finished project. Specific performance
standards that apply to this project are those described in the 2016 Compensatory Mitigation Update
including Vegetation (Section V, B, Items 1 through 3) and Stream Channel Stability and Stream
Hydrology Performance Standards (Section VI, B, Items 1 through 7). Table 20 summarizes performance
standards.
Table 20: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard
Dimension Cross-Section Survey BHR <1.2; ER <2.2 for C/E channels
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability
Substrate Pebble Counts Coarser material in riffles; finer particles in pools
Photo
Documentation
• Cross-Section Photos
• Photo Points
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks
No mid-channel bars, Stable grade control
Hydrology
Transducer Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate years
Flow Gage/ Transducer 30 days of consecutive flow on intermittent streams for each
year
Vegetation Vegetation Plots
• MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre,
• MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of
7 feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species will
be disregarded for average height calculations.
• MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of
10 feet in height in each plot. Subcanopy and shrub species
will be disregarded for average height calculations.
Visual Assessment CCPV Signs of encroachment, stream instability, invasive species
Wetlands Reverify the Extent of
Jurisdiction at MY5 None

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 32
9.0 Monitoring Plan
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Project monitoring requirements are shown in Table
21. Approximate locations of the proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 10.
Table 21: Monitoring Requirements
Parameter Monitoring Feature
Quantity/ Length by Reach
Frequency Notes Big Bugaboo
Creek Reach
1-4
UT1
UT2
Reach
2-5
UT2A
Reach
2
UT2B UT3
Dimension Riffle Cross Sections 5 1 3 1 N/A 2 Year 1, 2, 3,
5, & 7 Pool Cross Section 4 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1
Pattern Pattern N/A N/A 1 Profile Longitudinal Profile
Substrate Reach Wide (RW) 4 1 3 1 N/A 1 Year 1, 2, 3,
5, & 7
Hydrology
Crest Gauge /
Transducer 2 N/A 1 N/A N/A 1
Quarterly
2
Flow Gauge /
Transducer N/A 1 N/A 1 1 N/A
Vegetation CVS Level 2 15 Year 1, 2, 3,
5, & 7
Exotic and
Nuisance
Vegetation
Annual 3
Project
Boundary Annual 4
Reference
Photos Photographs 50 Annual
1. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits. Longitudinal profile will be collected during MY0 only,
unless observations indicate lack of stability and profile survey is warranted in additional years.
2. Crest gages and/or transducers will be inspected quarterly and downloaded, evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a
photo when possible. Transducers will be set to record stage once every four hours.
3. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped.
4. Locations of vegetation damage, boundary encroachments, etc. will be mapped
10.0 Long-Term Management Plan
The site will be transferred to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ)
Stewardship Program. This party shall serve as conservation easement holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct quarterly inspections of the site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an endowment
system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund Account. The
use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General Statue GS 113A-
232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of stewardship,
monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable. The Site Protection
Instrument can be found in Appendix 8 and financial assurances are in Appendix 9.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 33
11.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of site construction Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
protocols previously defined in this document. Project maintenance will be performed as described
Appendix 10. If, during the course of annual monitoring it is determined the site’s ability to achieve site
performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will notify the USACE of the need to develop a Plan of
Corrective Action. The Plan of Corrective Action may be prepared using in-house technical staff or may
require engineering and consulting services. Once the Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized
DMS will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions. This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Most of the planned land management activities will focus on improving the plant communities by
controlling invasive plant species. The majority of the site currently lies in cattle pasture comprised
largely of tall fescue with some Juncus and Carex species in lower lying areas. Multiflora rose also occurs
in some areas within the existing pasture. A small portion of the site contains some forested buffer with
a combination of native and invasive vegetation. Both the pasture and forested buffer will require
invasive plant control methods to support establishment of the target plant communities.
The tall fescue will impact planted tree survival through below ground competition and allelopathy
when it is a major component (>50%) of the plant community. Based on the existing plant community in
the pasture, Wildlands plans to have a flexible approach to reducing impacts of tall fescue on planted
trees. Areas where tall fescue is a major component of the plant community will either receive a
broadcast herbicide treatment prior to construction or ring sprays covering a two-foot radius around
every planted stem. Areas where tall fescue is a minor component of the pasture or where non-target
effects will be too high on desirable plants will not receive immediate fescue treatment but will be
monitored during the monitoring period and treated with ring sprays if necessary. The multiflora rose
mostly occurs within the existing valleys and will be removed mechanically during construction.
Invasive plant species present in the site’s forested areas include tree of heaven, chinaberry, Chinese
privet, and multiflora rose. These species will be treated using appropriate chemical control methods
including foliar spraying and/or cutting and treating. Tree of heaven and chinaberry treatment will be
prioritized before construction to limit seed dispersal and tree recruitment in the disturbed areas
created by construction activities. Wildlands will also monitor for additional invasive plants not currently
found on the Site and treat as necessary. Additionally, Wildlands will also monitor the Site for future
land management issues, such as floodplain erosion, bare areas, and damaged infrastructure, that may
arise during the monitoring period.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site DMS ID#: 100084
Final Mitigation Plan September 2020 Page 34
12.0 References
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
North Carolina Division of Water Resources, 2008. Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin Plan.
https://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/basin-planning/water-resource-
plans/yadkin-pee-dee-2008
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed_Planning/Yadkin_River_Basin/2009%20
Upper%20Yadkin%20RBRP_Final%20Final%2C%2026feb%2709.pdf
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.
http://ncdenr.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=a8281cbd24b84239b29cd2ca798d
4a10
North Carolina Interagency Review Team, 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. https://saw-reg.usace.army.mil/PN/2016/Wilmington-District-Mitigation-
Update.pdf
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC), 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan.
https://www.ncwildlife.org/plan#6718619-2015-wildlife-action-plan-document-downloads
Walker, Alan, unpublished. NC Rural Mountain and Piedmont Regional Curve.

Figures

®q
Waterfalls Creek Slopes
Pine Swamp Forest-Bog
Stone Mountain State Park
Doughton Park Natural Area
Mitchell River Headwaters
Waterfalls Creek Meadow Bog
Whitehead Meadow Bog
Skunk Cabbage Bogs
Brush Creek Bog
Laurel Branch Bog
Elkin Creek Meadow Bogs
Stone Mountain State Park
03040101060010
Holbrook Farm Complex
Elbert Crouse Farmstead Devotion Rural Historic District
Traphill Historic District
NC Agricultural Foundation Preserve
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
NC Clean Water ManagementTrust Fund Funded Project
Blue Ridge Conservancy Easement
Piedmont Land ConservancyChatham Forest
Stone Mountain State Park
Wilkes Co
0304010106003003040101060010
03040101070030
03040101070010
0304010108001005050001030030
05050001030020
03040101070020
03040101060040
03040101080030
03040101060020
03040101050010
03040101060050
03040101080020
03040101070050
03040101070050
Figure 1 - Vicinity MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 0 304010 1
Wilkes County, NC¹0 21 Miles
5 Mile Radius
Project Property
County Boundary
Hydrologic Unit C ode (14-digit)
Significant Natural Heritage Areas
NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
NC Historical Preservation Areas
Water Supply Watersheds
Targeted Local Watersheds
Municipalities
303d Listed Streams
Major Rivers
®q Airports
UT2B
UT2 UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Big Bugaboo Creek
Pond B
Pond A
Figure 2 - Site M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Existing Wetlands
Existing Pond
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s2018 Aerial Photography
UT2B7 acres
UT 265 acres
UT 2A17 acres
UT 17 acres
UT 396 acres
UT 418 acres
Big Bugaboo Creek322 acres
Figure 3 - Watershed MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 0106001,2 00 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Big Bugaboo Creek Watershed
Subwatershed
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s
4ft Contour2018 Aerial Photography
Figure 4 - USGS Topo graphic MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin River Basin 030 401 01
Wilkes County, NC
Traphill USGS 7.5 minute Topographic Quadrangle
¹
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
0 600300 Feet
Thurmond USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle
UT2B
UT2 UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
Bi
g
Bu
g
a
b
o
o
Cr
e
e
k
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Ponds A
Pond B
CoA
FcC2
FcC2
W
W
CoA
FaD
Figure 5 - Soils M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
CoA - Codorus loam (0-2% slopes)
FaD - Fairview sandy loam (1 5-2 5% slopes)
FcC2 - Fairview sandy clay loam (8-15% slopes)
W - Water
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s2018 Aerial Photography
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(!(
!(
UT2B
UT2
UT2A
UT1
UT3
UT4 Big Bugaboo CreekUT5
UT6
XS4
Big B
ugaboo Creek
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e kPond A
Pond B
O
H
C
K
A
D
I
E
B
N
J
F
Q
L
G
M
X
S
5
XS10
X S 8 XS2X S 7
X
S
1
XS3
XS13 XS15XS14 XS16XS18XS12XS11
XS17XS9
X
S
6
Figure 6 - Existing Co nditio ns MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Existing Pond
Existing Wetlands
Existing Utility Easement
Existing Project Stream s
Non-Project S tream s
Existing Conditions Cross-Sections
!(Reach Break2018 Aerial Photography
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
Reach 1
Reach 1
Reach 2
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
^_
^_Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
UT4UT2B
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2 UT2A
UT1
Big Bugaboo CreekUT3
Reach 1
UT6
UT5
Big B
u
g
a
b
o
o C
ree
k
B i g B u g a b o o C r e e k
Pond APond B
Figure 7 - Concept M apBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC
¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Internal C ro ssing
Pond
Proposed Wetland BMP
Stream Approach
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Existing Utility Easement
^_Proposed BMP
!(Reach Break2018 Aerial Photography
Remove ExistingFarm Pond
Ephemeral Step-PoolStabilization
Pocket We tland
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
40' ExternalUtility C rossing
##
##
##
##
##
######
^_
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Lake Norman Group Camp Upstream
UT to Varnals Creek
Shew Tributary A
Magnolia Tributary 1
UT to Lyle Creek
UT to Kelly Branch
UT to Catawba River R2
Timber Tributary R 1
0 10 20 Miles ¹Figure 8 - Reference Reach Vicinity MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
^_Project Location
##Reference Site
Figure 9 - Discharge Analysis GraphBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin River Basin 03040101
Wilkes County, NC
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
!A
^_
^_
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
!(
Reach 2
Reach 1
Reach 3
Reach 2
Reach 3
Reach 4
Reach 5
Reach 4
UT4UT2B
Reach 2
Reach 1
UT2 UT2A
UT1
Big Bugaboo CreekUT3Reach 1
UT6
UT5
Big B
u
g
a
b
o
o Creek
B ig B u g a b o o C r e e k
Pond B
Pond A
Figure 10 - Proposed Monitoring Com pon ents MapBug Headwaters M itigatio n SiteYadkin Basin 030 401 010350700Feet
Wilkes County, NC¹
Project Property
Proposed C onservation Easem ent
Internal C ro ssing
External Crossing
Pond
Proposed Wetland BMP
Existing Wetlands
Stream Approach
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
No Credit
Existing Utility Easement
Cross Section
GF Photo Points
!A Crest Gauge
!A Flow G age
Vegetation Plots
^_Proposed BMP
!(Reach Breaks2018 Aerial Photography
Remove ExistingFarm Pond
Ephemeral Step-Pool Stabilization
Pocket We tland
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
50' InternalCulvert Crossing
40' ExternalUtility C rossing

Appendix 1

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: � �
Project/Site: �)
Latitude:
Evaluator. .B`A.<o? �L t?
County: W*o
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral Intermittent rem
e.g._Quad Name:
if 2! 19 or perennial if >_ 30"
A. Geomor holo31y (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
- 0
--- -
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5, Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2.
3
8. Headcuts
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
- 1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5 :'
1
11. Second or greater order channel
o -
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. HVdrologV (Subtotal = �a )
12, Presence of Baseflow
0
1
( 9
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16, Organic debris lines or: plies
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
i e
C. Biology (Subtotal= aj
ream
18. Fibrous roots in st
bed 2 1 0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 1 2 3
21. Aquatic Mollusks (0 1 2 3
22, Fish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
25, Algae 0 1 1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed FACW BL = 1.5 Other = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch: I
1

t
NC DRIQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator: t
County: I•tt e
Longitude:
Total Points: _
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination fcIrcle one)
Other
if>_ 19 or perennial if>_ 30*
Ephemeral ermittent erennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomor holog (Subtotal = ( )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
13 Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
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
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
`1
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
8. Headcuts
4
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
_
1
, ...1,5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
-
Yes
artificial ditches are not rated; see dis ssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal=_ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No - 0
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1(40463) )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 ;.Other = 0
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p.
35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

k .V
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: � �
Project/Site: UTL 1p�\
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County: t`k -
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Deter ' circle one)
Other
Stream is at least Intermittent
if? 19 30"
E hemeral termitten Perennial
p
e. quad Name:
g'
or erenniallh_ v
A. Geomor holokJX (Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
la' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial "deposits
0
1
3
8. Headcuts 1
0
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5 �-
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
11. Second or greater order channel
- -
Yes = 3
artificial ditches are not rated; see discyssions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = _ I _ )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1 _
1.5
17, Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
G, biology Subtotal = -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2=5
"3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1
2
3
22, Fi'sh
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
4.0awP
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
=,OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
yr.l
Sketch:

Us
a
NC DWQ Stream Tdenfification Farm Versioji 4.11 '
Date:
Project/Site: et r
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determination (;�;N
Other
Stream is at feast intermittent
if z 19 or perennial if � 30
Ephemera! Intermittent
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal =3 )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1'"Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3, ln-channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Activelrelict floodplain
0
1
2
C31
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
r
3
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
8. Headcuts
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
11. Second or greater order channel
Yes - 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see di sions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseifow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
1
0
1.5
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No 0
es -'k
C. Biology (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
�
21. Aquatic Mollusks
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
-
0,5
1
25, Algae
0
0.5
1
1.
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5 <CStFter
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

''(.
NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: 1 : '
Project/Site: W2
Latitude:
Evaluator: , i¢'it(�,
County: -
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream Determin circle one)
Other
Stream is at least intermittent
Ephemeral ermitte Perennial
e.g, Quad Name:
if>_ 19 or perennial if z 30' o
A. GeomorifholoVL(Subtotal =
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1aContinuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
3
3. In -channel structure: ex, riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
2
- 3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
_ 0
-
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
2
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
_
2
3
9. Grade control
0
.5,
1
1.5
10.Naturalvalley
0
0:5
1
1:
11, Second or greater order channel
r
Yes =3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discus Ions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of BaseFlow
C.
0
1
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
1
2
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
1
0
15, Sediment on plants or debris
0
1
1,5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0,5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
es
Biology (Subtotal = -47_)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
-
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
O.n....�
2
3
_
21. Aquatic Mollusks
1�
2
3
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW
OBL = 1.5 Other = d
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: \i /%'Cj t
Project/Site: i6u tAu
Latitude:
Evaluator: C. t, W\
County: ( ci�fi b
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle one)
Ephemeral
Other
if a 19 or perennial if 2 30*
Intermittent Perennial
e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal =
artificial
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a'Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
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
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
_ 2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
2
3
B. 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
1
1.5
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
CL 1
11. Second or greater order channel
=_0_-�
Yes = 3
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
14. Leaf litter
_
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Q Yes = 3
G. Biology (Subtotal= !�3 A)
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
c2L22
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
3,
22, Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
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: � "t it 1 e
1N
f
�kb� wc
sIble Q�
y y
bAk Po Sketch:
QiCig(�4L
: aA% +t is
WWI j`.

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: /`('?y)r C✓
Project/Site:
Latitude:
Evaluator:
County:
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
IS
Stream Determination (cir
Ephemeral
Other
Intermitte erennia
e.g. quad Name:
if z 19 or perennial if>> 30' r
t c-
A. Geomor holo (Subtotal = �9c)
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
I" Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3 )
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0 -
'I
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
Cf fi',
2
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
_
0
1
- 2';�
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
<�2r-,
3
8. Headcuts
0
<77
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
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
�3
~
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
q-
1
3`
14. Leaf litter
1
0.5
0
_
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0D:.-
_
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 =`.
C. Biology (Subtotal
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
�:.;-�__5 _
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
~
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r _ 1`
1
2
3
22. Fish
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
_ ?
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
_
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5 Other = 0
`perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:(Alva g ItAl
VA
t
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: G°U ( 1
(4/
Project/Site: � L
Latitude:
Evaluator: � y
Gib((/`10
County:
Longitude:
r
f6k13
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circ
Other
if a 19 or perennial ifa
30*
Ephemeral Intermittent erend)e.g.
Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholo (Subtotal = )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
r�2�%°
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
COD
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
IF72 )
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
°`
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
f,
2
3
8. Headcuts
0
1
3
9. Grade control
0
- 0.5
$°;
1.5.
10. Natural valley
0
.5
f", 1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
i., No= 0 �•�`
Yes = 3
a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =s )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
ta�A
13, Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
'1...2 71
3
14, Leaf litter
1.5
4.10!s1
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 ater table?
No = 0
' Yes =,�,✓
C. Biology (Subtotal = )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
�' '1�;,3
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
r Q_
1
2
3
22. Fish
;1�0-
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
sue.
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
%;D;;,
0.5
1
1.5
25, Algae
':,Q,,-t
0.5
1
1.5
26, Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5� .it
*perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.
See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
Sketch:

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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name Big Bugaboo R1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/2018
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
Stream Site Name Big Bugaboo R2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Ma2
Stream Site Name Big Bugaboo R3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name Big Bugaboo R4 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pa2
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
LOW
Stream Site Name
LOW
NA
UT1 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
UT2 Reach 1 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
LOW
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
UT2 Reach 2 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name UT2 Reach 3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name UT2 Reach 4 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
Stream Site Name UT2 Reach 5 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name
HIGH
NA
UT2A R1 Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
MEDIUM
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Intermittent
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name
MEDIUM
NA
UT2A Reach 2 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
NA
NA
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
LOW
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
LOW
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
YES
NA
NA
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
YES
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
MEDIUM
LOW
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb1
Stream Site Name UT2B Date of Evaluation
MEDIUM
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
MEDIUM
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
MEDIUM
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
MEDIUM
LOW
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
MEDIUM
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
MEDIUM
LOW
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/19/18
YES
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
LOW
Pb2
Stream Site Name UT3 Date of Evaluation
LOW
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
LOW
MEDIUM
NA
NA
MEDIUM
NA
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
NA
YES
LOW
NA
NA
NA
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
LOW
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
MEDIUM
LOW
NA
NA
LOW
NA
LOW
LOW
LOW
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)
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(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
(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 Stream Geomorphology
(3) Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat
Overall HIGH
HIGH
MEDIUM
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
HIGH
NA
HIGH
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
NA
NA
HIGH
HIGH
(3) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
(3) Streamside Area Attenuation
Function Class Rating Summary
(1) Hydrology
NA
LOW
HIGH
LOW
HIGH
NA
YES
MEDIUM
Stream Site Name UT4 Date of Evaluation
HIGH
(4) Tidal Marsh Channel Stability
HIGH
HIGH
NA
NA
LOW
NA
HIGH
NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
HIGH
HIGH
USACE/
All Streams
NCDWR
Intermittent
NA
NA
(2) Flood Flow
C. Lanza
11/20/18
NO
NO
YES
Perennial
(2) Baseflow
Stream Category Assessor Name/Organization
MEDIUM
Pb1

Appendix 2

Cross Section 1Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 6.1 W flood prone area (ft) 38D50 Riffle (mm)4.9 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 88D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 45 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height ratio5.6 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---8.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 2.849 channel slope (%)9.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.35 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.91shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.81 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.69 shear velocity (ft/s)2.0 relative roughness 3.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 1 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Pool)
Cross Section 2Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.5 x-section area (ft.sq.) 13.7 W flood prone area (ft) 38D50 (mm)11.3 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 88D84 (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height (ft) 31 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 3.3 low bank height ratio11.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.3 hydraulic radius (ft)F4b36.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.3 channel slope (%)10.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.27 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.63 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 3.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.57 shear velocity (ft/s)1.1 relative roughness 1.98 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 2 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 3Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 16.4 W flood prone area (ft) 32D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 3.9 entrenchment ratio 77D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) 50 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 1.6 low bank height ratio4.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)B45.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.2 velocity (ft/s) 0.043 Manning's roughness 2.28 channel slope (%)14.1 discharge rate (cfs) 0.24 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.02 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.88 Froude number 5.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.73 shear velocity (ft/s)3.2 relative roughness 4.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 3 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 - Riffle)
Cross Section 4Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials4.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 17.2 W flood prone area (ft) 32D50 Riffle (mm)7.6 width (ft) 2.3 entrenchment ratio 77D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height (ft) 41 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 2.4 low bank height ratio8.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.6 hydraulic radius (ft)---12.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.043 Manning's roughness 2.28 channel slope (%)16.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.26 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.82 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.84 Froude number 5.5 resistance factor u/u* 0.65 shear velocity (ft/s)2.4 relative roughness 3.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 4 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 - Pool)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 5Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.4 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.0 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 Riffle (mm)5.7 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 80D84 Riffle (mm)0.9 mean depth (ft) 2.9 low bank height (ft) 51 threshold grain size (mm):1.7 max depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---6.0 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.041 Manning's roughness 2.3 channel slope (%)23.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.22 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.03 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.92 Froude number 6.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.73 shear velocity (ft/s)3.6 relative roughness 6 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 5 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Pool)
Cross Section 6Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials6.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.0 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 (mm)6.0 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio 80D84 (mm)1.1 mean depth (ft) 3.7 low bank height (ft) 65 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft) 2.6 low bank height ratio7.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)B45.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.3 channel slope (%)34.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.32 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 6.4 resistance factor u/u* 0.82 shear velocity (ft/s)4.2 relative roughness 8.4 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 6 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 7Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials14.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 22.5 W flood prone area (ft) 42D50 (mm)18.6 width (ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 110D84 (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 3.2 low bank height (ft) 37 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio18.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)F424.6 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.9 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 1.6 channel slope (%)54.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.20 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.74 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.79 Froude number 5.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.62 shear velocity (ft/s)2.1 relative roughness 2.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 20 40 60 80 100 120 140Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 7 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 - Riffle)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 8Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials8.1 x-section area (ft.sq.) 14.9 W flood prone area (ft) 42D50 Riffle (mm)9.6 width (ft) 1.5 entrenchment ratio 110D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height (ft) 39 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height ratio10.4 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.8 hydraulic radius (ft)---11.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.3 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 1.6 channel slope (%)26.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.31 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.78 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.65 Froude number 5.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.64 shear velocity (ft/s)2.3 relative roughness 2.7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-20 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 8 (Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4 - Pool)
Cross Section 9Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.7 x-section area (ft.sq.) 19.6 W flood prone area (ft) 27D50 (mm)11.6 width (ft) 1.7 entrenchment ratio 95D84 (mm)0.2 mean depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height (ft) 24 threshold grain size (mm):0.4 max depth (ft) 5.0 low bank height ratio11.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)B450.7 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.5 channel slope (%)6.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.30 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.49shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.96 Froude number 2.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.50 shear velocity (ft/s)0.7 relative roughness 1.3 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-100 10 20 30 40 50 60 70Elevation (ft)Width (ft)9 (UT1 - Riffle)
Cross Section 10Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials0.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 20.9 W flood prone area (ft) 27D50 Riffle (mm)2.5 width (ft) 8.3 entrenchment ratio 95D84 Riffle (mm)0.3 mean depth (ft) 1.2 low bank height (ft) 25 threshold grain size (mm):0.4 max depth (ft) 3.0 low bank height ratio2.7 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.2 hydraulic radius (ft)---9.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.7 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 3.5 channel slope (%)1.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.30 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.51shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.97 Froude number 2.6 resistance factor u/u* 0.52 shear velocity (ft/s)0.8 relative roughness 1.48 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-60 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 10 (UT1 - Pool)
Cross Section 11Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.6 W flood prone area (ft) 39D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 2.5 entrenchment ratio 90D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height (ft) 33 threshold grain size (mm):1.0 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio4.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---6.9 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power2.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.049 Manning's roughness 2 channel slope (%)7.2 discharge rate (cfs) 0.34 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.66shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.68 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.58 shear velocity (ft/s)2.1 relative roughness 2.2 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-19-18-17-16-15-14-13-12-11-100 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 11 (UT2 Reach 1 - 2 - Pool)Elevation (ft)
Cross Section 12Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials2.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.7 W flood prone area (ft) 39D50 Riffle (mm)4.7 width (ft) 1.8 entrenchment ratio 90D84 Riffle (mm)0.5 mean depth (ft) 1.0 low bank height (ft) 72 threshold grain size (mm):0.7 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio5.0 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)A49.7 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.8 velocity (ft/s) 0.053 Manning's roughness 5.2 channel slope (%)8.5 discharge rate (cfs) 0.43 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.47shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.98 Froude number 4.3 resistance factor u/u* 0.87 shear velocity (ft/s)1.6 relative roughness 5.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-16-15-14-13-12-11-10-9-80 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 12 (UT2 Reach 1 - 2 - Riffle)
Cross Section 13Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials4.0 x-section area (ft.sq.) 12.4 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 (mm)9.3 width (ft) 1.3 entrenchment ratio 110D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 34 threshold grain size (mm):0.9 max depth (ft) 3.6 low bank height ratio9.8 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)F4b21.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 2.7 channel slope (%)13.8 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.70 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.93 Froude number 3.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.60 shear velocity (ft/s)1.2 relative roughness 2.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-10-8-6-4-200 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 13 (UT2 Reach 3 - 5 - Riffle)
Cross Section 14Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials3.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 10.9 W flood prone area (ft) 35D50 Riffle (mm)4.2 width (ft) 2.6 entrenchment ratio 110D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 1.7 low bank height (ft) 54 threshold grain size (mm):1.2 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio5.1 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power3.6 velocity (ft/s) 0.051 Manning's roughness 2.7 channel slope (%)11.9 discharge rate (cfs) 0.35 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.10 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.79 Froude number 4.8 resistance factor u/u* 0.75 shear velocity (ft/s)2.2 relative roughness 4.8 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-13-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-40 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 14 (UT2 Reach 3 - 5 - Pool)
Cross Section 15Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials1.9 x-section area (ft.sq.) 11.5 W flood prone area (ft) 24D50 (mm)4.6 width (ft) 2.5 entrenchment ratio 58D84 (mm)0.4 mean depth (ft) 3.1 low bank height (ft) 58 threshold grain size (mm):0.6 max depth (ft) 4.8 low bank height ratio4.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.4 hydraulic radius (ft)A411.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.040 Manning's roughness 4.9 channel slope (%)8.3 discharge rate (cfs) 0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.18shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.24 Froude number 5.0 resistance factor u/u* 0.78 shear velocity (ft/s)2.2 relative roughness 5.5 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-14-12-10-8-6-4-200 10 20 30 40 50 60Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 15 (UT2A - Riffle)
Cross Section 16Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials1.8 x-section area (ft.sq.) 8.1 W flood prone area (ft) 24D50 Riffle (mm)3.0 width (ft) 2.7 entrenchment ratio 58D84 Riffle (mm)0.6 mean depth (ft) 1.5 low bank height (ft) 61 threshold grain size (mm):0.8 max depth (ft) 2.0 low bank height ratio3.9 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.5 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.2 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.4 velocity (ft/s) 0.042 Manning's roughness 4.36 channel slope (%)7.8 discharge rate (cfs) 0.27 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.24shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)1.14 Froude number 5.5 resistance factor u/u* 0.80 shear velocity (ft/s)3.1 relative roughness 6.9 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-12-11-10-9-8-7-6-5-4-30 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 16 (UT2A - Pool)
Cross Section 17Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials5.3 x-section area (ft.sq.) 9.4 W flood prone area (ft) 33D50 Riffle (mm)6.6 width (ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio 69D84 Riffle (mm)0.8 mean depth (ft) 2.2 low bank height (ft) 43 threshold grain size (mm):1.1 max depth (ft) 2.1 low bank height ratio7.5 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.7 hydraulic radius (ft)G48.3 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power4.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.041 Manning's roughness 1.99 channel slope (%)21.7 discharge rate (cfs) 0.22 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 0.88 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.86 Froude number 6.1 resistance factor u/u* 0.67 shear velocity (ft/s)3.5 relative roughness 4.1 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 17 (UT3 - Riffle)
Cross Section 18Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions Materials6.6 x-section area (ft.sq.) 14.3 W flood prone area (ft) 33D50 Riffle (mm)6.0 width (ft) 2.4 entrenchment ratio 69D84 Riffle (mm)1.1 mean depth (ft) 1.9 low bank height (ft) 56 threshold grain size (mm):1.4 max depth (ft) 1.4 low bank height ratio7.3 wetted perimeter (ft)Rosgen Stream Type0.9 hydraulic radius (ft)---5.4 width-depth ratioBankfull Flow Flow Resistance Forces & Power5.1 velocity (ft/s) 0.039 Manning's roughness 1.99 channel slope (%)34.0 discharge rate (cfs) 0.18 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1.13 shear stress (lb/sq.ft.)0.95 Froude number 6.7 resistance factor u/u* 0.76 shear velocity (ft/s)4.9 relative roughness 7 unit strm power (lb/ft/s)-9-8-7-6-5-4-3-2-10 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40Elevation (ft)Width (ft)XS 18 (UT3 - Pool)

