20200018 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan_2021_20210830

ID#* 20200018 Version* 1
Select Reviewer:*
Erin Davis
Initial Review Completed Date 08/31/2021
Mitigation Project Submittal - 8/30/2021
Is this a Prospectus, Technical Proposal or a New Site?* O Yes a No
Type of Mitigation Project:*
rJ Stream r Wetlands [Buffer ❑ Nutrient Offset
(Select all that apply)
Project Contact Information
Contact Name:*
Harry Tsomides
Project Information
...................................................................................
ID#:* 20200018
Existing IDV
Project Type:
Project Name:
County:
F DMS r Mitigation Bank
Laurel Valley Site
Burke
Document Information
Email Address:*
[e-mail]
Version: * 1
Existing Version
Mitigation Document Type:*
Mitigation Plans
File Upload: LAUREL VALLEY _100140_MP 2021.pdf 35.73MB
Rease upload only one PDF of the complete file that needs to be subrritted...
Signature
Print Name:* Harry Tsomides
Signature:*

MITIGATION PLAN
Revised Draft for IRT
Review
August 2021
LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE
Burke County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
DMS ID No. 100140
Catawba River Basin
H U C 03050101
USACEAction ID No. SAW-2020-00053
RFP #:16-007875 (Issued 5/6/2019)
D W R# : 20200018
PREPARED FOR:
rkt
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
W ILDLANDS
F Nr.INFF 1-1,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal RegisterTitle
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 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 deliveryof compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Project Manager Jacob Wiseman, PE, CIF M,Assistant Project Manager
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge Jordan Hessler, Stream Design and Permitting
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineation Jeff Keaton, PE Quality Assurance
Emily Reinicker, PE Quality Assurance Noyes Harrigan, El, CFM, Field Assessment

ROY COOPER
Governor
JOHN NICHOLSON
In terrm Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
June 30, 2021
Eric Neuhaus
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Subject: Laurel Valley Site
Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Catawba River Basin Cataloging Unit 03050101
DMS Project ID #100140
Dear Eric,
The NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) has reviewed the Draft Mitigation Plan and Preliminary Plans
for the Laurel Valley Site. Following are DMS's comments on this Task 3 design deliverable:
Report
Report Cover - Add the DWR # and add the RFP issuance date (RFP 16-007875 issued 5/6/2019).
The final USACE approved Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) and approved map/s should be
included in the revised mitigation plan. Please be sure to update all figures and report text accordingly
upon USACE approval, and include all approval correspondence.
Please provide a table summarizing impacts to existing wetlands.
The 5/19/2020 memo indicated that soil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek
by the IRT indicated hydric soil indicators and while no wetland credit is being sought in this plan,
Wildlands noted that groundwater gages would be installed within existing jurisdictionally delineated
wetlands to monitor project effect on wetland hydrology and that locations of the gages will be shown
within the mitigation plan. While there were gages observed on site, there was no apparent reference to
or mapping of floodplain wetland hydrology devices in the plan. Please clarify.
Since there is some design in the preservation reach (culvert installation on internal crossing), this reach
should be part of the plan discussion and description of culvert, similarly to UT2 culvert. In addition, it is
recommended that some measure of visual monitoring (additional photos and/or VA table) be
conducted on the preservation reach given the existing conditions and future culvert installation.
NpRTi CARpIJrv1gD E Q
��
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 West Jones Street j 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

In the 5/19/2020 memo (Appendix 6) it was noted that the current culvert at the upstream end of East
Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. is perched and appears undersized; Wildlands
indicated that this belonged to the adjacent landowner who was unwilling to allow a replacement, but
that Wildlands would determine true land ownership during the survey. What was the result of the
survey, and it there any possibility that Wildlands could install a properly sized and elevated crossing?
Appendix 9 table indicates the Invasives Treatment Plan is in Appendix 8 however it is Appendix 7. Please
correct.
Invasives Treatment Plan (Appendix 7) does not mention fescue. Please indicate the fescue treatment
plan, e.g. prior /during/after site construction. Early treatment is recommended if there is a risk of
fescue impeding planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
Please describe the project fencing to be installed and reference the fencing plan provided in the plan
set (appendices). Please also briefly describe how livestock will get drinking water when excluded from
the project streams (well, livestock drinkers, etc).
Please indicate on the Figure 8 concept map, that the internal crossings #2 and #3 are going to be
culvert installations, and that #1(external) is an existing culvert (that will be left as -is).
Plan sheets 5.1 and beyond were upside down in the hard copy set. Please QAQC future hard copies.
The 5/19/2020 response memo indicated that given the concern about UT1 Reach 2 (downstream of the
project limits) losing hydrology as the result of channel relocation, there would be some monitoring
measure(s) along the abandoned segment of UT1 to ensure stream relocation does not result in a
complete loss of hydrology. Can Wildlands specify if/what measures will be implemented, and show
these on the monitoring map?
A recent field visit indicated that there is a ditch/ephemeral drainage feature on the right floodplain
along UT2 — mid near STA 307+00 (approx.); on the plan sheets, there does not appear to be a
treatment along this segment within the easement, to stabilize. Recommend adding floodplain drainage
stabilization measure.
There is a moderately sized ditch in the floodplain that is draining the wetland area in between UT1 and
UT2 (left floodplain of East Prong HQ there does not appear to be a treatment along this segment
within the easement, to stabilize. Recommend adding floodplain ditch stabilization measure, at least
within the easement and preferably extending up the ditch.
Section 6.6.1 East Prong Hunting Creek & Sheet 2.1.1: This section describes the plunge pool at the
beginning of the project as an area with major erosion that may require additional rock as determined
during construction. Please describe the potential rock stabilization method that could be applied to this
area and label the plunge pool on Sheet 2.1.1 and consider adding a detail sheet for the potential rock
stabilization structure.
Section 6.6.2 UT1 Reach 2; Appendix 6 IRT Post -Contract Meeting Minutes #4 Response; and Sheet 2.2.2:
The meeting minutes indicate that "Wildlands will raise the stream grade, backing water up the culvert to
help with culvert perching and aquatic organism passage. Wildlands will also add rock material to create
roughness within the bed of the culvert to give aquatic species some refuge within the culvert". The
D E QNorth Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 11601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
hY7R'H cRiiVi.ir`,f1
oanaro,b�� or e�w���rsi a�+nq 919.707.8600

channel modifications specified are not addressed in Section 6.6.2 or Sheet 2.2.2. Please indicate the
proposed modifications in the design discussion and on the plan sheets.
Section 6.6.3 UT2 CMP Culvert: Thank you for specifying the CMP culvert is to be embedded 12-inches
(minimum). Please indicate the proposed pipe diameter and state the benefits of embedding the culvert.
Internal culverts atop UT2 and UT1— was woody debris passage considered in order to minimize risk of
logjams and landowner maintenance burdens? Please consider adding discussion in risks and
uncertainties section, or clarify otherwise,as there would appear to be risk of a substantial input of
woody material from sections upstream.
Section 7.0 Performance Standards/ Section 8.0 Monitoring Plan: Please note that all volunteer stems or
supplemental plantings must be present in the plot data for two years to be included as meeting the
established vegetation performance standards.
Page 2. "Geomorphic ratios including low bank height ratio and entrenchment ratio for East
Prong Hunting Creek..." Do you mean high BHR and Low ER?
Page 3, 6 and NCSAM documentation. Please note there are discrepancies in the grain size distributions
in the document. Page 3 references sand and gravel, page 6 six mentions gravel and cobble in UT1 (no
qualifier or quantity), but table indicates D50 sand. Please be specific when discussing grainsize
distribution, dominant substrate and variability. Reviewers require this information as part of the
technical review process.
Page 9 Uplift and constraints. The overall functional uplift section mentions upland sediment as a source
on East Prong Hunting Creek. There is also an upstream source from bank erosion beyond the project
limits as well, correct? If so, please address this sediment source as it relates to the restoration activities
in this section. It is important to set up realistic expectations for the monitoring period.
Page 10. In list of uplift items, "Reduce bank erosion and associated pollutants." Is WEI referring to
phosphorus associated with sediment or other pollutants besides sediment?
Please add represented particle size distributions to the report.
Tables
Table 1 Project Attribute Table Part 1 - Enter site coordinates in decimal degrees.
Table 2 Project Attribute Table Part 2 - Hyphenate the NCDWR Sub -basin (03-08-31).
Sheet 5.9 Details Part III - Consider adding a "Call Before You Dig" reference.
Table 13 - Please clarify why the expected D50 of Reach 1 and 2 of East Prong Hunting Creek is listed as
>2mm. DMS is aware of the current condition parameters, but does WEI expect the constructed channel
to have more coarse material?
Table 17 (Performance standards) - The performance standard for substrate states "Coarser material in
riffles; finer particles in pools". Since WEI has described (in competency/sediment transport analysis, and
D E Q�North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 11601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
hoR'H cRiiVi.ir`,f1
o.P+. 919.707.8600

text throughout the document) the amount of course sand in the channels, what is the differentiation
between coarse and fine? Is WEI expecting to have a gravel bed stream with the this design?
The precautionary woody species footnote in Table 17 is confusing. Is Wildlands suggesting alternative
criteria due to wetter conditions inhibiting woody growth in some areas? Or is Wildlands just expecting
some wetter portions of the site to not meet criteria? Please clarify. If alternate criteria are being sought
for certain wetter areas, it should be rationalized, defined clearly and additional details provided.
Table 18 (Monitoring) should distinguish CVS versus random plot quantities being proposed.
Digital Support Files
Reach -wide particle distribution data was submitted, but it does not appear to be included in the report.
Cross section specific particle distributions were included in the report, but were not included with the
digital deliverables. Please ensure all particle count data is submitted with the deliverables and included
in the report.
Thank you in advance for addressing these comments. DMS will need a CD with a single PDF of the
report/plans, and all updated digital support files in the correct file structure. Please send a revised PDF
to me for final completeness review. Wildlands can then generate and send final bound hard copies to IRT
contacts. Please include a copy of your response letter, bound inside the front cover of each hard copy
report (and included in the final PDF).
If you have any questions, please let me know.
Sincerely,
Harry Tsomides
Project Manager, NCDEQ-DMS
D E
��� North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
217 West Jones Street 11601 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1601
NCRT CAAOL�NA
a++nq 919.707,8600