Appendix 3

Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP1 Wetland A
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98173336.321689LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Herbaceous species unknown due to season, grazing impacts.
)5'
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
38 15 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FACU
75
0
200
Multiply by:
0
3.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
50
(A)
(B)
(A)
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Ilex opaca
Acer rubrum
30' )
75
Indicator
Status
50
25
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
50.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP1 Wetland A
1
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
275
0
75
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/10-12
DP1 Wetland ASOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP 2 Upland
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2convexside slope
Datum:-80.98192436.321764LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
3 2 0
Yes FACU
0
0
424
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
106
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACUNo
2050
5
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Amaranthus spinosus
Yes
No
20Trifolium repens
5Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Cynodon dactylon 70
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Ilex opaca
30' )
6
Indicator
Status
6
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP 2 Upland
0
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
424
0
106
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 6/8
10YR 3/2
6-12
0-6
DP 2 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% % Texture
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, Q
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
5none
Datum:-80.98414236.320659LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
Wetland formed by groundwater discharge above confining soil layer that intersects trampled stream banks. Wetland would not exist without stream
incision or cattle impacts.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, Q
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
80
0
35
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No5Cynodon dactylon
Juncus effusus 30
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
35
718
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
5
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
20
Multiply by:
60
2.29Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP 3 Wetland B, I, P, QSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 6/1
10YR 3/2
3-12
0-3
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP4 Upland
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98405536.320666LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP4 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Eupatorium capillifolium
No
No
10Trifolium repens
5Cynodon dactylon FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
FACUNo
2050
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
C Prominent redox concentrations
DP4 UplandSOIL
10-12 10YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
98
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 6/6
%
2
Matrix
10YR 6/8
10YR 3/2
3-10
0-3
Loc2
M
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP5 Wetland C, N
11/19/2018
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98421036.320513LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)
=Total Cover
FACW
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
15
0
40
Multiply by:
100
2.38Prevalence Index = B/A =
50
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
5
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
FACNo
1333
5
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
)
65
Unknown carex
No
No
5Trifolium repens
5Cynodon dactylon FACU
Juncus effusus 50
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
)
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP5 Wetland C, N
1
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
155
0
65
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey98 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
10YR 3/1 7.5YR 4/60-12
DP5 Wetland C, NSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
2 PL/M
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP6 Wetland D
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3concaveHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98138636.323751LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP6 Wetland D
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
135
0
40
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes
Yes
10Unknown eleocharis
15Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Unknown carex 15
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
40
820
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
15
(A)
(B)
(A)
75
0
60
Multiply by:
0
3.38Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FAC
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
5 PL
DP6 Wetland DSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/1 7.5YR 6/80-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey95 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No
X No X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP7 Upland
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3convexHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98120636.323906LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP7 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
5Cynodon dactylon
5Amaranthus spinosus FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 90
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL20
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
DP7 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
5YR 4/3
5YR 4/63-12
0-3
Loc2
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP8 Wetland E
11/19/18
Wildland Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2concaveHead of Drain
Datum:-80.98274736.324881LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP8 Wetland E
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
140
0
55
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Juncus effusus
Yes
No
15Leersia oryzoides
10Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Unknown carex 25
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
55
FACWNo
1128
5
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
25
10
(A)
(B)
(A)
75
15
40
Multiply by:
10
2.55Prevalence Index = B/A =
5
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
15
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
OBL
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
20 M
DP8 Wetland ESOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
5Y 4/1 2.5YR 4/60-12
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey80 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X
X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP9 Wetland F-G
11/19/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98476936.322441LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP9 Wetland F-G
2
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
180
0
70
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
Yes30Juncus effusus
Unknown carex 40
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
70
1435
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
40
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
120
0
0
Multiply by:
60
2.57Prevalence Index = B/A =
30
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FAC
FACW
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
% Texture
DP9 Wetland F-GSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
10YR 4/20-6
Loc2
Loamy/Clayey100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Bedrock
6
Remarks:
Redox features disturbed by cattle. Auger refusal at 6 inches.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP10 Upland
11/18/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
3noneSide Slope
Datum:-80.98456636.322462LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy clay loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP10 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No
No
10Cynodon dactylon
10Trifolium repens FACU
Schedonorus arundinaceus 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
2050
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M20
Texture
C Prominent redox concentrations
DP10 UplandSOIL
11-12 2.5YR 4/1
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
7.5YR 4/6
%
10
Matrix
D2.5YR 4/6
5YR 4/4
2.5YR 4/14-11
0-4
Loc2
M
80
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
The area is impacted by pond constuction, dredge, and fill activities.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP11 Wetland H
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1noneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98725536.318160LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
Remnants of dead Polygonum spp. and Vernonia spp.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACWYes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
10 4 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
60
0
0
Multiply by:
20
2.67Prevalence Index = B/A =
10
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
20
0
(A)
(B)
(A)
25
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
10
Juncus effusus 10
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Diospyros virginiana
30' )
20
Indicator
Status
15
5
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
100.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP11 Wetland H
3
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
80
0
30
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Soil profile appears disturbed
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
7.5YR 5/6
Loc2
M
95
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
M
10
Matrix
C7.5YR 4/1
7.5YR 4/6
907.5YR 4/1 10
7.5YR 5/62-4
0-2
6-12
DP11 Wetland HSOIL
4-6 7.5YR 5/6
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
90
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
C
7.5YR 5/3
% %
PL5
Texture
Loamy/Clayey
Prominent redox concentrations
D
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil X , or Hydrology X Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes
Yes
Yes X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP12 Upland
11/20/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2convexFloodplain
Datum:-80.98743136.317663LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall.
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP12 Upland
0
1
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
360
0
90
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
No10Schedonorus arundinaceus
Cynodon dactylon 80
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
90
1845
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
90
(A)
(B)
(A)
0
0
360
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
M10
Texture
DP12 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
D7.5YR 5/6
10YR 3/1
7.5YR 6/32-12
0-2
Loc2
90
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
100
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP13 Wetland J-M
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
2NoneFloodplain
Datum:-80.98869636.317495LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
6
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.X
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP13 Wetland J-M
3
4
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
335
0
130
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
75.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
30' )
65
Indicator
Status
50
15
Dominant
Species?
No
Yes
5Trifolium repens
40Murdannia keisak OBL
Schedonorus arundinaceus 20
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
65
1333
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
65
25
(A)
(B)
(A)
195
40
100
Multiply by:
0
2.58Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
33 13 40
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
=Total Cover
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
%
PL/M15
Prominent redox concentrations
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
15 PL
DP13 Wetland J-MSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
%
Matrix
C10YR 4/1
10YR 3/1 10YR 4/6
10YR 5/83-12
0-3
Loc2
85
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
85 C
Color (moist)
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
X No
X No X
X No
X
X
X X
X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
0
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
0
0
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP14 Wetland O
11/20/18
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1concaveFloodplain
Datum:-80.98767336.316202LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Codorus loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.X
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
45 18 0
Yes
Yes
FAC
FAC
270
0
80
Multiply by:
0
3.18Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
90
20
(A)
(B)
(A)
410
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
20
20
Ilex opaca
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
Acer rubrum
Nyssa sylvatica
30' )
90
Indicator
Status
70
20
Dominant
Species?
Yes FACU
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
66.7%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP14 Wetland O
2
3
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
350
0
110
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
X
X
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
96
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
Color (moist)
Matrix
C10YR 5/1
10YR 2/1
10YR 6/86-12
0-6
DP14 Wetland OSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
M4
Texture
Prominent redox concentrations
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Project/Site:Sampling Date:
Applicant/Owner:State:Sampling Point:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Subregion (LRR or MLRA): Lat:Long:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation X , Soil , or Hydrology Yes X
Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
No X
No X X
No X
Yes X
Yes X
Yes X X
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Moss Trim Lines (B16)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Microtopographic Relief (D4)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)