k &V
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
TO: Harry Tsomides, NC DMS
FROM: Eric Neuhaus, PE
DATE: August 12, 2021
RE: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101
Burke County, NC
DMS ID No. 100140
DEQ Contract N u m be r 7875-02
RFP N u m be r 16-007875
SAW-2020-00053
Response to NCDMS Mitigation Plan Comments
This memodocuments NCDMS's initial Draft Mitigation Plan review comments (in italics) received from
Harry Tsomides' letterdated June 30, 2021, the projectteam's responses, and where the revisions have
been included in the final Mitigation Plan.
Mitigation Plan Comments:
Report:
• Report Cover- Add the DWR # and add the RFP issuance date (RFP 16-007875 issued 51612019).
The DWR # and RFP issuance date were added to the cover page.
• The final USA CE approved PreliminaryJurisdictional Determination (PJD) and approved map/s
should be included in the revised mitigation plan. Please be sure to update all figures and report
text accordingly upon USA CE approval, and include all approval correspondence.
The U SACE a p p roved Pre liminaryJurisdictional Determination (PJD), includingthe finaI map was
included in Appendix 2 in lieu of the previously submitted package. Text with in the re port was
updated to reflect that the approved PJD has been received.
• Please provide a table summarizing impacts to existing wetlands.
Table 9 has been updated to include estimated permanent and temporary impacts to existing
wetlands at the Site. Table numbering on subsequent report tables was updated accordingly.
The 511912020 memo indicated thatsoil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong
Hunting Creek by the IRT indicated hydric soil indicators and while no wetland credit is being
sought in this plan, Wildlands noted that groundwater gages would be installed within existing
jurisdiction ally delineated wetlands to monitor project effect on wetland hydrology and that
locations of the gages will be shown within the mitigation plan. While there were gages
observed on site, there was no apparent reference to or mapping of floodplain wetland
hydrology devices in the plan. Please clarify.

Three existing groundwater gages were installed along the bound aryoft he existing
jurisdictional wetland areas in the right flood plain of E Prong Hunting Creek to evaluate current
hydrology and further refine jurisdiction al bound aries.The approximate locations of existing
groundwater gages were added to Figure 2. Given that no wetland mitigation crediting is
requested, data was not provided fort he groundwater gages within the mitigation plan.
• Since there is some design in the preservation reach (culvert installation on internal crossing),
this reach should be part of the plan discussion and description of culvert, similarly to UT2
culvert. In addition, it is recommended thatsome measure of visual monitoring (additional
photos and/or VA table) be conducted on the preservation reach given the existing conditions
and future culvert installation.
Section 6.6.2 UT1 Reach 1 was added to the Mitigation plan narrative discussing the culvert
crossing installation within the easement break ofUT1 Reach 1. Three photo points are included
along UT1 Reach 1 as shown in Figure 9 and tallied in Table 19.
• In the 5/19/2020 memo (Appendix 6) it was noted that the current culvert at the upstream end
of East Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. is perched and appears
undersized, Wildlands indicated that this belonged to the adjacent landowner who was unwilling
to allow a replacement, but that Wildlands would determine true landownership during the
survey. What was the result of the survey, and it there any possibility that Wildlands could install
a properlysized and elevated crossing?
The roadway lies within a 20-footeasement partially on upstream property owner Delores
Hildebrand Stroupe. Given the crossings recent installation by the adjacent property owner,
there was not interest in Wildlands replacing the crossing.
• Appendix 9 table indicates the Invasives Treatment Plan is in Appendix 8howeverit is Appendb(7
Please correct.
The Appendix reference has been corrected.
• Invasives Treatment Plan (Appendix 7) does notmention fescue. Please indicate the fescue
treatmentplan, e.g. prior/during/aftersiteconstruction. Early treatment is recommended if
there is a risk of fescue impeding planted vegetation establishment and vigor.
A fescue treatment plan has been added to Appendix 7 Invasive Species Treatment Plan.
• Please describe the project fencing to be installed and reference the fencing plan provided in the
plan set (appendices). Please also briefly describe how livestock will get drinking water when
excluded from the projectstreams (well, livestock drinkers, etc).
Additional language was added to Section 3.1, Site Constraints to Functional Uplift to provide
more detail to the fencing plan. Please note that cattle exclusion may be achieved by either
implementing the fencing plan or by removing livestock from the property. Additional livestock
infrastructure beyond fencing and stream crossings is the Landowner's responsibility and is nota
part of the mitigation project. All livestock infrastructure is required to be located outside ofthe
easement.

• Please indicate on the Figure 8 concept map, that the internal crossings #2 and #3 are going to
be culvert installations, and that #1 (external) is an existing culvert (that will be left as -is).
Figure 8 was revised to includes caIlouts definingcrossing information.
Plan sheets 5.1 and beyond were upsidedown in the hard copy set. Please QAQCfuture hard
copies.
The 511912020 response memo indicated that given the concern about UT1 Reach 2
(downstream of the project limits) losing hydrology as the result of channel relocation, there
would be some monitoring measure(s) along the abandoned segment of UT1 to ensure stream
relocation does not result in a complete loss of hydrology. Can Wildlands specify if/what
measures will be implemented, and show these on the monitoring map?
The previous propertyowner passed away and Wild lands does not currently have permission to
monitor the potential resource on the downstream end of UT1. Wild lands will continue to
attempt to acquire permission to install a stream flow gage downstream on UT1. Design
features discussed within the mitigation plan were proposed to ensure downstream hydrology
within the potential resource.
• A recent field visit indicated that there is a ditch/ephemeral drainage feature on the right
floodplain along UT2— mid nearSTA 307+00 (approx.); on the plan sheets, there does not appear
to be a treatment along this segment within the easement, to stabilize. Recommend adding
floodplain drainagestabilization measure.
An outlet stabilization detail was added to Sheet 5.6 and areas identified in the Stream Plan and
Profile sheets where drainage features will be stabilized.
• There is a moderately sized ditch in the floodplain that is draining the wetland area in between
UT1 and UT2 (leftfloodplain of East Prong HC); there does not appear to be a treatment along
this segment within the easement, to stabilize. Recommend adding floodplain ditch stabilization
measure, at least within the easement and preferably extending up the ditch.
An outlet stabilization detail was added to Sheet 5.6 and areas identified in the Stream Plan and
Profile sheets where drainage features will be stabilized.
Section 6.6.1 East Prong Hunting Creek & Sheet 2.1.1: This section describes the plunge pool at
the beginning of the project as an area with major erosion that may require additional rock as
determined during construction. Please describe the potential rock stabilization method that
could be applied to this area and label the plunge pool on Sheet2.1.1 and consideradding a detail
sheet for the potential rock stabilization structure.
If, during construction, it is determined that additional stabilization of the crossing embankment
is required, Class 1 stone (or other approved stone) will be applied along the crossing
embankment and around the existing pipe outlet or inlet. Stormwater runoff from the road often
channelizes and enters the streams along the crossing embankment creating gullies or eroded

areas. After re -grading the eroded area, stone will be applied to reduce the potential for the
problemto re -occur. Note that the embankment areas that may receive this stone (the crossing
at the beginning of East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 and the crossing at the beginning of UT1
Reach 2) are located outside the conservation easement. Stone will only be applied to the crossing
embankment while erosion along the outer banks of the plunge pools will be addressed by
grading, brushtoe/geolifts, and planting. The plunge pools throughoutthe project were labeled
in the planset (Sheet2.1.1and 2.2.2) and additional noteswere added that stone would only be
applied tothe crossing embankment. A detailwas added to sheet5.4 in the Plans.
• Section 6.6.2 UT1 Reach 2, Appendix 61RTPost- Contract Meeting Minutes #4 Response, andSheet
2.2.2: The meeting minutes indicate that "Wildlands will raise the stream grade, backing water
up the culvert to help with culvert perching and aquatic organism passage. Wildlands will also add
rock material to create roughness within the bed of the culvert to give aquaticspecies some refuge
within the culvert". The ch an n el modifications specified are not addressed in Section 6.6.2 orSh eet
2.2.2. Please indicate the proposed modifications in the design discussion and on the plan sheets.
The mitigation plan currently mentions "The plunge pool transitions to the typical meander pool
dimensions and then a constructed riffle, the head of which was set at an elevation to increase
the watersurface through the culvertand reduce the perched condition of the culvertto improve
aquatic organism passage." The elevation of the first head of riffle was set so that water would
back into the existing culvert. Backwater surface profiles were added to Sheet 2.1.1 and 2.2.2.
• Section 6.6.3 UT2 CMP Culvert: Thank you for specifying the CMP culvert is to be embedded 12-
inches (minimum). Please indicate the proposed pipe diameter and state the benefits of
embedding the culvert.
The proposed minimum pipe diameter of 54" was included in the Mitigation Plan and additional
discussion of the benefits of pipe embedment were included in Sections 6.6.2 UT1 Reach 1 and
6.6.4 UT2.
• Internal culverts atop UT2 and UT1— was woody debris passage considered in order to minimize
risk of logjams and landowner maintenance burdens? Please consider adding discussion in risks
and uncertainties section, or clarify otherwise, as there would appear to be risk of a substantial
input of woody materialfrom sections upstream.
A paragraph was added to the Mitigation Plan in Section 6.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
discussing the risk of logjams at the proposed culverts.
• Section 7.0 Performance Standards/Section 8.0 Monitoring Plan: Please note that all volunteer
stems or supplemental plantings must be present in the plot data fortwo years to be included as
meeting the established vegetation performance standards.
The recommended note was added to the footnotes within the performance standards and
monitoring tables.
Paget. "Geomorphic ratios including low bank height ratio and entrenchment ratiofor East
Prong Hunting Creek..." Do you mean high BHR and Low ER?
4

Yes, these ntence was corrected to state "high bank height ratio and low entrench mentratio"
• Page 3, 6 and NCSAM documentation. Please note there are discrepancies in the grain size
distributions in the document. Page 3 references sand and gravel, page 6 six mentions gravel and
cobble in UT1 (no qualifier or quantity), but table indicates D50 sand. Please be specific when
discussing grainsize distribution, dominant substrate and variability. Reviewers require this
information as part of the technical review process.
References to gravel and cobble for East Prong Hunting Creek and UT1 (Section 3.3.1) in the
body of the narrative are qualitative assessments of the stream, mentioned to inform the reader
that these size particles were present and relatively common in the reaches. The second part of
these sentences explains why the assessed reachwide D50 of the streams are much smaller: "
Channel substrate consist of gravel and cobble sized material that has been embedded with fine
sediment from bank erosion." This is consistent with the NC SAM assessments which generally
show that cobble and gravel are common on all reaches (one exception — UT1 Reach 2 upper
which was assessed as cobbles only rarely beingfound), while sand was assessed as abundant
for all reaches.
To add clarity, a second sentence was added to the narrative stating "The abundance of these
fine sediments contributed tothe assessed reachwide D50of ...."
Page9 Uplift and constraints. The overall functional uplift section mentions upland sedimentas a
source on East Prong Hunting Creek. There is also an upstream source from bank erosion beyond
the project limits as well, correct? If so, please address this sediment source as it relates to the
restoration activities in this section. It is important to set up realistic expectations for the
monitoring period.
The Project Risk and Uncertainties section was revised, and additional discussion of
upstream erosion risk was included in the Mitigation Plan
Page 10. In list of upliftitems, "Reduce bank erosion and associated pollutants." Is WEI referring
to phosphorus associated with sediment or otherpollutants besides sediment?
"Associated pollutants" was a reference to sediment inputs into the stream. The bullet point in
the Mitigation Plan has been changed to "Reducing bank erosion and direct sediment inputs to
the stream."
• Please add represented particle size distributions to the report.
Particle Size distribution reports and pebble counts have been added to Appendix 4.

Tables:
• Table 1 ProjectAttribute Table Part -Enter site coordinates in decimal degrees.
The coordinates have been converted and Table 1 has been updated
• Table 2 ProjectAttribute Table Part - Hyphenate the NCDWRSub -basin (03-08-31).
Dashes have been added to the Sub -basin ID in Table 2
• Sheet5.9 Details Partlll -Consider adding a "Call Before You Dig" reference.
A "Call Before You Dig" emblem is located on the Title Sheet of the Planset.
• Table 13 - Please clarify why the expected D50 of Reach land 2 of East Prong Hunting Creek is
listed as >2mm. DMS is aware of the current condition parameters, but does WEI expect the
constructed channel to have more coarse material?
Additional material is expected to be required to ensure riffle stability. The selected material
may be found on -site or imported but will need to be larger than the current stream D50 and
will likely be in the course gravel or cobble size range. Native material in the existing streambed
will also be harvested and utilized in construction to the extent practical. In Table 13, the ">2.0
mm" proposed D50 refers to the bottom limit of the expected riffle D50 in the new stream,
meaning the proposed stream should type out as a gravel bed stream or larger. The "greater
than" sign also captures some of the unknowns on the availability and size of on -site rock
material as well as how sediment inputs from the watershed above the project may affect the
stream substrate size.
Table 17 (Performance standards) - The performance standard for substrate states "Coarser
material in riffles; finer particles in pools". Since WEI has described (in competency/sediment
transport analysis, and text throughout the document) the amount of course sandin the channels,
what is the differentiation between coarse and fine? Is WEI expecting to have a gravel bed stream
with this design?
Wildlands anticipates a gravel bed stream but also understands that the watershed has a high
sand load which could result in minor riffle embedment and lower d50 100 counts. The
performance standard outlined in the Table is stating that sediment counts performed in riffles
will have a higher d50 than those performed in pools. This is a typical performance standard used
in previous approved mitigation plans.
The precautionary woody species footnote in Table 17 is confusing. Is Wildlands suggesting
alternative criteria due to wetter conditions inhibiting woody growth in some areas? Oris
Wildlands justexpecting some wetter portions of the site to not meet criteria? Please clarify. If
alternate criteria are being sough tfor certain wetter areas, it should be rationalized, defined
clearly and additional details provided.
M.

Wild lands is suggesting alternative criteria previously discussed with the NCIRT based on
anticipated wetter conditions inhibiting woody growth. Table 18 (Revised Table 17) and were
updated with more defined alternative criteria.
• Table 18 (Monitoring) should distinguish CVS versus random plot quantities being proposed.
No random plots are being proposed for Lau reIValley Mitigation Site and the reference to
random plots was removed from Table 18.
Digital Support Files:
Reach -wide particle distribution data was submitted, butitdoes not appear to be included in
the report. Cross section specific particle distributions were included in the report, but were
not included with the digital deliverables. Please ensure all particle countdata issubmitted
with the deliverables and included in the report.
Cross section specific particle distrib utionswere included in the fold ern amed"4. Existing
Conditions Data" in the revised digital deliverable. Reachwide sedimentdata is included within
Tables 4, 5, and 6 within the report.
7

MITIGATION PLAN
Revised Draft for IRT
Review
August 2021
LAUREL VALLEY MITIGATION SITE
Burke County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
DMS ID No. 100140
Catawba River Basin
H U C 03050101
USACEAction ID No. SAW-2020-00053
RFP #:16-007875 (Issued 5/6/2019)
D W R# : 20200018
PREPARED FOR:
rkt
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC27699-1652

PREPARED BY:
to
W]LllLANlI)S
I . it i:' ,. P ...e .
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal RegisterTitle
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 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 deliveryof compensatory
mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Eric Neuhaus, PE, Project Manager Jacob Wiseman, PE, CIF M,Assistant Project Manager
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge Jordan Hessler, Stream Design and Permitting
Win Taylor, PWS, Wetland Delineation Jeff Keaton, PE Quality Assurance
Emily Reinicker, PE Quality Assurance Noyes Harrigan, El, CFM, Field Assessment

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction.................................................................................................................................1
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection......................................................................................1
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions...................................................................................................2
3.1 Watershed Conditions.........................................................................................................2
3.2 Landscape Characteristics....................................................................................................3
3.3 Project Resources................................................................................................................5
3.3.1 Existing Streams...............................................................................................................5
3.3.2 Existing Wetlands.............................................................................................................9
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential........................................................................................9
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift....................................................................................
10
4.0 Regulatory Considerations..........................................................................................................10
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources.......................................................................................
11
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass........................................................
11
4.3 401/404............................................................................................................................12
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives...........................................................................................13
6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan................................................................................15
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview.....................................................................................
15
6.2 Reference Streams............................................................................................................
15
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis..................................................................................................16
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters.........................................................................
17
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis..............................................................................................18
6.5.1 Competence Analysis......................................................................................................19
6.6 Stream Design Implementation..........................................................................................
19
6.6.1 East Prong Hunting Creek................................................................................................20
6.6.2 UT1 Reach 2...................................................................................................................21
6.6.3 UT2................................................................................................................................
21
6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management...............................................................
22
6.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties............................................................................................
25
7.0 Performance Standards..............................................................................................................26
8.0 Monitoring Plan.........................................................................................................................27
9.0 Long -Term Management Plan.....................................................................................................29
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan......................................................................................................29
11.0 Determination of Credits..........................................................................................................30
11.1 Determination of Credits Overview.....................................................................................
30
11.2 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths............................................................
30
References.........................................................................................................................................32

TABLES
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1.................................................................................................1
Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2.................................................................................................3
Table3: Project Soil Types...................................................................................................................4
Table 4: East Prong Hunting Creek Attribute Table................................................................................6
Table 5: UT1 Attribute Table................................................................................................................7
Table 6: UT2 Attribute Table................................................................................................................8
Table 7: Project Attribute Table...........................................................................................................9
Table 8: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table............................................................................11
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Wetlands............................................................................................12
Table 10: Mitigation Goals and Objectives..........................................................................................13
Table 11: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach........................................................................15
Table 12: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters.....................................16
Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis...................................................................17
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1..............17
Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 2 and UT2................................18
Table 16: Results of Competence Analysis..........................................................................................19
Table17: Planting List......................................................................................................................
23
Table 18: Summary of Performance Standards...................................................................................27
Table 19: Monitoring Components....................................................................................................28
Table 20: Long-term Management Plan.............................................................................................29
Table 21: Project Asset Table.............................................................................................................31
FIGURES
Figure 1
Vicinity Map
Figure 2
Site Map
Figure
Watershed Map
Figure4
USGSTopographic Map
Figure 5
Soils Map
Figure 6
Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 7
Design Discharge Analysis
Figure8
Concept Design Map
Figure
Monitoring Components Map
Figure 10
Planting Zones Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1
Historic Aerial Photos
Appendix2
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Approval
Appendix3
DWR and NCSAM Identification Forms
Appendix4
Supplementary Design Information
Appendix5
Categorical Exclusion Checklist and Summary
Appendix6
NCIRTCommunications
Appendix?
Invasive Species Treatment Plan
Appendix8
Site Protection Instrument
Appendix9
Maintenance Plan
Appendix 10
Financial Assurance
Appendixll
Credit Release Schedule
Appendixll
Preliminary Plans
Appendixl3
Buffer Width Credit Adjustment
Appendix14
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation Request