NoYes
Is the Sampled Area
Above Normal Rainfall
HYDROLOGY
Yes
Yes
Yes
Hydric Soil Present?
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Nowithin a Wetland? Yes
No
No
Water Table Present?
Remarks:
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
No
Saturation Present?
(includes capillary fringe)
City/County:Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Traphill/Wilkes
DP15 Upland
11/20/19
Wildlands Engineering NC
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Region
No
Section, Township, Range:C. Neaves
1nontoeslope
Datum:-80.98745336.316349LRR P, MLRA 136
NWI classification:Fairview sandy loam
Slope (%):Local relief (concave, convex, none):
Surface Water Present?
Yes NoAre climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year?(If no, explain in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
naturally problematic?
Are “Normal Circumstances” present?
(If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
Remarks:
Field Observations:
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Iron Deposits (B5)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
(Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.(A/B)
7.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:x 1 =
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:x 2 =
1.x 3 =
2.x 4 =
3.x 5 =
4.Column Totals:(B)
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Herb Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
50% of total cover: 20% of total cover:Yes X
=Total Cover
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
Vegetation influenced by grazing and pasture management.
)5'
=Total Cover
FACU
FACU
Yes
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
VEGETATION (Four Strata)– Use scientific names of plants.
0
0
0
400
Multiply by:
0
4.00Prevalence Index = B/A =
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of:
0
100
(A)
(B)
(A)
2050
15'
Definitions of Four Vegetation Strata:
Woody Vine – All woody vines greater than 3.28 ft in
height.
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present?
=Total Cover
Herb – All herbaceous (non-woody) plants, regardless
of size, and woody plants less than 3.28 ft tall.
15' )
100
Yes
No
40Unknown Ranunculus
10Schedonorus arundinaceus FACU
Cynodon dactylon 50
Tree Stratum
)
=Total Cover
30' )
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Sapling/Shrub – Woody plants, excluding vines, less
than 3 in. DBH and greater than or equal to 3.28 ft
(1 m) tall.
Tree – Woody plants, excluding vines, 3 in. (7.6 cm) or
more in diameter at breast height (DBH), regardless of
height.
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be
present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Absolute
% Cover
0.0%
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
No
DP15 Upland
0
2
FACU species
UPL species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
400
0
100
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
Depth (inches):X
Sampling Point:
Yes
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
This data sheet is revised from Eastern Mountains and Piedmont Regional Supplement Version 2.0 to include the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils, Version 8.0, 2016.
Hydric Soil Present?
Type:
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
Loc2
100
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
96 C
Color (moist)
Matrix
7.5YR 6/8
10YR 4/3 10YR 6/6
4-12
0-4
DP15 UplandSOIL
Type1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)Remarks
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
% %
Distinct redox concentrations
Texture
4 PL
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR N,Other (Explain in Remarks)
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present,
Umbric Surface (F13) (MLRA 122, 136)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19) (MLRA 148)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)MLRA 136)
Dark Surface (S7)unless disturbed or problematic.Red Parent Material (F21) (MLRA 127, 147, 148)
No
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Polyvalue Below Surface (S8) (MLRA 147, 148)
Thin Dark Surface (S9) (MLRA 147, 148)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (MLRA 136)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
2 cm Muck (A10) (MLRA 147)
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
(MLRA 147, 148)
Piedmont Floodplain Soils (F19)
(MLRA 136, 147)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Red Parent Material (F21)
(outside MLRA 127, 147, 148)
2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR N)
US Army Corps of Engineers Eastern Mountains and Piedmont – Version 2.0
NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland A
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.321689, -80.981733
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland A Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland B
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.320659, -80.984142
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland B Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland C
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.320513, -80.984210
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland C Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland D
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.323751, -80.981386
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland D Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland E
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.324881, -80.982747
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland E Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland F
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.323170, -80.983617
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland F Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland G
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.322475, -80.984803
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland G Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.318160, -80.987255
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland H Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland I
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.321541, -80.985054
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland I Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland J
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.317495, -80.988696
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland J Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland K
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.318052, -80.988862
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland K Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland L
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.318091, -80.989375
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland L Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland M
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.318175, -80.989126
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland M Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition MEDIUM
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland N
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.319484, -80.990220
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland N Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland O
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.316069, -80.987749
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland O Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM

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

Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland P
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.324205, -80.982855
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland P Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID # NCDWR#
Project Name Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 9/11/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Wetland Site Name Wetland Q
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Big Bugaboo Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit Yadkin 03040101
County Wilkes NCDWR Region Winston-Salem
Yes No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude (deci-degrees) 36.323557, -80.982430
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area (may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past (for instance, within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications (examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland (examples: discharges containing obvious pollutants, presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks (USTs), ho g lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress (examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease, storm damage, salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing, clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? Yes No

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

9. Inundation Duration – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
A Evidence of short-duration inundation (< 7 consecutive days)
B Evidence of saturation, without evidence of inundation
C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation (7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition – assessment area condition metric (skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only (no plant growth since deposition).
A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size – wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable , see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select “K” for the FW column.
WT WC FW (if applicable)
A A A ≥ 500 acres
B B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D D From 25 to < 50 acres
E E E From 10 to < 25 acres
F F F From 5 to < 10 acres
G G G From 1 to < 5 acres
H H H From 0.5 to < 1 acre
I I I From 0.1 to < 0.5 acre
J J J From 0.01 to < 0.1 acre
K K K < 0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness – wetland type condition metric (evaluate for Pocosins only)
A Pocosin is the full extent (≥ 90%) of its natural landscape size.
B Pocosin type is < 90% of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas – landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely) to the landscape patch, the contigu ous
naturally vegetated area and open water (if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four -lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields (pasture and agriculture), or open water > 300
feet wide.

Well Loosely
A A ≥ 500 acres
B B From 100 to < 500 acres
C C From 50 to < 100 acres
D D From 10 to < 50 acres
E E < 10 acres
F F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats

13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificia l edges include
non-forested areas ≥ 40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear -cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessme nt area is clear cut,
select option ”C.”
A 0
B 1 to 4
C 5 to 8
15. Vegetative Composition – assessment area condition metric (skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata compo sed of appropriate
species, with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions , but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non -
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species (< 10% cover of exotics).
B Vegetation diversity is low or has > 10% to 50% cover of exotics.
C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species (> 50 % cover of exotics).
17. Vegetative Structure – assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No, skip to Metric 18.

17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
A ≥ 25% coverage of vegetation
B < 25% coverage of vegetation

17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area (AA) and the wetland type (WT) separately.
AA WT
A A Canopy closed, or nearly closed, with natural gaps associated with natural processes
B B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
C C Canopy sparse or absent

A A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
B B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
C C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent

A A Dense shrub layer
B B Moderate density shrub layer
C C Shrub layer sparse or absent

A A Dense herb layer
B B Moderate density herb layer
C C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Large snags (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
19. Diameter Class Distribution – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
A Majority of canopy trees have stems > 6 inches in diameter at breast height (DBH); many large trees (> 12 inches DBH) are
present.
B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH, few are > 12 inch DBH.
C Majority of canopy trees are < 6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris – wetland type condition metric (skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
A Large logs (more than one) are visible (> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
B Not A
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion – wetland type/open water condition metric (evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. P atterned
areas indicate vegetated areas, while solid white areas indicate open water.
A B C D

22. Hydrologic Connectivity – assessment area condition metric (evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching, fill, sedimentation, channelization, diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.

Notes

Canopy Mid-Story Shrub Herb
NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0

Wetland Site Name Wetland Q Date of Assessment 9/11/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization C. Neaves/Wildlands

Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO

Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW

Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW

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

Overall Wetland Rating LOW

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT

Action Id. SAW-2018-01788 County: Wilkes U.S.G.S. Quad: NC- Thurmond
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION

Requestor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Charlie Neaves
Address: 312 W Millbrook Road
Raleigh, NC 27609
Telephone Number: 919-851-9986
E-mail: [e-mail]

Size (acres) 78 Nearest Town Elkin
Nearest Waterway Big Bugaboo Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040101 Coordinates Latitude: 36.320456
Longitude: -80.985239
Location description: The project area is located south of the intersection of Austin-Traphill Road and King Billing Road near
Traphill, Wilkes County, North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
☒ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403). The
waters, including wetlands have been delineated, and the delineation has been verified by the Corps to be sufficiently accurate
and reliable. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed revised delineation map submitted
2/18/2020. Therefore this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process, including
determining compensatory mitigation. For purposes of computation of impacts, compensatory mitigation requirements, and other
resource protection measures, a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that
would be affected in any way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. This preliminary
determination is not an appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process (Reference 33 CFR Part
331). However, you may request an approved JD, which is an appealable action, by contacting the Corps district for further
instruction.
☐ There appear to be waters, including wetlands on the above described project area/property, that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (CWA)(33 USC § 1344) and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403).
However, since the waters, including wetlands have not been properly delineated, this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation, this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters, including wetlands at the project area, which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision. We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination

☐ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) (33 USC § 403) and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are waters, including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐We recommend you have the waters, including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner, you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
☐The waters, including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps. The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE. We strongly
SAW-2018-01788
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once
verified, this survey will provide an accurate depiction of all areas subject to CWA jurisdiction on your property which, provided
there is no change in the law or our published regulations, may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years.
☐The waters, including wetlands have been delineated and surveyed and are accurately depicted on the plat signed by the
Corps Regulatory Official identified below onDATE. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ There are no waters of the U.S., to include wetlands, present on the above described project area/property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
☐ The property is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties subject to regulation under the Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA).
You should contact the Division of Coastal Management in Morehead City, NC, at [phone] to determine their
requirements.

Placement of dredged or fill material within waters of the US, including wetlands, without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC § 1311). Placement of dredged or fill material, construction or
placement of structures, or work within navigable waters of the United States without a Department of the Army permit may
constitute a violation of Sections 9 and/or 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC § 401 and/or 403). If you have any questions
regarding this determination and/or the Corps regulatory program, please contact Steve Kichefski at 828-271-7980 ext. 4234 or
[e-mail].
C. Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination form dated 06/21/2020.
D. Remarks: None.

E. Attention USDA Program Participants

This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps’ Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in USDA programs, you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.

F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)

This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination, you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process (NAP) fact sheet and request for appeal (RFA) form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:

US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin, Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801

In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps, the Corps must determine that it is complete, that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5, and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form, it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**

Corps Regulatory Official: ______________________________________________________

Date of JD: 06/21/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable
SAW-2018-01788
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so, please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0

Copy furnished:

Property Owner: Horace Randall Wood
Address: PO Box 9
Thurmond, NC 28683
Telephone Number: 336-413-1794

Property Owner: Gaye L Swaim
Address: 2330 King Billings Road
Traphill, NC 28685
Telephone Number: 336-957-2641

Property Owner: David Cothren
Address: 2195 King Billings Road
Traphill, NC 28685
Telephone Number: 336-957-2579

Property Owner: Larry Gambill
Address: 5233 Traphill Road
Traphill, NC 28685
Telephone Number: 336-957-4040

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL Applicant: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves File Number: SAW-2018-01788 Date: 06/21/2020
Attached is: See Section below
☐ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
☐ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
☐ PERMIT DENIAL C
☐ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
☒ PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION E
SECTION I - The following identifies your rights and options regarding an administrative appeal of the above decision.
Additional information may be found at or http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• OBJECT: If you object to the permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein, you may request
that the permit be modified accordingly. You must complete Section II of this form and return the form to the district
engineer. Your objections must be received by the district engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice, or you will
forfeit your right to appeal the permit in the future. Upon receipt of your letter, the district engineer will evaluate your
objections and may: (a) modify the permit to address all of your concerns, (b) modify the permit to address some of your
objections, or (c) not modify the permit having determined that the permit should be issued as previously written. After
evaluating your objections, the district engineer will send you a proffered permit for your reconsideration, as indicated in
Section B below. B: PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or appeal the permit
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit, you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for final
authorization. If you received a Letter of Permission (LOP), you may accept the LOP and your work is authorized. Your
signature on the Standard Permit or acceptance of the LOP means that you accept the permit in its entirety, and waive all
rights to appeal the permit, including its terms and conditions, and approved jurisdictional determinations associated with the
permit.
• APPEAL: If you choose to decline the proffered permit (Standard or LOP) because of certain terms and conditions therein,
you may appeal the declined permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of
this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division engineer within 60 days
of the date of this notice. C: PERMIT DENIAL: You may appeal the denial of a permit under the Corps of Engineers Administrative Appeal Process by
completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the division engineer. This form must be received by the division
engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice. D: APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You may accept or appeal the approved JD or provide new
information.
• ACCEPT: You do not need to notify the Corps to accept an approved JD. Failure to notify the Corps within 60 days of the
date of this notice, means that you accept the approved JD in its entirety, and waive all rights to appeal the approved JD.
• APPEAL: If you disagree with the approved JD, you may appeal the approved JD under the Corps of Engineers
Administrative Appeal Process by completing Section II of this form and sending the form to the district engineer. This form
must be received by the division engineer within 60 days of the date of this notice.