1.0Introduction
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site (Site) is in Burke County approximately 3.5 miles southeast of
Morganton (Figure 1). The Site is within the NC Division of Mitigation Services (DMS) Hunting Creek
targeted local watershed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03050101060050 and the NC Division of Water
Resources (DWR) Subbasin 03-08-31. The Site will provide stream credits in the Catawba River Basin
HUC 03050101 (Catawba 01). The project proposesto restore and preserve approximately 5,158 linear
feet of streams (Figure 2). The work proposed on the Site will provide 4,836 warm stream credits and
will be protected in perpetuity by approximately 14 acres of conservation easement.
Table 1: Project Attribute Table Part 1
Project Information
Project Name
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
County
Burke
Project Area (acres)
14
Project Coordinates (latitude and longitude)
35.702772-81.642614
Planted Acreage (acres of woody stems planted)
13
2.0 Basin Characterization and Site Selection
The Catawba 01 Basin is dominated by forested land (62%) with sizable areas of agriculture (17%) and
developed land (16%). The major developed areas include Morganton, Lenoir, the northern portions of
Hickory, Huntersville, Gastonia, and outlying areas northwest of Charlotte. Its main roadways consist of
1-77, 1-40, and US-70. East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries (namedforthis
project as UT1 and UT2) will be restored and preserved as part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek
is 303(d) listed as impaired for exceeding the criteria for fecal coliform bacteria for recreational use. East
Prong Hunting Creek drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. Three municipalities, Granite Falls,
Lenoir, and Valdese have public water intakes along the lake. Multiple conservation and watershed
planning documents outline water quality goals and objectives forth broader Catawba River basin and
the smaller hunting Creek basin as summarized below:
• The 2009 (amended 2018) Catawba River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) lists restoring
impaired waters by removing conditions causing sediment impairments and improving
managementto reduce direct cattle impacts to streams as goals for the watershed. The degree
of degradation of Hunting Creek's riparian buffers (i.e.41% non -forested) and negative effects
of urbanization on stream health within the watershed are discussed specifically in the RBRP.
• The 2010 NC DWR Catawba River Basinwide Water Quality Plan notes that Hunting Creek
provides significant annual nonpoint source nutrient loading (nitrogen and phosphorus) to Lake
Rhodhiss.
• The2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's(NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)
notes that riparian habitat loss, excessive sedimentation, and nutrient loadingfrom poorly
managed agricultural and development operations are widespread problems within the basin.
The WAP discusses the importance of habitat conservation and restoration to address current
problems affecting species and habitats.
• The 2009-2011 Hunting Creek Local Watershed Plan (LWP) documents identified major
functional stressors in the watershed as urban development; stormwater runoff, strea m bank
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 1 August 2021

erosion; increased sedimentation within streams; degraded riparian buffers, including lack of
woody vegetation; agricultural and residential land management practices; and fecal coIiform
and nutrient inputs. The Site was identified in the Hunting Creek LWP as site ID 14. Site ID 14
was ranked as a medium priority potential stream restoration project in the Hunting Creek
watershed.
The Site was selected due to its ability to support local watershedo bjectives and goals by excluding
livestock, creating stablest ream banks, and restoring forest in agriculturally maintained buffer areas.
These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs top rojectstrearns, and ultimately to
Hunting Creek, Rhodhiss Lake, and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial
habitats onthe Site. Restoration of the Site is directly in line with recommended management strategies
outlined in the LWP and RBRP.
3.0 Baseline and Existing Conditions
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The Site watershed is located outside of the city limits of Morganton but almost entirelywithin the
township of Morganton in Burke County, INC. The Site topography and relief are typical for the region, as
illustrated in Figure 4. Generally, valleys onsite range from moderately confined and alluvial to
unconfined and alluvial. Valley slopes flatten as elevations decrease and valley confinement reduces as
the tributaries flowthrough the floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek.
All onsite streams drain to East Prong Hunting Creek which is classified as Water Supply IV waters. Water
Supply IV waters are a watersupply source for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes. Water
Supply IV waters are also protected for Class C uses. Class C waters are protected forsecondary
recreation, fishingand fish consumption, wildlife, aquatic life, and agriculture. Secondary recreation
includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with waterwhere such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner.
The watershed tothe Site streams includes a mix of forested, agriculture (pasture/hayfields), shrubland
and some low -density residential land use. The East Prong Hunting Creek watershed is roughly bisected
by SamJ Ervin Jr Hwy (NC-18) and encompasses the watersheds of UT1 and UT2. UT1 flows northward in
a moderately sloped valleyto join East Prong Hunting Creek downstream of the site boundary. UT2
flows north in a moderately sloped valleytojoin East Prong Hunting Creek within the Site boundary.
Much of the East Prong Hunting Creek watershed lies offsite tothe east and is bound by Back Bluff Drive
to the Northeast and Hawkins Dr/Sawmill Road to the Southwest. The land within these watersheds is
zoned for Residential, General Business, and Industrial use.
A review of historic aerials (Appendix 1) from 1947 to 2016 shows that East Prong Hunting Creek and
UT2 have existed in theirsame approximate location and with the same pattern for over72 years.
Aerials potentially show that UT1 historically flowed into East Prong Hunting Creekwithin the Site
boundary butwas rerouted between 1976 and 1984 to leave the Site at its current location. Aerials
showsome changesto the agricultural managementof the land. Open pastureswere present between
1947 and 1964 that generally match the existingopen pasture limits. Between 1976 and 1984, the open
pastureswere allowed togrow up substantially. By 1993 the woods had been cleared to reestablish
open pastures asthey currently exist.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 2 August 2021

Table 2: Project Attribute Table Part 2
Project Watershed Summary Information
Physiographic
Province
Piedmont
Ecoregion
Northern Inner Piedmont
River Basin
Catawba River
USGS HUC (8 digit, 14
digit)
03050101, 03050101060050
NCDWR Sub -basin
03-08-31
NCDWR Water
Quality Classification
WS-IV
East Prong Hunting Creek
UT1
UT2
Drainage Area (acres)
1274
136
155
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Forest
75%
49%
82%
Agricultural
6%
13%
11%
Grassland
6%
3%
2%
Shrubland
1%
4%
1%
Developed
12%
31%
4%
Open Water
0%
0%
0%
Impervious
2%
6%
0.6%
3.2 Landscape Characteristics
The Site is located in the Tugaloo and Cat Square terranes of the Piedmont physiographic province. The
Piedmont province is characterized by rolling, well rounded hills and long low ridges, with elevations
ranging from 300 to 1500 feetabove sea level. The Tugaloo terrane is co mposed of metamorphosed
sedimentary and volcanic rocks deposited on rifted continental and newly created oceaniccrust off the
coast of the ancient North American continentfrom about480 to 570 million years ago. The Cat Square
terrane is composed of deformed metamorphic rocksthat have been intruded byyoungergranitic rocks.
The underlyinggeology is mapped as migmatitic granitic gneiss (OCgm) and inequigranular biotite gneiss
(CZpg). The migmatitic granitic gneiss from the Cambrian to Ordovician period (455 to 540 million years
in age) is described as foliated to massive, granitic to quartz dioritic with biotite gneiss and amphibolite
common. The inequigranular biotite gneiss from the Late Proterozoicto Cambrian period (500 to 900
million years in age) is described asweaklyto massively foliated, containing plagioclase megacrysts, and
rarely, larger megacrysts of quartz and feldspar.
Channel substrate ranged from silt and fine sand up to medium sized cobbles. The D50 for all streams
was similar, ranging from 0.77-3.8mm, and was categorized as course sand or gravel stream beds. Field
notes taken duringthe assessment period indicated that loads offinersediment (silt and sand) were
likely being introduced to the stream systems from upland areas and from streambank erosion. No
exposed bedrockwas identified in the stream or floodplain of the stream and is not expected to
interfere with construction.
The predominant flood plain soils on site are described in Table 3 below and depicted in Figure 5.
Wetland areas were delineated atthe site using F3 and F19 soil indicators. All wetland hydrology at the
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 3 August 2021

Site is thought to be influenced by groundwater seeps and occasional overbankfloodingfrom the
project tributaries. Geomorphic ratios including high bank height ratio and low entrenchment ratio for
East Prong Hunting Creek provide evidence of disconnection from the current floodplain wetlands,
primarily Wetland B. Additionally, overbank flow indicators were not observed during recent large rain
events, furthers up porting the lack of flood plain connection anticipated based on the existing
geomorphic ratios.
Table 3: Project Soil Types
Soil Name
Slopes
Description
This series consists of somewhat occasionally flooded and poorly
drained soil on floodplains. The permeability is high and low
AaA - Arkaqua
0 to 2%, occasionally
surface runoff. This soil is suited for woodland and poorly suited
Loam
flooded
for cropland due to wetness and flooding. It is found along the
majority of East Prong Hunting Creek and the downstream end of
UT1.
This series consists of well -drained soil on floodplains. The
CvA - Colvard Sandy
0 to 3%, occasionally
permeability is moderate and very low surface runoff. This soil is
Loam
flooded
well suited for woodland and suited for cropland. It is found
along the majority of UT1.
This series consists of well -drained soil on ridges and interfluves.
FaC2 - Fairview
8 to 15%, moderately
This soil has moderate permeability and low surface runoff. It is
Sandy Clay
eroded
found only in a relatively small portion of the East Prong Hunting
Creek flood plain.
This series consists of well -drained soil on ridges and interfluves.
Fa - Fairview
15 to 25%'
This soil has moderate permeability. It is found on a majority of
Sandy Clay Loam
moderately eroded
UT2 and a portion of UT1.
Source: Soil Survey of Burke County, North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoiIsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/WebSoiISurvey.aspx
The Site is an active farm composed of cattle pastures, barns, and a house. Much of the Site, including
East Prong Hunting Creek and UT2, is dominated by pasture grasses such as fescue (Festucaspp.)with
scattered trees alongthe top of bank and adjacent floodplain. Canopy species within these areas are
primarily black willow (Salixnigra), red maple (Acerrubrum),tagalder (Alnusserrulata), flowering
dogwood (Cornus florida), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), box
elder (Acer negundo), elderberry (Sambucus nigra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and black cherry
(Prunusserotine). In addition to pasture grasses, other herbaceous species include jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), soft rush (Juncus effusus), ironweed (Vernon ia fasciculato), Carolina horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense), pokeweed (Phytolacca decandra), spiderwort (Murdannia keisak), and
smartweed (Polygonumspp.).
The wooded areas along one or both sides of UT1 consist of a mature forest. Canopy species in these
areas include American beech (Fagus grandifolia), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), white oak
(Quercus alba), red maple, tulip poplar, sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum) and sweetgum
(Liquidambarstyrociflua). The understory layer primarily consists of small pockets of Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), American holly (Ilex opaca), and spicebush (Lindera benzoin), Japanese stiltgrass
(Microstegium vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and greenbrier (Smilaxspp.).
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 4 August 2021

3.3 Project Resources
3.3.1 Existing Streams
In September2019, Wildlands investigated on -site jurisdictional waters of the United State (US) within
the proposed project area. East Prong Hunting Creek, UT1, and UT2 were scored perennial. Jurisdictional
stream features are shown on Figure 2 and supporting documentation is provided in Appendices land
3.
Geomorphic surveys were conducted on Site streams to characterize their existing condition. Existing
streams and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 2. NCDWR stream assessment forms are in
Appendix3and reach specific cross sections and geomorphic summaries are provided in Appendix4.
East Prong Hunting Creek
East Prong HuntingCreekflows west onto the Site through a 48" culvertunderLau relwood Road. Within
the Site limits, cattle have access to the entire stream and its narrow, sporadic buffer. The pasture is
actively grazed and the stream banks are devoid of stabilizing vegetation. Stream banks are severely
eroded and exhibit rotational failure. The stream bed substrate is cobbles and gravels embedded with
fines from bank erosion. The abundance of these fine sediments contributed to the assessed reachwide
D50 of 0.95 mm (see Table 4 below). Instream habitat is limited to riffles, runs, and shallow pools with
very little woody debris, leaf packs, or root mats. Incision along East Prong Hunting Creek is moderate to
high with bank height ratios ranging from 1.6-2.0. A large woody debrisjam is holding 1-ft headcut in
place just downstream of the UT2 confluence. Two existing field drains (ditches) have been dug in the
left flood plain and currently tie to the existing channel alignment. Stream function was assessed on East
Prong Hunting Creek using the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NCSAM) and found to be
Low due to deficiencies in flood flow, waterquality, in -stream habitat, and poor vegetative bank cover.
Three cross sections we re measured downstream of the confluence with UT2.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 5 August 2021

Table 4: East Prong Hunting Creek Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
East Prong Hunting
Parameters
Creek
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,356
Valley confinement
(Confined, moderately
Unconfined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
1,274
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Function
Low
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
WS-IV
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
13.8-18.0
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
1.6-2.0
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.00743
Reachwide d50 (mm)
0.95
(Coarse Sand)
Stream Classification (Existing
Existing: C5, 135c
and Proposed)
Proposed:C4
Evolutionary Trend
V. Aggradation and
widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X
UT1
UT1 originates offsite near an inactive quarry as depicted on Figure 3. At the upstream limit within the
site, UT1 flows through an arrow, steep, wooded vaIleywith varied habitat including snags, roots mats,
pools, and leaf packs. The stream continues in this condition for approximately 400 LF until it flows
through a 36" driveway culvert. Cattle do not have access tot he reach upstream of the culvert. The
outlet end of the culvert is perched approximately one foot above base flow waters urface and adjace n t
stream slopes are eroded. Downstream of the culvert, cattle have access to both sides of the stream.
The channel is incised and disconnected from its flood plain while tortuous meanders have caused
widespread bank erosion and undercut banks. The right buffer is wide and wooded while the left buffer
consists of a narrow row of trees on the edge of an open pasture. Chan neIsubstrate consist of gravel
and cobble sized material that has been embedded with fine sediment from bank erosion. The
abundance of these fine sediments contributed to the assessed reachwide D50 of 0.77 mm (see Table 5
below). The stream flows under cattle gate and becomes straight with a wooded bufferon the left
flood plain and open pasture on the right flood plain. The stream capacity is currently overloaded with
fine sediment which settles in the downstream portion of UT1.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 6 August 2021

Table 5: UT1 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT1
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1,841
Valley confinement
Moderately
(Confined, moderately
confined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
136
Perennial, Intermittent,
Perennial
Ephemeral
NCSAM Score/Stream
Reach 1: High
Function
Reach 2: Low
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
WS-IV
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
6.7-14.3
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
1.6-1.9
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.00879
Reachwide d50 (mm)
0.77
(Coarse sand)
Stream Classification (Existing
Existing: 135c, G5c
and Proposed)
Proposed:C4
Evolutionary Trend
IV. Degradation and
widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X
UT2
UT2 entersthe Site from a wooded upstream parcel and is extensively impacted by cattle activity in the
fringe of the woods. The stream then flows out of the woods through an open pasture with no buffer.
The channel is moderately incised with alternating bank erosion caused by cattle trampling. The stream
continues in this condition for approximately 600 LF before flowing through a perched 24" culvert used
as a cattle crossing. Downstream of the culvert, the stream flows another350 LF through open pasture
before entering a narrow -wooded buffer for150 LF. A considerable volume ofsediment is input into the
stream within the narrow bufferdue to cattle trampling and wallow areas. Downstream of the narrow
buffer, the left buff erwide ns, bank heights decrease, and the stream is relatively stable for
approximately 100 LF. Downstream of the stable section, the bufferdisappea rs, and the stream
becomes more incised with eroding banks and multiple cattle wallows before con nectingwith East
Prong Hunting Creek. UT2 exhibits low bedform diversity and high sedimentation due to cattle trampling
and eroding banks. Incision ranges from low in the stable section to moderate in the rest of the reach.
The valley is re lative ly na rrow a nd mode rate lyconfined.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 7 August 2021

Table 6: UT2 Attribute Table
Reach Summary Information
Parameters
UT2
Length of Reach (Linear Feet)
1371
Valley confinement
Moderately
(Confined, moderately
confined
confined, unconfined)
Drainage area (acres)
155
Perennial, Intermittent,
Ephemeral
Perennial
NCSAM Score/Stream
Low/Medium
Function
NCDWR Water Quality
Classification
WS-IV
Width to Depth Ratio (ft/ft)
8.4-18.7
Bank Height Ratio (ft/ft)
1.3-1.6
Gradient (ft/ft)
0.01767
Reachwide d50 (mm)
3.8
(Very Fine Gravel)
Stream Classification (Existing
Existing: B4, 134c
and Proposed)
Proposed:C4
Evolutionary Trend
IV. Degradation and
widening
FEMA Zone Classification
X
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 8 August 2021

3.3.2 Existing Wetlands
Wildlands delineated potential wetland and waters of the U nited States within and immediately
adjacent to the proposed project easement (assessment area) usingthe USACE Routine On -Site
Determination method presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers delineation manual and the
subsequent Regional Supplement forthe Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Region. The Preliminary
Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) package was submitted on February 15, 2021. Asite walk with USACE
was performed on April22, 2021 and no modifications to the PJD package were requested. A PJD
approval was received on July 19, 2021. The PJD approval, including the associated resource map, is
included in Appendix 2. Existing wetland data is summarized in Table 7.
Atotal of7existingjurisdictional wetland features (Wetlands A-G)weredocumentedwithin the
assessment area ( Figure 2). On -site wetland features exhibit indicators of wetland hydrology,
hydrophyticvegetation, and hydricsoils. Indicators of wetland hydrology observed in existing wetlands
include surface water, high water table, saturation, geomorphic position, crayfish burrows, drift
deposits, and water -stained leaves. Dominant hydrophyticvegetation species within wetlands include
common rush (Junus effusus),jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), gray sedge (Carex grayi), New York
ironweed (Vernonia noveboracensis), and Seedbox (Ludwigia alernifolia). Soils within on -site wetlands
exhibit one of the following hydric soil indicators: Depleted Below Dark Surface, Depleted Matrix, Redox
Dark Surface, Umbric Surface.
Table 7: Project Attribute Table
Size of
Wetland
Soil Hydric
Wetland
Wetland
Mapped Soil Series
Drainage Class
Source of Hydrology
(acres)
yp
Type
Status
Groundwater/
A
0.020
Arkaqua Loam
Poorly drained
No
Overbank flow
Groundwater/
B
2.784
Arkaqua Loam
Poorly drained
No
Overbank flow
Fairview Sandy Clay
C
0.003
Well drained
No
Groundwater
Loam
Fairview Sandy Clay
D
0.069
Well drained
No
Groundwater
Riverine
Loam
Arkarqua Loam/
Poorly
Groundwater/Overbank
E
0.948
Fairview Sandy Clay
drained/Well
No
flow
Loam,
drained
Colvard Sandy Loam/
Well drained/Well
Groundwater/Overbank
F
0.701
Fairview Sandy Clay
No
drained
flow
Loam
G
0.095
Colvard Sandy Loam
Well drained
No
Groundwater
3.4 Overall Functional Uplift Potential
The primary stressorsto Site streams are live stock trampIing, lack ofstabilizing stream bank and riparian
vegetation, active erosion, upland erosion and sedimentation, incision, and fragmented aquatic habitat.
These stressors led to Low NCSAM scores. Without intervention, East Prong HuntingCreek and its
tributaries will continue to widen, which will further disconnect riparian wetland hydrology. Ultimately,
functional uplift for this Site is linked to improvement and maintenance of hydrologic connectivity
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 9 August 2021

between streams and riparian wetlands. Additionally, establishing riparian bufferwill protect and
enhance this connectivity. Functional uplift for the site will beach ievedthrough the following:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to riparian
wetlandsto restore hydrologic connection.
• Reducing bank erosion and direct sediment inputs to the stream.
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and promote woody debris in
the system.
• Excluding livestock via cattle removal from the site or implementation of the fencing plan.
• Protectingthe site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 5 in terms of goals, objectives, and outco mesforthe
project.
3.5 Site Constraints to Functional Uplift
The following potential Site constraints have been identified and will be addressed as part of this
project.
One external easement break and two internal easement crossings are proposed to maintain future
landowner access throughout the project parcel. An external easement break along UT1 allows for an
existing driveway culvert crossing. Two internal easement breaks with proposed culvert crossings will be
installed at the upstream extents of UT1 and UT2, respectively. The culverted crossings will facilitate
cattle rotation and general site access. Cattle exclusion from the conservation easementwill be achieved
either via the removaIofcattle from the site entirely or by the installation of fencing per the included
fencing plan (Appendix 12and Figure 8).The landowner will be required to maintain cattle exclusion for
thee ntirety of the conservation ease mentthrough one oft hese methods. If cattle exclusion is achieved
via removal, the prope rtyownerwilI be required to sign docu me ntation that will require installation of
fencing perthe Wild lands' approved fencing plan if cattle are returned to the property. The fencing plan
will prevent livestock entry to the conservation easement from all current or future pasture areas as
delineated by the landowner. All newly proposed fencingwill consist of 4-strands of properly tensioned
high -tensile wire with appropriate bracing.
The conservation easement includes a 40'-wide overhead utility easementthat runs along the
northwestern property line of the Site. The existing utility easementwill supersede the requirements of
the conservation easement; however, this area was included to reduce access to the downstream
extents of East Prong Hunting Creek. Easementsignage will be included along the utility easement
boundaryto reduce the chance of utility maintenance encroaching into the conservation easement. No
other known utilities or easements are present within the conservation easement area.
Priority 2 restoration transition zones will be necessary based on the elevations and degree of incision
onsite. These transition zones will occur at the upstream and downstream extents of East Prong
Hunting Creek. The upstream areas of UT1 Reach 2 and UT2 will also require some length of priority 2
transition. Establishing vegetation on priority 2 stream restoration can be a challenge. Wildlands has
prepared a Vegetation and Planting Plan (Section 5.7) to address this potential constraint. To ensure
appropriate floodplain connection, Wildlands will construct floodplains that are at least 3 times bankfull
width and have a slope that is flatter than 5:1 in all priority 2 transition zones.
4.0 Regulatory Considerations
Table 8, below, isa summary of regulatory considerations for the Site.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 10 August 2021