E: PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION: You do not need to respond to the Corps regarding the
preliminary JD. The Preliminary JD is not appealable. If you wish, you may request an approved JD (which may be appealed),
by contacting the Corps district for further instruction. Also you may provide new information for further consideration by the
Corps to reevaluate the JD.

SECTION II - REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record, the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting, and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However, you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the
appeal process you may contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
Attn: Steve Kichefski
Asheville Regulatory Office
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801

If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
also contact:
Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative Appeal Review Officer
CESAD-PDO
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel, and any government
consultants, to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15 day
notice of any site investigation, and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.

________________________________________
Signature of appellant or agent.
Date: Telephone number:

For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:

District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division, Attn: Steve Kichefski, 69 Darlington Avenue, Wilmington, North Carolina
28403

For Permit denials, Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:

Division Engineer, Commander, U.S. Army Engineer Division, South Atlantic, Attn: Mr. Phillip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 10M15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATI ON
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 06/21/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Charlie Neaves,
312 W Millbrook Road, Raleigh, NC 27609
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, NCDMS-Bug Headwaters
Mitigation Site, SAW-2018-01788
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project area is located south of
the intersection of Austin-Traphill Road and King Billing Road near Traphill, Wilkes County, North Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Wilkes City: Elkin
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 36.320456 Longitude: -80.985239
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Big Bugaboo Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):

☐Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
☒Field Determination. Date(s): February 11, 2020
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
resources in
review area
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Type of aquatic
resources (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)
1 2 3 4 5 6
See attached
table

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: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
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: _______BBBBBBBBBBBB.
Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Corps navigable waters’ study: ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
USGS NHD data.
USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: _________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
State/local wetland inventory map(s): ____________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
FEMA/FIRM maps: ________________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: ____BBBBBBBBBBBB.(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
or Other (Name & Date): ______BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: __________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
Other information (please specify): ______________BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB.
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 Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member person requesting PJD
completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)
1
1 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.
gnature and date of
ti PJD

Thurmond, NC Quad 1:12000
Web Soil Survey
Provided by NC Onemap 2018
Site Photos 11/2018
Feature Latitude Longitude Cowardin Class
Estimated Amount of Aquatic
Resource in Review Area Class of Aquatic Resource
Big Bugaboo Creek 36.320879 -80.983763 Riverine - Streambed 3474.39 Potential Waters of the US
(Perennial)
UT1 36.321979 -80.981961 Unconsolidated Bottom 380.18 Potential Waters of the US
(Intermittent)
UT2 36.323216 -80.983486 Riverine - Streambed 2091.79 Potential Waters of the US
(Intermittent/Perennial)
UT2A 36.323639 -80.982007 Unconsolidated Bottom 660.61 Potential Waters of the US
(Intermittent)
UT2B 36.322420 -80.984822 Riverine - Streambed 167.65 Potential Waters of the US
(Perennial)
UT3 36.317657 -80.988677 Riverine - Streambed 843.15 Potential Waters of the US
(Perennial)
UT4 36.315832 -80.988171 Riverine - Streambed 127.59 Potential Waters of the US
(Perennial)
UT5 36.321741 -80.981049 Unconsolidated Bottom 96.14 Potential Waters of the US
(Intermittent)
UT6 36.318128 -80.989893 Unconsolidated Bottom 111.74 Potential Waters of the US
(Intermittent)
Wetland A 36.321689 -80.981733 Palustrine - Forested 1.399 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland B 36.320659 -80.984142 Palustrine - Emergent 0.125 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland C 36.320513 -80.984210 Palustrine - Emergent 0.867 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland D 36.323751 -80.981386 Palustrine - Emergent 0.207 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland E 36.324879 -80.982764 Palustrine - Emergent 0.116 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland F 36.323096 -80.983762 Palustrine - Emergent 0.230 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland G 36.322441 -80.984769 Palustrine - Emergent 0.026 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland H 36.318160 -80.987255 Palustrine - Forested 1.608 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland I 36.321617 -80.984997 Palustrine - Emergent 0.103 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland J 36.317495 -80.988696 Palustrine - Emergent 0.062 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland K 36.318038 -80.988815 Palustrine - Emergent 0.176 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland L 36.318237 -80.989181 Palustrine - Forested 0.007 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland M 36.318138 -80.989017 Palustrine - Forested 0.005 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland N 36.319407 -80.990209 Palustrine - Scrub-Shrub 0.307 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland O 36.316202 -80.987673 Palustrine - Forested 1.339 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland P 36.324130 -80.982860 Palustrine - Emergent 0.004 Potential Waters of the US
Wetland Q 36.323605 -80.982274 Palustrine - Emergent 0.028 Potential Waters of the US
Pond A 36.319476 -80.986023 Lacustrine - Limnetic 2.973 Potential Waters of the US
Pond B 36.318773 -80.989660 Lacustrine - Limnetic 2.158 Potential Waters of the US
Table 1. Summary of On-Site Jurisdictional Waters
UT2UT
3
UT2A
Big Bugaboo CreekUT1UT4UT
2
B
UT5UT2
UT6
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3a Site Map OverviewBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 350175 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
4 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water
Figure 3b
Figure 3c
UT2UT2A
Big Bugaboo CreekUT1UT2B
UT5UT2DP 9
DP 8
DP 7
DP 6
DP 4
DP 3
DP 5
DP 2 DP 1
DP 10
Wetland A
Wetland C
Wetland F
Wetland D
Wetland E
Wetland B
Wetland I
Wetland Q
Wetland G
Wetland P
Pond A
60' Culvert
Clogged, Offline Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3b Site MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 200100 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
4 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water
UT2UT
3
Big Bugaboo CreekUT4UT2B
UT6
UT3
DP14
DP 9
DP 15
DP 13
DP 12
DP 11
DP 10
Wetland O
Wetland H
Wetland C
Wetland K
Wetland N
Wetland I
Wetland J
Wetland G
Wetland LWetland M
Pond A
Pond B
60' Culvert
30' Culvert
30' Culvert
18' Culvert
Clogged, Offline Culvert
NC Center for Geographic Information & Analysis
Figure 3c Site MapBug Headwaters Mitigation SiteYadkin 03040101
2018 Aerial Photography
¹0 200100 Feet
Wilkes County, NC
Data Points
4 Ft. Contours
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Intermittent)
Potential Non-Wetland Waters of the US (Perennial)
Culvert
Assessment Area
Potential Waters of the US
Open Water

Appendix 4

Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 1.4
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
PCO ect Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Count Name: wakes county
EEP Number: 100085
Project Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Carolyn Lanza
Pro eCt Contact Address: 312 W. Millbrook, Suite 225 Raleigh, NC 27609
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
EEP Project Mana er: Matthew Reid
Project Description
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located approximately 9 miles northwest of Elkin
and 5.5 miles South of Roaring Gap in Wilkes County. The site is located on three parcels by two different families
and is used for agriculture (primarily livestock production). The project includes Big Bugaboo Creek and 5 unnamed
tributaries for a total of 8,375 linear feet of stream. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of
Mitigation Services in the Yadkin River Basin (03040101).
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
11 /5/2018iG¢orr
Date EEP Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval /By:
>
Date or Division Administrator
FHWA
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? Yes
No
2. Does the project involve ground-disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
Program?
Yes
No
N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
designated as commercial or industrial?
Yes
No
N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase II Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
waste sites within the project area?
Yes
No
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan? Yes
No
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
Historic Places in the project area?
Yes
No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur? Yes
No
N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved? Yes
No
N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
1. Is this a “full-delivery” project? Yes
No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate? Yes
No
N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 7
Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as “territory” by the Eastern Band of
Cherokee Indians?
Yes
No
2. Is the site of religious importance to American Indians? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
Places?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Have the effects of the project on this site been considered? Yes
No
N/A
Antiquities Act (AA)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands? Yes
No
2. Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
of antiquity?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA)
1. Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)? Yes
No
2. Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources? Yes
No
N/A
3. Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required? Yes
No
N/A
4. Has a permit been obtained? Yes
No
N/A
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
1. Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
listed for the county?
Yes
No
2. Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Is the project “likely to adversely affect” the species and/or “likely to adversely modify”
Designated Critical Habitat?
Yes
No
N/A
5. Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination? Yes
No
N/A
6. Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a “jeopardy” determination? Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 8
Executive Order 13007 (Indian Sacred Sites)
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as “territory”
by the EBCI?
Yes
No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
project?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
sites?
Yes
No
N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
1. Will real estate be acquired? Yes
No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
important farmland?
Yes
No
N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS? Yes
No
N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
water body?
Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted? Yes
No
N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (Section 6(f))
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
outdoor recreation?
Yes
No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion? Yes
No
N/A
Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Essential Fish Habitat)
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system? Yes
No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species? Yes
No
N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
project on EFH?
Yes
No
N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH? Yes
No
N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred? Yes
No
N/A
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? Yes
No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? Yes
No
N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? Yes
No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
federal agency?
Yes
No
N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05 9
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
SUMMARY

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) provides a
Federal "Superfund" to clean up uncontrolled or abandoned hazardous -waste sites as well as accidents,
spills, and other emergency releases of pollutants and contaminants into the environment.
As the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project; an EDR Radius Map Report with
Geocheck was ordered for the site through Environmental Data Resources, Inc on July 10, 2018. Neither
the target property nor the adjacent properties were listed in any of the Federal, State, or Tribal
environmental databases searched by the EDR. The assessment revealed no evidence of any "recognized
environmental conditions" in connection with the target property. The Executive Summary of the EDR
report is included in the Appendix. The full report is available if needed.
National Historic Preservation Act (Section 106)
The National Historic Preservation Act declares a national policy of historic preservation to protect,
rehabilitate, restore, and reuse districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects significant in American
architecture, history, archaeology, and culture, and Section 106 mandates that federal agencies take
into account the effect of an undertaking on a property that is included in, or is eligible for inclusion in,
the National Register of Historic Places.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) requested review and comment from the State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) with respect to any archeological and architectural resources related to the
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site on July 11, 2018. SHPO responded on August 16, 2018 and stated they
were aware of "no historic resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no
further comment. All correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA)
The American Indian Religious Freedom Act provides for the protection and preservation of places of
religious importance to American Indians, Eskimos, and Native Hawaiians.
Wildlands requested review and comment from the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians (EBCI) Tribal
Historic Preservation Office (THPO) with respect to any archeological or religious resources related to
the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site on August 15, 2018. The Cherokee Nation and United Keetoowah
Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma THPO were contacted on October 5, 2018. The Cherokee nation
responded on November 2, 2018 saying Bug Headwaters is "outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of
Interest". At this time, Wildlands has not received a response from EBCI and United Keetoowah Band of
Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma. All correspondence related to AIRFA is included in the Appendix.
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act (Uniform Act)
These acts, collectively known as the Uniform Act, provide for uniform and equitable treatment of
persons displaced from their homes, businesses, non-profit associations, or farms by federal and
federally -assisted programs, and establish uniform and equitable land acquisition policies.
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is a full -delivery project that includes land acquisition. Notification of
the fair market value of the project property and the lack of condemnation authority by Wildlands was
included in the signed Option Agreements for the project properties. A copy of the relevant sections of
the Option Agreements are included in the Appendix.
Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7 of the ESA requires federal agencies, in consultation with and with the assistance of the
Secretary of the Interior or of Commerce, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund or

carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or
result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species.
The Wilkes County listed endangered species includes the bog turtle (Glyptemys muhlenbergii),
Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionolis), and the rusty -patched bumble bee (bombus
offinis).The the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not currently list any Critical
Habitat Designations for the Federally -listed species within Wilkes County nor are there any known
occurrences of the NLEB documented within the County
(https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/NLEB_in_WNC.html). The project site is over 40
miles from the nearest known hibernaculum for the NLEB. A pedestrian survey conducted on August 9,
2018, indicated that the Site provides potential habitat for the bog turtle, rusty -patched bumble bee and
potential summer roosting for the NLEB but no individuals were located at the time.
Forested habitats containing trees at least 3-inch dbh in the project area provide suitable habitat for
NLEB. Due to the decline of the NLEB population from the White Nose Syndrome, USFWS has issued the
finalization of a special rule under section 4(d) of the ESA to addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting
from purposeful and incidental take based on the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located
within a WNS zone and will include the removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP records did not indicate any known NLEB
populations within 2.0 mile of the study area; therefore, the project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule
Streamlined Consultation Form to meet regulatory requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d)
consultation.
To meet regulatory requirements, a letter requesting comment from the USFWS was sent on July 11,
2018. No response from the USFWS was received within the 30-day response period. Therefore, the
signing of the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form by the FHWA determines that this project
may affect the NLEB, but that any resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d)
rule. Due to the absence of the species, the project has been determined by Wildlands to "to may affect
but not likely to adversely affect" the bog turtle; however, it is listed as threatened due to similarity of
appearance and as such is not subject to Section 7 consultation. The rusty -patched bumble bee in
Wilkes County is listed as endangered from "historic" records. The species was last seen in the county
more than 50 years ago. The project is 160 miles from the nearest High Potential Zone (HPZ). The HPZ is
determined by USFWS to be the area where the presence of the species should be presumed for ESA
Section 7 purposes. Therefore, Wildlands has determined the project will have "no effect: on the rusty -
patched bumble bee. A FHWA signed 4(d) consultation form and the correspondence associated with
this determination are included in the Appendix.
Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA)
The FPPA requires that, before taking or approving any federal action that would result in conversion of
farmland, the agency must examine the effects of the action using the criteria set forth in the FPPA, and,
if there are adverse effects, must consider alternatives to lessen them.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site includes the conversion of prime farmland. As such, Form AD-1006
has been completed and submitted to the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The
completed form and correspondence documenting its submittal is included in the Appendix.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
The FWCA requires consultation with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency on projects
that alter or modify a water body. Reports and recommendations prepared by these agencies document

project effects on wildlife and identify measures that may be adopted to prevent loss or damage to
wildlife resources.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the
project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on July
11, 2018. NCWRC responded on August 7, 2018 and had no objections to the project. At this time,
Wildlands has not received a response from USFWS. All correspondence with the two agencies is
included in the Appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell, trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird. The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site from the USFWS regarding
migratory birds on July 11, 2018. At this time, Wildlands has not received a response from the USFWS.
All correspondence with USFWS is included in the Appendix.

Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX
Regulatory Correspondence
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Gledhill -Earley,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site.
A Site Map and USGS Topographic Map with approximate project areas are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The
project will include stream restoration on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big
Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be
removed as part of the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
There are no existing structures within the project area. Furthermore, no archeological artifacts have
been observed or noted during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any
historic properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning the project.
Sincerely,
Lcfr:cr,cr:'
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper Office of Archives and History
Secretary Susi H. Hamilton Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599
August 16, 2018
Carolyn Lanza
Wildlands Engineering
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Re: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site, Wilkes County, ER 18-1614
Dear Ms. Lanza:
Thank you for your letter of July 11, 2018, 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
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
[e-mail]. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
Ramona M. Bartos
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
August 15, 2018
Mr. Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians
PO Box 455
Cherokee, NC 28719
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Townsend,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
cc: via email
Ms. Holly Austin, Federal Cultural Resource Law Liaison, EBCI Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Mr. Donnie Brew, Federal Highway Administration
Mr. Matthew Reid, Division of Mitigation Services
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
CNGINEERING
October 5, 2018
Ms. Sheila Bird
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
PO Box 746
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Bird,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

WILDLANDS
CNGINEERING
October 5, 2018
Ms. Elizabeth Toombs
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Cherokee Nation
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Toombs,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS
Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic
figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable stream
channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The project will
include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo
Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of
the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the presence of any historic
properties.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with any
questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Andrea Eckardt
Senior Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Andrea Eckardt
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Friday, November 02, 2018 3:31 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Good Afternoon, Ms. Eckardt:
Many thanks for the follow-up email. While Wilkes County is within Cherokee Nation's Area of Interest, both the Bug
Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites are outside the Cherokee Nation's Area of Interest. Thus, this Office
respectfully defers to federally recognized Tribes that have an interest in this landbase.
Many thanks for the opportunity to comment upon this proposed undertaking. Please contact me if there are any
questions or concerns.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, November 2, 2018 1:05 PM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Elizabeth -
We spoke yesterday about where to email the correspondence for Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills. I just thought it
might be easier if I sent an email so you would have the email address to reply to.
Have a great weekend,
Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 4:49 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Thanks so much, Ms. Eckardt.
Wado,
i

Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 8:23 AM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
The contact is Donnie Brew. Below is his contact information.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 9:20 AM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Many thanks for the details, Ms. Eckardt. To follow-up, who is your contact for FHWA, North Carolina division?
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389
From: Andrea Eckardt [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Tuesday, October 16, 2018 7:17 AM
To: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Subject: <EXTERNAL> RE: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
This is a NC Division of Mitigation Services project, so we are working on behalf of the Federal Highway Administration in
this case.

Andrea
Andrea S. Eckardt I Senior Environmental Planner
704.332.7754 x101
From: Elizabeth Toombs <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, October 15, 2018 6:00 PM
To: Andrea Eckardt <[e-mail]>
Subject: Information Request: Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites
Good Afternoon, Ms. Eckardt:
This Office recently received two review requests for Bug Headwaters and Lyon Hills Mitigation Sites, and I have a
follow-up question. Is Wildlands Engineering working on behalf of a federal agency or grant program?
Many thanks for your time and any clarification.
Wado,
Elizabeth Toombs, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
PO Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465-0948
918.453.5389

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Marella Buncick
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Buncick,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might
emerge with respect to endangered species, migratory birds, or other trust resources associated
with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview
Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was
prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for
unavoidable stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as
significantly degraded. The project will include stream restoration and enhancement on Big
Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to
the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim Pond will also be removed as part of the restoration
process. The site has historically been disturbed due to livestock use.
According to your website (https://www.fws.gov/raleigh/species/cntylist/wilkes.html) the
threatened or endangered species for Wilkes County are: the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), Northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), and the rusty -patched bumble
bee (bombus affinis). If we have not heard from you in 30 days, we will assume that you do not
have any comments regarding associated laws and that you do not have any information
relevant to this project at the current time.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact
us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Northern Long -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency' to determine if your project is near
©
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question #1 or yes to question #2 and no to
questions 3, 4, 5 and 6. The remainder of the form will be used by the USFWS to track our assumptions in the
BO.
Agency and Applicant3 (Name, Email, Phone No.):
Carolyn Lanza, clanza@wildlandseng com, 919-851-9986 ext 113
Donnie Brew, [e-mail], 919-747-7017
Project Name: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): 36°19'24.7"N 80°58'59.0"W
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Bug Headwaters mitigation site is a stream mitigation project located approximately 9 miles northwest of Elkin and 5.5
miles South of Roaring Gap in Wilkes County. The site is located on three parcels by two different families and is used for
agriculture (primarily livestock production). The project includes Big Bugaboo Creek and 5 unnamed tributaries for a total of
8,375 linear feet of stream. The project will provide stream mitigation units to the Division of Mitigation Services in the
i http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdf/WNSZone.pdf
'See http://www.fws.gov/midwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are party to the consultation.

Yadkin River Basin (03040101). Construction of the stream restoration project will include sonic tree removal (>3"DBH) —
approximately 2.10 acres.
General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculurn?
❑
E
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
E
Does the project include forest conversion"? (if yes, report acreage below)
E
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
2.10 ac
If known, estimated acres] of forest conversion from April 1 to October 31
2.10 ac
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June 1 to July 31'
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
E
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to duly 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from .tune I to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines'? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
Estimated wind ca acit (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from Submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature: � � rl / ��Date Submitted: 1 — GQ —)y
"Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, training, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
5 If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than O} I acre.
I If the activity includes tree clearing is June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

From:Brew, Donnie (FHWA)
To:[e-mail]
Cc:Reid, Matthew;Carolyn Lanza;Andrea Eckardt
Subject:Bug Headwaters site DMS_mitigation project_Wilkes County_NLEB 4(d) rule consultation
Date:Friday, September 21, 2018 3:34:50 PM
Attachments:NLEB 4(d) rule streamlined consultation form Bug Headwaters site 9-20-18.pdf
Fig1_Site Map.pdf
Fig2_USGS_Bug.pdf
Good afternoon Marella,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined
consultation framework for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site in Wilkes County, NC.

Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form, as well as site
maps/figures.

Thank you and have a great weekend,

Donnie

Notifying the Service Under the Framework
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation
Form
Federal agencies (or designated non-federal representatives) should use the Northern
Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form to notify the Service of their
project and meet the requirements of the framework.
Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form (Word document)
Information requested in the Northern Long-Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined
Consultation Form serves to
(1) notify the field office that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework;
(2) describe the project with sufficient detail to support the required
determination; and
(3) enable the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of
consultation for the 4(d) rule is required. This form requests the minimum
amount of information required for the Service to be able to track this
information.
Providing information in the Streamlined Consultation Form does not address section
7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Donnie Brew
Preconstruction & Environment Engineer
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Ave, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
[e-mail]
919-747-7017
***Please consider the environment before printing this email.***
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I Date Of Land Evaluation Request
Name Of Project Federal Agency Involved
Proposed Land Use County And State
PART II Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
Major Crop Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Yes No
Acres: % %Acres:
PART III Alternative Site Rating
Site A Site B Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B.Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C.Total Acres In Site
PART IV Land Evaluation Information
A.Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B.Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C.Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D.Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted
PART VI
Site Assessment Criteria
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2.Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3.Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4.Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5.Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6.Distance To Urban Support Services
7.Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
8.Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9.Availability Of Farm Support Services
10.On-Farm Investments
11.Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12.Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160
PART VII
Relative Value Of Farmland 100
Total Site Assessment 160
TOTAL POINTS 260
Site Selected:Date Of Selection Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes No
Reason For Selection:
Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff
From:Carolyn Lanza
To:"Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC"
Subject:RE: AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Date:Wednesday, September 5, 2018 7:00:00 AM
Attachments:Bug Headwaters AD1006.pdf
image001.png
Milton,
Attached is the completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating for Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site for your files.
Thank you for your help,
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
From: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2018 4:47 PM
To: Carolyn Lanza <[e-mail]>
Subject: AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Importance: High
Carolyn;
Please, find attached the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating evaluation for Bug Headwaters Stream
Mitigation Site.
Pease let us know if we can be of further assistance.
Best Regards;
Milton Cortes
Acting State Soil Scientist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
4407 Bland Rd, Suite 117
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
[e-mail]
From: Carolyn Lanza [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Friday, July 27, 2018 11:05 AM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC <[e-mail]>
Subject: Request for AD1006 Form - Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site - Wilkes County, NC
Milton,
I have a request for a completed AD-1006 form for a NCDENR Division of Mitigation Services (DMS)
stream restoration project (Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site) located in Wilkes County. Please find a
Soils Map attached in addition to the AD-1006 form with Parts I and III filled out. The soil breakdown
is included on the Soils Map.
Thank you for your assistance and please let me know if you need any additional information.
Carolyn Lanza | Environmental Scientist
O: 919.851.9986 x113 M: 313.969.7318

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
This electronic message contains information generated by the USDA solely for the intended
recipients. Any unauthorized interception of this message or the use or disclosure of the information
it contains may violate the law and subject the violator to civil or criminal penalties. If you believe
you have received this message in error, please notify the sender and delete the email immediately.
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
July 11, 2018
Shannon Deaton
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Division of Inland Fisheries
1721 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699
Subject: Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site
Wilkes County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Deaton,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge
with respect to fish and wildlife issues associated with the proposed Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site. A
USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed.
The topographic figure was prepared from the Traphill, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangles.
The Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site is being developed to provide in -kind mitigation for unavoidable
stream channel impacts. Several sections of channel have been identified as significantly degraded. The
project will include stream restoration and enhancement on Big Bugaboo Creek and four unnamed
tributaries to Big Bugaboo Creek, which eventually drains to the Yadkin River. Wood Pond and Swaim
Pond will also be removed as part of the restoration process. The site has historically been disturbed
due to livestock use.
We thank you in advance for your timely response and cooperation. Please feel free to contact us with
any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Sincerely,
L4f� 4"n-1
Carolyn Lanza
Environmental Scientist
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
W Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 312 W Millbrook, Suite 225 • Raleigh, NC 27609

Mailing Address:
Telephone:Fax:

Appendix 5

MEETING NOTES
MEETING: IRT Site Walk 
Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site 
Yadkin 03040101; Wilkes County, NC 
DEQ Contract No. 7617 
DMS Project No. 100084 
Wildlands Project No. 005‐02176 
DATE: Wednesday, September 26, 2018  
LOCATION: King Billings Road 
Traphill, NC 
Attendees 
Todd Tugwell, USACE 
Todd Bowers, USEPA 
Mac Haupt, DWR 
Paul Wiesner, DMS 
Matthew Reid, DMS 
Kirsten Ullman, DMS 
Periann Russell, DMS 
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands 
Jeff Keaton, Wildlands  
Materials 
Wildlands Engineering Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site Technical Proposal dated March 28, 2018 (in
response to RFP #16‐007406)
Meeting Notes 
Shawn Wilkerson of Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) led the group on a tour of the proposed mitigation 
site on September 26, 2018.  The purpose of the tour was to present the site to a group of IRT members and to 
get input into the management/mitigation options proposed for the site. During the tour, the group discussed 
the approaches proposed by Wildlands and the design options they felt would be most appropriate to enhance 
and restore the streams on the site.   
1.UT2
The tour began with UT2 Reach 2. There was a considerable amount of discussion on the
appropriate approach for this reach.  Todd raised concerns about raising the bed for Priority 1
restoration while Mac said that he did not have a problem with the proposed restoration
approach.  Shawn suggested beginning the reach with restoration, tying into some existing
bedrock features, and then transitioning back to a Priority 1 below the bedrock. The plan is to
move forward with restoration of this reach with possibly a short section of E1 at the bedrock
section.
There is also a short tributary to Reach 2 where Wildlands proposed to put a BMP.  Several
members of the group commented that much of that channel now appears to be jurisdictional.