Table 8: Regulatory Considerations Attribute Table
Regulatory Considerations
Parameters
Applicable?
Resolved?
Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States - Section 404
Yes
No
PCNI
Water of the United States - Section 401
Yes
No
PCNI
Endangered Species Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix5
Historic Preservation Act
Yes
Yes
Appendix 5
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. PJD submitted to USACE on 02/15/21 and approved on 7/19/2021. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan.
4.1 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion forthe Site was approved on April 22, 2020. This document included
investigation into the presence of threatened and endangered species on Site protected underthe
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as well as any historical resources protected underThe National
Historic Preservation Act of 1966. The biological conclusion for the northern long-eared bat perthe
Categorical Exclusion research and response by US Fish and Wildlife Service, is that "any incidental take
that may results fromthe associated activities [fromthe project] is exempt underthe 4(d) rule."The
conclusion forcultural resources perthe Categorical Exclusion research and response by the State
Historic Preservation Office is that there are no historic resources that would be affected by this project.
The signed Categorical Exclusion checklist and summary are provided in Appendix 5. As stated on the
Northern Long -Eared Bat4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form provided in the Categorical Exclusion,
approximately 3.3 acres of trees will be cleared during the construction of the project. A complete copy
of the Categorical Exclusion document, including additional information and regulatory communications,
is available upon request.
4.2 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The Site is represented on the Burke County Flood Insurance Rate Map Panel 2712, with an effective
date of September5, 2007. The entire Site is outside of Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) regulatory
floodplain and will not require a floodplain development permit.
The proposed design in the upper reaches of UT1 and UT2 have limited risk of potential hydrologic
trespass since these areas consist of relatively steep streams. The proposed culverted crossings at the
beginning of each stream will be positioned to eliminate potential hydrologic trespass onto the
upstream properties and provide adequate aquatic organism passage upstream.
East Prong Hunting Creek is the primary stream with risk for backwater effects. The proposed stream
profile ties to the existing streambed nearthe upstream and downstream property lines. Approximately
the first 150 feet and last 100 feet of East Prong Hunting Creek will be constructed using priority 2
restoration approach to match the existing streambed profile. The design will reduce the risk of
hydrologic trespass by increasing floodplain capacity and eliminating any increase in elevation of the
stream profile at the upstream and downstream extents.
The Site presents some riskto impacting existingwetland resources at the Site. The design incorporates
risk management methodologiesto limit potential impact to adjacent wetlands and downstream
resources and enhance and protectthese areas where possible. The proposed design increases stream
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 11 August 2021

access to the flood plain and adjacent riparian wetland areas for all streams. An increase of out -of -bank
events is expected at the Site for aII channels. Grading (cut and fill) is minimized in all wetland areas to
the extent practicable with a major design goal to tie -out the proposed stream ban kfull at nearly the
same elevations as adjace ntwetlands. Two existing field ditches identified within the NCIRT meeting
minutes (Appendix 6) will be stabilized within the conservation easement and graded top roposed
features to maintain positive drainage beyond the conservation easement butwilIn ot be filled as part of
the project. Haul roads and staging areas are intentionally designated outside of areas of existing
jurisdictional features where possible.
The IRT raised concerns about wetland areas adjace ntto the lower reaches of UT1(STA 214+00 to STA
222+00) as well as the stream, pond, and wetland resource that continues off -property where the
existing UT1 alignment currently leaves the property (Appendix 6). Stream flow gauging was performed
to investigate if the off -property resource receives hydrology from the adjace ntfloodplain wetlands
(particularly Wetland F shown in Figures 2 and 9). It was determined that the off -property area receives
flow from Wetland F and inputs hydrology into the downstream resource. To reduce the risk of
dewateringthis existing hydrologic flow path from UT1 to Wetland F, and eve ntuaIlythe off -property
resource, the proposed design intentionally maintains the UT1 ban kfuIIelevation at or slightly higher
than adjacent Wetland F elevations top romote stream flooding into the wetland area.
4.3 401/404
Some wetlands within the flood plain adjace nttothe existing streamswilI be partially impacted during
realign mentofthe stream channeI. Wetlands on the Site that are within the conservation ease mentand
outside of the limits of disturbance will be specifically noted in the final construction plans and
specifications to prevent unintended impacts. The permanent and temporary impacts included in Table
9 below are preliminary. The Pre -Construction Notification, including the final impact data, will be
submitted tothe North Carolina Interagency Review Team (NCIRT) with the Final Mitigation Plan.
Table 9: Estimated Impacts to Wetlands
Permanent (P) Impact
Temporary (T) Impact
Impact
Impact Area
Jurisdictional
Classification
Acreage
Feature
Type of Activity
Area
Type of Activity
(acres)
(acres)
Bottomland
Stream
Floodplain
Wetland A
Hardwood
0.020
0.002
0.018
Restoration
Grading
Forest
Floodplain
Bottomland
Stream
Grading and
Wetland B
Hardwood
2.784
0.128
2.656
Restoration
construction
Forest
activity
Bottomland
Stream
Floodplain
Wetland C
Hardwood
0.003
0.001
0.002
Restoration
Grading
Forest
Bottomland
Floodplain
Hardwood
Stream
Grading and
Wetland D
0.069
0.003
0.066
Forest
Restoration
construction
activity
Bottomland
Floodplain
Hardwood
Stream
Grading and
Wetland E
0.948
0.065
0.883
Forest
Restoration
construction
activity
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 12 August 2021

Permanent (P) Impact
Temporary (T) Impact
Impact
Impact Area
Jurisdictional
Classification
Acreage
Feature
Type of Activity
Area
Type of Activity
(acres)
(acres)
Bottomland
Floodplain
Hardwood
Stream
grading and
Wetland F
0.701
0.040
0.661
Forest
Restoration
construction
activity
Bottomland
Minor
Wetland G
Hardwood
0.095
-
-
Floodplain
0.014
Forest
Grading
Total P Impact
0.239
Total T Impact
4.300
5.0 Mitigation Site Goals and Objectives
The projectwill improve stream functions through stream restoration and the conversion of agricultural
fields into riparian bufferwithin the floodplains of East Prong Hunting Creek and the project tributaries.
Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable through measurement and/orvisual
assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals. The projectwill be
monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Section 7 of this report. The
project goals and related objectives are described in Table 10.
Table 10: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Functions
Supported
Reduce direct fecal coliform and
Install livestock fencing as
nutrient inputs to the Site streams.
needed to exclude
Exclude
Eliminate hoof shear on the stream
livestock from stream
Geomorphology,
livestock from
bed and banks, which will reduce
channels, wetlands, and
Physicochemical,
stream
riparian areas, or remove
stream bank erosion and fine
Biology
channels.
sediments in the stream channel.
livestock from adjacent
Eliminate cattle trampling of
fields.
wetlands.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 13 August 2021

Functions
Goal
Objective
Expected Outcomes
Supported
Reduce sediment inputs from
Convert active cattle
pasture runoff. Reduce floodplain
pasture to forested
velocities and increase retention of
riparian buffers along all
flood flows on the floodplain,
Site streams, which will
decreasing direct runoff and
Hydrology,
Restore and
slow and treat sediment
increasing storage and nutrient
Hydraulic,
enhance native
laden runoff from
cycling within the watershed.
Geomorphology,
floodplain
physicochemical,
adjacent pastures before
Increase shading of stream channels,
vegetation.
entering streams. Protect
which will increase dissolved oxygen
Biology
and enhance existing
concentrations. Provide a source of
forested riparian buffers.
LWD and organic material to Site
Treat invasive species.
streams for continued habitat.
Support all stream functions.
Reconstruct stream
channels slated for
restoration with stable
dimensions and
Reduce sediment inputs from bank
Improve the
appropriate depth
erosion. Increase floodplain
Hydraulic,
stability of
relative to the existing
engagement, decreasing runoff and
Geomorphology,
stream
floodplain and potential
increasing infiltration. Decrease
Physicochemical,
channels.
wetland re-establishment
instream shear stresses. Diversify
Biology
areas. Add bank
available habitats.
revetments and instream
structures to protect
restored streams.
Install habitat features
Increase and diversify available
such as constructed steps,
habitats for macroinvertebrates, fish,
Improve
cover logs, and brush toes
and amphibians. Promote aquatic
Geomorphology,
instream
on restored reaches. Add
species migration and recolonization
physicochemical,
habitat.
woody materials/ LWD to
from refugia, leading to colonization
Biology
channel beds. Construct
and increase in biodiversity over
pools of varying depth.
time. Add complexity including LWD
to the streams.
Establish a conservation
Permanently
easement on the Site.
Protect Site from encroachment on
Hydrology,
protect the
Exclude livestock from
the riparian corridor and direct
Hydraulic,
project site
Site streams and remove
impact to streams and wetlands.
Geomorphic,
from harmful
pasture from the riparian
Support all stream functions.
Physicochemical,
uses.
buffer.
Biology
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 14 August 2021

6.0 Design Approach and Mitigation Work Plan
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview
The stream design approach forth is Site was developed to meet the goals and objectives described in
Section 5 which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 3.4. The design is
also intended top rovide the expected outcomes in Section 4, though these are not tied to performance
criteria.
The project streams planned for restoration will be reconnected with associated flood plains and the
channels will be reconstructed with stable dimension, pattern, and profile that will transport the water
and sediment delivered to the system. Where buffer restoration or enhancement is needed, the
adjacent floodplainswill beplantedwith native tree species. Instream structures will be built inthe
channels to help maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat.
A combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream restoration were employed. Reference
reaches were identified to serve as an acceptable range for design parameters. Channels were sized
based on design discharge hydrologic analysis and empirical approaches including applying regional
curve equations. Designswere then verified and/or modified based on a sediment transport analysis.
Table 11: Stream Stressors and Restoration Approach
Project Reach
Primary
Stressors/Impairments
Approach
Mitigation Activities
Cattle access, incision,
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
East Prong
Hunting Creek
sparse/narrow buffers,
R
planting buffers, protecting with conservation
severe erosion
easement
Perched culvert, invasive
Protecting with conservation easement, invasive
UT1 - Reach 1
P
species treatment, eliminate culvert perch by
species
raising stream bed
Cattle access, poor buffer
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
UT1 —Reach 2
quality/lack of buffer, some
R
planting buffers, protecting with conservation
incision, bank erosion
easement
Cattle trampling, bank
Restoring dimension, pattern, and profile,
UT2
erosion, incision,
sparse/narrow buffers,
R
planting buffers, protecting with conservation
perched culvert
easement, culvert removal and replacement
6.2 Reference Streams
Reference streams provide geomorphic parameters of a stable system, which can be used to inform
design of stable channels of similar stream types in simila r landscapes and watersheds. Six reference
reaches were identified forthis Site (Figure 7) and used to support the design of East Prong Hunting
Creek and its tributaries. These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site
streams including drainage area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. All reference reaches are
located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. A description of each reference reach
is included in Table 12.
Two unnamed tributaries in the Catawba River basin were selected due to their proximity to the Site and
similarity in drainage size and landscape position to East Prong Hunting Creek. Long Branch was also
selected asa reference for East Prong Hunting Creek due to similarities in drainage size and landscape
position, but with a slightly lower slope and more sinuous pattern than the other references.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 15 August 2021

Due to the similarities in drainage area, slope, and valley shape UT1 and UT2 were evaluated together
and reference reaches were selected to inform the design for both. All three reference reaches selected
for UT1 and UT2 design were picked based on similarities in drainage area, valley slope, and landscape
position.
Table 12: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters
Reference
Stream
Used on
Reach
Type
Landscape Position
Chosen For
Used For
streams
Agricultural lands,
Gravel bed with examples of
Q,
East Prong
Long
C/E4
and forest,
woody debris structures. Similar
Dimension,
Hunting
Branch
unconfined valley
Landscape position and drainage
Pattern,
Creek
area
Profile
UT to
Unconfined valley,
Proximity to Site. Similar
Q'
East Prong
Catawba
E5
Flowing into larger
landscape position, drainage
Dimension,
Hunting
River
mainstem
area, and valley slope ranges
Pattern,
Creek
Reachl
Profile
Moderately
Gravel bed with examples of
Q,
UT to
confined valley,
stable step -pool and meander
Dimension,
East Prong
South Fork
B4c
Hunting
Catawba
Flowing into larger
pool patterns. Similar drainage
Pattern,
Creek
mainstem
area and valley slope ranges.
Profile
Reedy
Moderately
Q,
Creek
confined valley,
Examples of meander pools and
Dimension,
Nature
B4c
moderate valley
in -line step pools. Similar
Pattern,
UT1 & UT2
Preserve—
slope
landscape position.
Profile
South Fork
Moderately
High width/depth ratio
Q,
Magnolia
confined valley,
dimensions, stable meander and
Dimension,
Tributary
B4c
moderate valley
step -pool pattern, similar valley
Pattern,
UT1 &UT2
slope
slopes and landscape position
Profile
Pilot
Confined valley,
Q'
Mountain
B4
relatively steep
Stable, steep step -pool pattern.
Dimension,
UT1 &UT2
Tributary
valley slope
Similar drainage area.
Pattern,
Profile
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Multiple methods were used to estimate bankfull discharges for restoration reaches including regional
curve data (Harman et al. 1999 and 2000), a regional flood frequency analysis using U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) gage sites, and reference reach data. The methods were compared, and a design
discharge was selected based on the results of the different methods. For smaller streams, (UT1 and
UT2), the different discharge estimation methods were in close agreement and final design discharges
were selected nearthe lower end of the predicted range. Discharge estimates for East Prong Hunting
Creek were more variable, but final design discharges were again selected on the lower end of the
predicted range. Discharges selected nearthe lower end of the estimated range and priority 1
restoration at the site should increase floodplain connectivity for the streams. Results of each method
and the final design discharges are shown in Table 13 and illustrated in Figure 7.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 16 August 2021

Table 13: Summary of Design Bankfull Discharge Analysis
East Prong
East Prong
Hunting Creek
Hunting Creek
U
U
UT2
Discharge Estimate Method
Reach 1
Reach 2
Reachch 1
Reachch 2
(155 ac)
(37 ac)
(136 ac)
(977 ac)
(1274 ac)
NCSU Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs)
121
135
11
29
32
NRCS Piedmont/Mountain Regional Curve
139
156
12
31
34
1.2-year
Regional Flood Frequency
event
106
119
10
25
27
1.5-year
Analysis (cfs)
150
167
14
36
39
event
Reference Reach Regional Curve (cfs)
88
95
18
34
36
Final Design Q
116
129
12
29
33
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data and designer experience were used to develop design morphologic parameters for
each of the restoration reaches. Key morphological parameters are summarized in Tables 14 and 15.
Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 4.
Table 14: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
Parameter
Existing
Parameters
Reference Parameters
Proposed Parameters
East Prong
Hunting
Creek
Long
Branch
UT to
Catawba
Reach 1
UT to
South
Fork
Catawba
East Prong
Hunting
Creek
Reach 1
East Prong
Hunting
Creek
Reach 2
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
1274
954
1024
576
977
1274
Channel/Reach Classification
C5
C/E4
E5
134c
C4
C4
Design Discharge Width (ft)
20.1-23.5
14.8
18.6
9.7-12.4
8.2-11.2
24.5
24.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
1.3-1.5
1.3-2.1
1.7
1.0-1.4
2.0
2.0
Design Discharge Area (ftz)
29.1-30.8
34.6
11.4-17.5
10.7-11.1
33.0
33.0
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
3.4-3.5
3.6-4.0
5.5
2.7
3.5
4.1
Design Discharge (cfs)
116-129
101-124
80
54
116
129
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
0.0074
0.0040
0.0050
0.0070
0.0060
0.0090
Sinuosity
1•2
1.3
1.1
1.3
1.2
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
13.8-18.0
7.9-13.8
8.1-8.9
6.0-11.7
18.2
18.2
Bank Height Ratio
1.6-2.0
1.2-1.5
0.9-1.4
1.8-2.1
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
2.0-4.1
>3.4
5.4-6.4
1.5-1.9
>2.2
>2.2
d50 (mm)
0.95
41.6
1.8
38.0
>2.0
>2.0
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 17 August 2021

Table 15: Summary of Design Morphologic Parameters for UT1 Reach 2 and UT2
Existing
Proposed
Reference Parameters
Parameters
Parameters
Reedy
Parameter
Creek
Pilot
UT1
UT1
Magnolia
UT2
Nature
Mountain
Reach
UT2
Reach 2
Tributary
Preserve-
Tributary
2
South Fork
Contributing Drainage Area
(acres)
136
155
128
198
173
136
155
Channel/Reach Classification
I34c
134c
134c
134
C4
C4
G5c
7.6-
Design Discharge Width (ft)
7.3-11.4
8.2-11.2
15.6
8.6
11.0
11.0
14.5
Design Discharge Depth (ft)
0.8-1.1
0.8-0.9
1.5-1.6
1.6
1.0
1.0
1.0
Design Discharge Area (ft 2)
7.4-8.8
6.9-8.4
10.7-11.1
16
6.0
8.0
8.0
Design Discharge Velocity (ft/s)
2.8-3.1
3.5-4.1
2.5-2.9
4.0
-
3.5
4.0
Design Discharge (cfs)
22-25.4
28.3
26-32
64
32
29
33
29.9
Channel Slope (ft/ft)
.0088
.0180
0.0070
0.0160
0.0380
0.0140
0.0185
Sinuosity
1.2
1.2
1.3
1.26
1.1
1.2
1.2
Width/Depth Ratio
6.7-14.3
8.4-
6.0-11.7
15.2
12.5
15
15
18.7
1.0-
Bank Height Ratio
1.6-1.9
1.3-1.6
1.8-2.1
1.6
1.0
1.0-1.1
1.1
Entrenchment Ratio
1.1-2.0
1.3-3.1
1.5-1.9
1.9
1.5
>1.8
>1.8
d5o (mm)
0.77
3.8
38.0
28.0
20.1
1 >2.0
>2.0
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. East Prong Hunting Creek, UT1, and UT2
watersheds have not changed considerably in recent decades. The most notable land change is a portion
of each stream's watershed has been logged in the last few decades. East Prong Hunting Creek
watershed is a mix of residential and agricultural land use in the lowervalleys and low density
residential and forested areas in the headwaters. In the past large tracks of land have been logged and
allowed to reforest. The UT1 watershed is dominated byforestwith some residential and pastureland.
An abandoned quarry is located near the headwaters. Athree-acre portion was recently logged and
converted to pasture. The UT2 watershed is predominantly forested land with some agriculture.
Visual inspection of the streams revealed a high presence of fine sediment and sand in the streambeds,
especially at valley breaks where slopes of UT1 and UT2 decrease as they enterthe floodplain of East
Prong Hunting Creek. The sources of this sedimentwere thoughtto have originated from actively
erodingstream banks due to high shear/poor vegetation, cattle accessto the streams, and recently
deforested property. UT1 Reach 2 also likely received a large sediment load from the logging land use
change in its immediate watershed. These sediment sourceswill be addressed by loweringstream bank
slopes and establishing vegetation or revetment for stabilization, reducingshear stress in the stream
channel, excluding cattle from the stream and riparian areas, removing existing alluvial sediment
deposits in the stream, and establishinga riparian bufferto reduce sed invent inputsfrom surrounding
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 18 August 2021