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 2 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
Shawn indicated that when the site assessment was done, this channel had been called 
ephemeral.  Given this situation, the group agreed that the best approach would be to buffer 
the wetland pocket, stabilize side slopes of the pocket wetland and complete fence out cattle 
and plant the small tributary for E2 credit. This reach will be referred to as UT2B. 
 Next the group looked at UT2 Reach 1. Shawn explained that this reach, which was originally 
proposed for enhancement 2, is not as incised and is in a steeper, colluvial valley.  Mac stated 
that he sees work that needs to be done and that he could see this reach being more 
enhancement 1 rather than enhancement 2.  Todd said that he didn’t see a lot of difference 
between Reach 1 and Reach 2 and seemed to agree that enhancement 1 might be more 
appropriate.  There is also a BMP proposed for the top of this reach that would likely be an 
ephemeral step pool conveyance. Wildlands agreed to look at this reach in more detail before 
deciding the level of intervention but that E1 maybe appropriate. 
2. UT2A 
 The next stream the group looked at was UT2A which is a small tributary that flows into UT2.  
This reach was proposed as enhancement 1 and was intended to be a mix of enhancement 2 
approaches and some sections of restoration with an overall ratio of 1.5:1.  Mac said that he 
thought the degree of intervention on this reach would support a restoration approach.  Todd 
agreed.  Wildlands commented that due to the headwater nature of the stream, that we didn’t 
want to push on the ratios substantially but if a full restoration approach appeared necessary, 
that 1:1 credit proposal will be considered, and would be presented in the mitigation plan.  
There is a BMP proposed for the upstream end of this reach.  Todd said to make sure that BMPs 
are not built in wetlands at headwaters or on a jurisdictional part of the stream.  He said that he 
doesn’t think a BMP would be necessary for this reach since the existing wetland is functioning 
as a BMP.  In this case, protecting the wetland with the conservation easement and starting the 
stream work below the wetland would be ideal.  Wildlands agreed to this approach. 
3. UT1 
 Next Shawn showed the group a small headwaters stream called UT1 that has been badly 
trampled by cattle.  The stream is in very bad condition and the group agreed that restoration is 
the best mitigation approach.  Some side channels have formed from cattle wallowing and 
Shawn indicated that those would be plugged to prevent draining adjacent wetlands but 
probably not filled.  The conservation easement around this tributary will be extra wide to 
protect adjacent wetland areas.  There is a BMP proposed at the upstream end. 
4. Big Bugaboo Creek 
 The review of Big Bugaboo Creek began with Reach 1 which is adjacent to UT1.  This reach is in 
similar condition to UT1 and the group agreed that restoration of this reach is appropriate.  
There is a BMP proposed at the upstream end.  Todd said that for all BMPs, before the BMPs are 
designed, jurisdictional determinations must be completed to ensure that the BMPs will be 
installed above the jurisdictional extents of the reaches. 
 The next reach reviewed was Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2 which extends from the confluence of 
Reach 1 and UT1 to just upstream of the existing pond called Wood Pond. This reach is less 
incised, less impacted by cattle, and has less erosion on the banks. The proposed approach for 
this reach is enhancement 2 and Mac and Todd again pointed out that an E1 approach could be 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 3 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
appropriate.  Shawn pointed out that there is a crossing near the bottom of Reach 2 that will 
cross both Reach 2 and UT2 Reach 2.  Wildlands will consider an E1 approach and will justify in 
the mitigation plan. 
 Big Bugaboo Reach 3 begins just above the pond, continues through the Wood Pond, and then 
continues for several hundred feet downstream of the pond to the confluence with UT3.  The 
dam will be removed and the stream will be restored through the pond bed with excess 
sediment removed.  The section below the pond transitions from being narrow and incised to 
being overwide with a thalweg channel moving through sediment and aquatic vegetation.  There 
was some discussion about the approach along the over‐wide section, however after more 
closely considered, it was agreed that the restoration was the best approach.  There is a crossing 
planned near the downstream end of Reach 3. 
 Big Bugaboo Reach 4 extends from the confluence of Big Bugaboo and UT3 to the southern 
property boundary (approximately.  This reach is significantly larger and appears to have been 
channelized. The channel is extensively eroded and somewhat incised, with both fluvial erosion 
and cattle trampling present on both banks. Mass wasting is occurring in some locations.  This 
reach was proposed as restoration.  There is a fairly large wetland area on the left floodplain 
that is partially wooded but severely trampled by cattle.  Shawn said that the conservation 
easement will encompass this wetland.  There was some discussion about the amount of room 
needed for a meandering channel considering the adjacent wetland and the need for full 
restoration of this reach.  After further consideration, Wildlands has changed the proposed 
approach to enhancement 1 for this reach.  This work will involve building an meandering offline 
channel to tie into the upstream restoration and then transitioning to an online channel at the 
existing bed grade with a floodplain bench to tie into the downstream end of the project.  The 
online channel banks will be stabilized.   
5. UT3 
 The last stream that the group toured was UT3.  This stream begins above a small pond (called 
the Swaim Pond) on an adjacent property.  Shawn explained that the restoration of this reach 
would begin with the removal of the pond and that the landowner did not want the section 
above the pond to be put into easement.  In addition, the section above the pond is not eroded 
and that landowner does not graze cattle on the property.  The restoration will extend down to 
the confluence with Big Bugaboo Creek.  Shawn explained that the dam is failing, and the pond 
needs to be removed.  He also explained that there is a small section on the stream downstream 
of the pond where a landowner on the right side of the stream owns a small access route to the 
stream and this landowner would not sell an easement on this very short section.  Shawn said 
the easement on the left, which is on the Wood property, should continue through this section, 
even though it is not shown on the map, so that only one side of the stream would not be under 
easement.  Shawn said that Wildlands has an agreement with the non‐participating landowner 
that work can be done to the stream to restore it.  The group agreed that restoration would be 
the correct approach for this reach.  Todd also asked that a small wetland swale on the left 
floodplain be captured and included in the easement and Shawn said that it would be. 
The approaches and ratios described above were agreed upon at this IRT field visit and will be utilized during the project 
design.   Wildlands and DMS understand that the final design approach and crediting rationale must be justified in the 
Mitigation Plan.  A revised asset table with updated approaches and agreed upon credit ratios is shown below.  A revised 
concept map showing the updated approaches for each project reach is attached.     

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 4 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
These meeting minutes were prepared by Jeff Keaton October1, 2018 and reviewed by Shawn Wilkerson on October 4, 2018 
and represent the authors’ interpretation of events. 

Stream Credits proposed for the Bug Headwaters Mitigation Site – Revised 
Stream Credits 
Reach Management Objectives Type of 
Mitigation 
Length 
(feet)1 Ratio Stream 
Credits  
RESTORATION 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 1 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Enhance 
native riparian buffer, exclude cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  863  1:1  863 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 3  
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Treat invasives. 
Restoration  1,750  1:1  1,750 
UT1 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  220  1:1  220 
UT2 Reach 
2 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. This 
reach includes a 150 ft. section of EI to tie into existing 
bedrock.  Install habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain 
access. Establish native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle 
with fencing. Treat invasives. 
Restoration 
(150 ft. of EI) 1,532 1:1 
(1.5:1 for EI) 1,482 
UT3 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Install 
habitat structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Restoration  1,400  1:1  1,400 
Restoration Subtotal  5,765    5,715 
ENHANCEMENT I 
UT2 Reach 
1 
Perform minor bank grading where necessary. Establish 
native riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. 
Treat invasives. 
Enhancement I  665  1.5:1  443 
UT2A 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile in areas 
where stream is heavily impacted. Use lighter intervention 
mainly consisting of minor bank grading in areas where 
stream is more stable. Install habitat structures, allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native riparian buffer, 
exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat invasives.  
Enhancement I   517  1.5:1  345 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Creek – 
Reach 2  
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile in areas 
where stream is heavily impacted. Use lighter intervention 
mainly consisting of minor bank grading in areas where 
stream is more stable. Install habitat structures, allow 
bankfull floodplain access. Establish native riparian buffer, 
exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat invasives.  
Enhancement I  990  1.5:1  660 
Big 
Bugaboo 
Restore appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile at 
upstream end and transition down to existing bed grade with 
an online channel with floodplain bench.  Install habitat 
Enhancement I  438  1.5:1  292 

Wildlands Engineering, Inc.     page 5 
BUG HEADWATERS Mitigation Site 
September 26, 2018 IRT Site Walk Meeting Notes 
Stream Credits 
Reach Management Objectives Type of 
Mitigation 
Length 
(feet)1 Ratio Stream 
Credits  
Creek – 
Reach 4  
structures, allow bankfull floodplain access. Establish native 
riparian buffer, exclude future cattle with fencing. Treat 
invasives. 
Enhancement I Subtotal   2,610    1,740 
ENHANCEMENT II 
UT2B Establish native woody riparian buffer, exclude cattle, and 
protect headwater wetland. Enhancement II  168  2.5:1  67 
Enhancement I Subtotal  168    67 
Project Total  8,543 LF  ‐ ‐ ‐  
7,522 
Cool 
Stream 
Credits 

UT2 Reach 1
UT2 Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1
Easement to Encompass Wetland
UT3 UT1UT2AUT
2
Big Bugaboo CreekBig Bugaboo CreekBig Bugaboo CreekUT3 UT2Pond To Be Removed
Pond To Be Removed
UT2B
Easement to Encompass Wetland
Easement to Encompass Wetland
14601440142014801
3
8
0
1520
1360 1540152013801 4 4 01380 1 5 2 0
¬«4
¬«2 ¬«1
¬«3
Figure 6 Conceptual PlanBug Headwaters Mitigatio n SiteYadkin Basin (03040 101)
0 300 600150 Feet
Wilkes County, NC¹Project Location
Conservation Easement
Internal Crossings
Utility Easement
Adjacent Parcels
Stream Restoration
Stream Enhancement I
Stream Enhancement II
Non-Project Stream
Overhead Power Lines
Topographic Contour (4')
!(Utility Poles
!(Reach Breaks
^_BMPs
2014 Aerial Photography

Appendix 6

min max min max min max min max min max
stream type ‐‐
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐
low bank height ‐feet
bank height ratio BHR ‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER ‐
max pool depth at 
bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐
pool width at bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐
bankfull pool cross‐
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐
pool‐pool spacing p‐p feet 18 93 22 153 84 65 53 84
pool‐pool spacing 
ratio p‐p/Wbkf ‐1.6 8.2 5.2 36.4 14.0 10.8 2.8 4.5
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K ‐
belt width wblt feet 9 111824
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐1.5 1.8 1.0 1.3
meander length Lm feet 23 57 25 93
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf ‐3.8 9.5 1.3 5.0
linear wavelength LW ‐25 55 23 78
linear wavelength 
ratio LW/wbkf ‐4.2 9.2 1.2 4.2
radius of curvature Rc feet 9 411045
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐1.5 6.8 0.5 2.4
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
UnitsNotation
0.12 0.50
B4
Parameter
0.06
B4 F4
0.0216
0.31
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
‐
‐‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.0228
1.07
16
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 1
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 2
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 3
Big Bugaboo Creek 
Reach 4 UT1
3.4
4.2
36.3
14
1.2
2
3.3
0.5
B4F4b
0.4
0.5
11.6
2.5
2.2
2.7
0.01
4.2
2.7
1.8
0.3
11.3
3.5
3.1
0.6
1.5
1.4 0.8
5.0
0.0215
0.2
50.7
0.0165
5.4
0.8
24.6
2.6
920
1.7
4.7 9.1
0.6
7.6 10.0
0.0362
1.1
‐
‐
1.2
1.01
0.3
0.0350
14.1
3.9
18.6
1.01
0.4
3.3
6.6
5.3
6.0
1.7
1.5
5.7
1.0
0.0230
1.2
1.03
0.0160
2.6
1.2
1.5
1.4
1.04
0.0350
0.0330
2.9
0.8
4.9
0.4
0.9
3.0
1.1
5.4
3.7
1.5
3.2
23
1.2
0.8
1.1
5.3
1.7
1.6
3.9
min max min max min max min max min max
stream type ‐‐
drainage area DA sq mi
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps
width at bankfull wbkf feet
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf ‐
low bank height ‐feet
bank height ratio BHR ‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet
entrenchment ratio ER ‐
max pool depth at 
bankfull dpool feet
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐
pool width at bankfull wpool feet
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐
bankfull pool cross‐
sectional area Apool SF
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐
pool‐pool spacing p‐p feet 15 130 15 59 36 152 18 284 18 71
pool‐pool spacing 
ratio p‐p/Wbkf ‐1.6 14.0 1.6 6.3 3.9 16.3 3.9 61.7 2.7 10.8
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schannel feet/foot
sinuosity K ‐
belt width wblt feet 815
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐1.2 2.3
meander length Lm feet 18 61
meander length ratio Lm/wbkf ‐2.7 9.2
linear wavelength LW ‐14 29
linear wavelength 
ratio LW/wbkf ‐2.1 4.4
radius of curvature Rc feet 528
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐0.8 4.2
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
B4
UT2 Reach 4
1.07
0.0369
0.0338
2.0
8
1.1
10
4.0
1.6
1.3
12
3.4
3.1
23
0.4
0.9
9
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
UT2 Reach 3
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
2
3.8
5
0.7
0.5
10
1
1.4
0.4
4
0.052
1.1
9
1.8
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
0.054
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
0.0293 0.0220 0.0510
1.05
‐
‐
‐
0.0199
0.0270 0.0200 0.0490 0.0199
1.01 1.04 1.04
427
1.0 0.9 1.1 1.2
4
436
1.0 0.5 0.7 0.9
1.2 0.9 1.4
2.0 3.0 2.3 1.8
9
0.8
12 12 9
1.3 1.3 2.5 1.4
3.1 3.1 2.2
3.4 3.4 4.8 2.1
12
3.1
0.4 0.4 0.8
23 23 11 8
957
0.9 0.9 0.6 1.1
9
425
3.4 3.4 4.4 4.1
F4b A4 G4
0.07 0.10 0.03 0.15
B4
3.4
4
0.070.03
Parameter Notation Units
UT2 Reach 2
B4
UT2 Reach 5 UT2A UT3
Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 12.4 20.4 34.0 48.3 3.9
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF 3.3 6.0 8.2 10.3 1.4
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.7 2.9
width at bankfull wbkf feet 6.5 9.0 10.4 11.8 4.2
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.30 0.5
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.1 0.3
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 13.0 13.5 13.0 14.0 13.0
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
bank height ratio BHR ‐‐1.0 ‐‐
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet ‐814 ‐11 20 ‐23 52 ‐26 59 ‐59
entrenchment ratio ER ‐1.2 2.2 ‐1.2 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐1.2 2.2
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schnl feet/foot ‐0.0315 0.0346 ‐0.0196 0.0216 ‐0.0173 0.0189 ‐0.0127 0.0138 ‐0.0329 0.0362
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot ‐0.0377 0.062 ‐0.0236 0.039 ‐0.0225 0.057 ‐0.0165 0.0413 ‐0.0395 0.065
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.2 1.8
pool slope Sp feet/foot ‐0.000 0.1380 ‐0.000 0.0086 ‐0.000 0.0151 ‐0.000 0.0113 ‐0.000 0.0145
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.0 0.80 ‐0.0 0.80 ‐0.0 0.40
pool‐pool spacing Lp‐p feet ‐9 32.5 ‐12.6 45 ‐31.0 58.0 ‐35 66 ‐5.88 21
pool spacing ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐1.4 5.0 ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.6 ‐3.0 5.6 ‐1.4 5.0
pool cross‐sectional 
area Apool SF ‐6.6 9.8 ‐12.0 18.0 ‐18.8 24.5 ‐23.6 30.8 ‐2.7 4.1
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet ‐1.0 1.8 ‐1.3 2.3 ‐2.4 3.1 ‐2.6 3.5 ‐0.6 1.1
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐2.0 3.5 ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐2.0 3.5
pool width at 
bankfull wpool feet ‐7.8 9.1 ‐10.8 12.6 ‐12.5 15.6 ‐14.2 17.7 ‐5.0 5.9
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.4
sinuosity K ‐ ‐‐‐‐
belt width wblt feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐26 83 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2.5 8.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐51 114 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
linear wavelength 
ratio (formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
LW/wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander length Lm feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐57 137 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.5 13.2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
radius of curvature Rc feet ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐21 44 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐2.0 4.2 ‐‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐
‐‐
‐
‐
1.0
0.0208
‐
‐
1.0
‐
‐
1.02 1.02 1.16
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 4UT1
C4 B4
0.50 0.01
‐
‐‐‐
0.0346 0.0216
1.02 1.00
1.0 1.0
‐
‐
0.0165 0.036
‐‐
‐‐
Parameter Notation Units
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 1Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 2
B4 B4
‐‐
C4
0.06 0.12 0.31
‐‐
‐‐
Big Bugaboo Creek Reach 3
‐
‐‐‐‐‐
‐‐‐‐‐
‐
‐‐
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
Typical 
Section Min Max
stream type
drainage area DA sq mi
design discharge Q cfs 7.2 14.6 14.6 18.8 7.3 24.6
bankfull cross‐
sectional area Abkf SF 2.1 3.8 3.8 5.5 2.0 6.8
average velocity 
during bankfull event vbkf fps 3.4 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.7 3.7
width at bankfull wbkf feet 5.3 7.1 7.1 8.8 5.1 9.5
maximum depth at 
bankfull dmax feet 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.60 1.1
mean depth at 
bankfull dbkf feet 0.4 0.5 0.5 0.6 0.4 0.7
bankfull width to 
depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 13.0 13.0 13.0 14.0 13.0 13.0
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5
bank height ratio BHR ‐ ‐‐‐‐1.0
floodprone area 
width wfpa feet ‐612 ‐16 36 ‐16 36 ‐19 44 ‐611 ‐21 48
entrenchment ratio ER ‐1.2 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐2.2 5.0 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐2.2 5.0
valley slope Svalley feet/foot
channel slope Schnl feet/foot ‐0.0493 0.0542 ‐0.0244 0.0266 ‐0.0282 0.0307 ‐0.0183 0.0200 ‐0.0454 0.0514 ‐0.0142 0.0154
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot ‐0.0591 0.098 ‐0.0317 0.059 ‐0.0366 0.068 ‐0.0238 0.060 ‐0.0561 0.093 ‐0.0185 0.046
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐1.3 2.2 ‐1.3 3.0 ‐1.2 1.8 ‐1.3 3.0
pool slope Sp feet/foot ‐0.000 0.0217 ‐0.000 0.0107 ‐0.000 0.0123 ‐0.000 0.0080 ‐0.000 0.0925 ‐0.000 0.0062
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.00 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40 ‐0.0 0.40
pool‐pool spacing Lp‐p feet ‐727 ‐21 36 ‐21 36 ‐26.0 45.0 ‐726 ‐29 48
pool spacing ratio Lp‐p/wbkf ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐3.0 5.1 ‐1.4 5.0 ‐3.0 5.1
pool cross‐sectional 
area Apool SF ‐4.2 6.3 ‐8.6 11.3 ‐8.6 11.3 ‐12.6 16.5 ‐4.0 5.9 ‐15.7 20.5
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0 ‐2.0 3.0 ‐2.3 3.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet ‐0.8 1.4 ‐1.6 2.1 ‐1.6 2.1 ‐1.9 2.5 ‐8.0 1.4 ‐2.2 2.9
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐3.0 4.0 ‐2.0 3.5 ‐3.0 4.0
pool width at bankfull wpool feet ‐6.4 7.4 ‐8.5 10.7 ‐8.5 10.7 ‐10.6 13.2 ‐6.1 7.1 ‐11.4 14.3
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.5 ‐1.2 1.4 ‐1.2 1.5
sinuosity K ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐
belt width wblt feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐26 70 ‐‐‐‐24 76
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐3.0 8.0 ‐‐‐‐2.5 8.0
linear wavelength 
(formerly meander 
length)
LW feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐44 97 ‐‐‐‐48 105
linear wavelength 
ratio (formerly 
meander length 
ratio)
LW/wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0 ‐‐‐‐5.0 11.0
meander length Lm feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐48 116 ‐‐‐‐57 136
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐5.5 13.2 ‐‐‐‐6.0 14.3
radius of curvature Rc feet ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐17 26 ‐‐‐‐18 29
radius of curvature 
ratio Rc/ wbkf ‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐1.9 3.0 ‐‐‐‐1.9 3.0
0.0540 0.0293 0.0220 0.0514 0.019
1.00 1.04 1.06 1.03 1.21
0.0338
1.07
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
1.0
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
‐
C4b
0.03 0.07 0.10 0.03 0.15
B4 B4 C4b B4aB4
0.07
‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐ ‐ ‐‐‐
‐‐ ‐‐‐
‐
‐
Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Parameter Notation Units
UT2 Reach 2UT2 Reach 3UT2 Reach 5 UT2A UT3UT2 Reach 4

Appendix 7

Credit Release Schedule
All credit releases will be based on the total credit generated as reported by the as-built survey of the
mitigation 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 in the table below.
For ILF sites (including all NCDMS projects), no initial release of credits (Milestone 1) is provided because
ILF programs utilized advance credits, so no initial release is necessary to help fund site construction. To
account for this, the 15% credit release associated with the first milestone (bank establishment) is held
until the second milestone, so that the total credits release at the second milestone is 30%. In order for
NCDMS to receive the 30% release (shown in the schedules as Milestone 2), they must comply with the
credit release requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS Instrument.
The following conditions apply to the credit release schedules:

A. A reserve of 10% of a site’s total stream credits will be released after four bankfull events have
occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards
are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.

B. For mitigation banks, implementation of the approved Mitigation Plan must be initiated no later
than the first full growing season after the date of the first credit transaction (credit sale).

C. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with
Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of this document, and that the monitoring report
demonstrates that interim performance standards are being met and that no other concerns
have been identified on-site during the visual monitoring. All credit releases require written
approval from the USACE.

D. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in
the Mitigation Plan.
Credit Release Schedule – Stream Credits
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
1 Site Establishment (includes all required criteria stated above) 0% 0%
2 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan 30% 30%
3 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates performance 10% 40%
Credit
Release
Milestone
Credit Release Activity Interim
Release
Total
Released
standards have been met
4 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 50%
5 Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 60%
6 Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 5% 65%
(75%**)
7 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 15% 75%
(85%**)
8* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 5% 80%
(90**)
9 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates performance
standards have been met 10% 90%
(100**)
*Please note that vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring
years unless otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull ev ent performance standard has been met.

Appendix 8

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 22.2 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 being restored along with their
corresponding riparian buffers.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument
Property Owner Parcel ID Number County Site Protection
Instrument
Memorandum of Option Deed
Book (DB) and Page Number
(PG)
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-42-2297 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-51-6430 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-62-7075 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Horace Randle
Wood 4914-51-2940 Wilkes CE DB: 1156, PG: 106
Hilda Gaye Lyon
Swaim Life Estate
and Nathan Harold
Swaim
4914-31-4177 Wilkes CE DB: 1293, PG: 46

All site protection instruments require 60-day advance notification to the USACE and or DMS prior to
any action to void, amend, or modify the document. No such action shall take place unless approved by
the State.

Appendix 9

Financial Assurances
Pursuant to Section IV H and Appendix III of the Division of Mitigation Service’s In‐Lieu Fee Instrument
dated July 28, 2010, the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources has provided
the US Army Corps of Engineers Wilmington District with a formal commitment to fund projects to
satisfy mitigation requirements assumed by DMS. This commitment provides financial assurance for all
mitigation projects implemented by the program.

Appendix 10

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: 
Table1: Maintenance Plan 
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close‐out 
Stream 
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in‐stream 
structures to prevent piping, securing of loose coir matting, and supplemental 
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.  If beaver become active on the site, Wildlands will contract with 
the USDA to trap the beaver and remover the dams. 
Vegetation 
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted 
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include 
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 boundary 
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, 
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.