land use changes. By add ressingexistingsedimentsources, sediment load should be reduced post -
construction and allow sediment capacity of the constructed channel to function appropriately.
Additionally, while design ingstream profiles, techniques to maintain high erstream powers were utilized
to address potential aggradation issues at valley grade breaks along both reaches. Both streams were
incised slightly as they approach the larger channelof East Prong Hunting Creek. This trend was
implemented based on observation in many reference reaches where ban kfuIIelevations adjust to the
larger drainage creating incised geomorphic portions of stable channels with increased stream power.
Flat pools with minimal drop were utilized on both channels to keep riffles lopes at relative maximum,
keeping fine sediment moving through the system. Increased sinuosity in the flatter portions of the
reach create increased helical flow which should help scour pools and maintain pool habitat in flatter
channels. Along the downstream extent of UT1 Reach 2 a priority 2 approach was used to generate
stream slope and increase stream power through the flood plain of East Prong Hunting Creek. These
adjusted stream parameters and profiles, along with local stabilization of stream banks and flood plain
areas should reduce potential risk for aggradation at valley breaks along the two reaches.
The focus of the numerical sediment transport analysis outlined below was to verify that proposed
channeIswilI have the competence to pass any sediment that is delivered to the system by the
watershed while still maintaining channel stability.
6.5.1 Competence Analysis
A competence analysis was performed for East Prong Hunting Creek Reach land 2, UT1 Reach 2, and
UT2 comparing existing and proposed shear stress, mean depth, and slope. The evaluation was
performed to determine parameter requirements to move the maximum particle of the existing bed
material sampled at the site. The data was used to evaluate whether channeI shearstress exceeds
required maxim umvalues and could potentially cause channel degradation of the existing bed material.
The analysis utilized standard equations based on a methodology usingthe Shields (1936) curve and
Andrews (1984) equation described by Rosgen (2001). The results of the competence analysis are shown
in Table 16. The competence analysis on these reaches indicates thatthe site streamswill be able to
transportthe sediment supplied tothem bythe watersheds.
Table 16: Results of Competence Analysis
East Prong
Hunting Creek
R1/R2
UT1 R2
UT2
Abkf (sq ft)
33
8
8
Wbkf (ft)
24.5
11
11
Dbkf (ft)
2.0
1.0
1.0
Schan (ft/ft)
0.009
0.0140
0.0185
Bankfull Velocity (fps)
3.5
3.5
4.0
Bankfull Shear Stress, t (lb/sq ft)
0.52
0.62
0.82
Movable particle size (mm)
37/91
47/107
63/131
Largest particle from bar sample (mm)
87
93
107
6.6 Stream Design Implementation
Wildlands' approach to improvingthe streams on the Site includes preservation and priority 1
restoration with priority 2 restoration limited to confluences and transition zones. The efforts will
extend tothe East Prong Hunting Creek, UT1, and UT2, representing all the majordrainages at the Site.
Livestockwill be excluded from the entire conservation easement as part of the project.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 19 August 2021

Below are descriptions of the designs for the restoration reaches. The work along the lone preservation
reach, UT1 Reach 1, will include supplemental planting with native tree species and invasive species
treatment as needed as well as permanent protection in a conservation easement.
6.6.1 East Prong Hunting Creek
East Prong Hunting Creek will be constructed as a Rosgen C-type stream within the existing stream
valley. The alignment will be constructed with a sinuous meander pattern and with the stream belt
width placed in the existing low point of the valley. Priority 1 restoration is achieved through the mid -
section of the stream with priority 2 areas limited to the stream tie outs at the upstream and
downstream project boundaries.
The beginningof the reach currentlyties to an existing culvert. The existing crossing and culvert were
recently installed and were assessed to be stable. The existingculvert has experienced several large flow
events since installation and has formed a large plunge pool area belowthe culvert with majorerosion
only occurring along the outer streambanks of the pool. Active streambank retreat and sloughing was
noted during severalfield visits. The lack of root mass and vegetation at the top of bank in the outer
walls is likely a major factor in the eroded condition. The toe of the plunge pool will be reconstructed at
a location similar to the dimensions of the pool at the time of survey. The top of bankwill be graded
back and live staked or have geolifts installed as additional protection from bank erosion in this area.
Additional rock maybe applied along the embankments of the crossing and around the pipe if deemed
necessary duringthe construction period. The plunge pool area will transition tothe typical meander
pool dimensions and then a constructed riffle. The head of this initial riffle will be set at elevations that
slightly raise existing water surface elevations through the plunge pool and culvert to facilitate aquatic
organism passage. Throughout Reach 1 of East Prong Hunting Creek, which extends from the culvertto
the confluence with UT2, the design slope of the stream is flatterthan the existingslope to gradually
achieve a Priority 1 restoration. Floodplain benches will be constructed on both banks of Reach 1 to
provide flood relief.
Below the confluence with UT2, Reach 2 achieves priority 1 restoration. Priority 1 restoration through
this area will allow floodplain grading to be minimized within existing riparian floodplain wetlands along
both sides of the stream. A levy, between 0.4ft and 1.0 ft higherthan surrounding areas, exists along
the right bank of the stream. Beyond this levy is where the existing Wetland B was delineated. The
bankfull elevation of the stream was set by the elevation of the wetland beyond the levy such that the
levywill be removed from the floodplain to reconnectthe riparian floodplain system with the proposed
stream channel. The existingditch in the leftfloodplain of the reach will be tied to a proposed vernal
pool to maintain positive drainage and stabilized in place via planting and minor grading outside the
proposed conservation easement.
At the end of Reach 2, the stream profile steepens to tie to the existing streambed located nearthe
property line. The stream returns to the existing alignment to facilitate a smooth off -property transition
of the project. Wide floodplain bencheswill be constructed in this area to provide appropriate
floodplain width.
6.6.2 UT1 Reach 1
UT1 Reach 1 has been designated as a Preservation reach and no stream work will occur except the
installation of a culvert crossing within a 50 ft internal easement breakwhere UT1 Reach 1 first enters
the property. The culvert design includesa minimum 54" diameter, corrugated metal pipe that will be
embedded a minimumof 12". This embeded depth will provide aquatic organism passage and additional
protection from underminingof the culvert. Bank grading will be required to install the proposed culvert
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 20 August 2021

and to ensure stable stream banks downstream of the crossing. All grading is anticipated to occur within
the easement breakand all graded banks will be stabilized.
6.6.3 UT1 Reach 2
UT1 Reach 2 was designed as a C4 stream with moderate sinuosity and moderate to steep streams lopes
(0.8% to 1.7%).Grade control in the form of wood and rock stream structures are included in the design
to reduce the potential for headcutting. The upper and lower transition areas of the reach will be
priority 2 designs while the middle portion of the reach will achieve a priority 1 profile. A best
management practice (BMP) was discussed during afield walk with the IRTto address sediment -laden
run-offfrom an area just upstream of UT1 Reach 2. However, the field has since been stabilized with a
dense stand of pasture grasses and a rock outlet where the field drains to UT1. With this stabilization in
place the BMP was removed from the design.
The beginning of the reach ties to an existing culvert on the project property. Replace mentoft he
existing culvert and crossing was discussed with the landowner but a mutually agreed solution was not
able to be achieved. The existingtoe of the plunge pool will remain essentially unchanged while the top
of bank will be laid back and live staked or additional revetment will be applied in the form ofgeolifts or
brush toe. Additional rock may be applied below the culvert or along the crossing embankments if
deemed necessary during construction. Field swales along the left bank of the plunge pool will be
stabilized and planted. The plunge pool transitions to the typical meander pool dimensions and then a
constructed riffle, the head of which was set at an elevation to increase the water surface through the
culvert and reduce the perched condition of the culvert to improve aquatic organism passage. The
profile design gradually raises the thalweg of the stream above existing until priority 1 restoration is
achieved. The priority 2 section of the reach was designed to tie to several inner berm features that
were identified as stable and vegetated with mature hardwood trees and ferns. Benching alongthis
section of stream will provide additional flood relief.
Throughout the mid -section of the reach, the stream design achieves priority 1 status or in some cases is
slightly perched above the surroundingfloodplain.This section of the reach is characterized by riparian
Wetland F along the left floodplain of the stream that receives hydrology from UT1 during flooding
events. The priority 1 design will provide hydrology to these adjacent wetlands.
The design continues beyond the riparian wetland into the floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek. As
the stream descends to the tie out with East Prong Hunting Creek, floodplain grading will be utilized to
tie the two streams togetherand provide a functional floodplain. The existing ditch in the left floodplain
of East Prong Hunting Creek will tie to the proposed alignmentto maintain positive drainage and avoid
increased inundation outside the proposed conservation easement.
6.6.4 UT2
UT2 was designed as a C4/C4b stream, is the steepest stream on the project (ban kfull slopes ranging
from 1.6% to 2.3%) and will require grade control in the form of both structures and constructed riffles.
Given the range of slopes and the change in valley type as the stream approaches East Prong Hunting
Creek, UT2 was evaluated to determine if reach break and additional typical section were required for
the proposed design. Ultimately it was decided thatwhile the valley type widens and the slope
decreases as UT2 flows towards East Prong Hunting Creek, it is not enough variation to require a reach
break and new typical section based on the design discharge. However, the proposed stream design
parameters including belt width, sinuosity, radius of curvature on meander bends, and meander lengths
were adjusted to considerthe change in valley and slope. The upperand lowerextentsofthe proposed
design parameters forthe reach were utilized to match stream geomorphology to changing valley type
and stream slope.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 21 August 2021

A culvert crossing will be constructed in a 50 ft internal easement breakwhere UT2firstentersthe
property. The culvert design includes a minimum 54" diameter, corrugated metal pipe that will be
embedded a minimum of 12". This embed depth will provide improved aquatic organism passage and
additional protection from underminingofthe culvert. Below the culvert the stream meanders where
room is available in the valley. The valley floor will be benched out to provide flood plain access for the
channel.
A short section ofthe stream (approximately STA 308+80 to 309+50) returns online with the existing
stream align mentwhere the valley becomes steeper and more confined. This portion of the stream is
partially shaded with mature hardwoods and the online design will reduce tree loss and will take
advantage of the existing root mass along the banks. The stream profile will be raised above the existing
bed grade by setting higher riffle and stream structure inverts while stream bedform will be enhanced
with frequent step pools. Some benchingwill be graded along the right bank, where fewertrees
currently exist.
The final section of UT2 meanders through the floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek. As noted above,
as the valley widens and the slope decreases, stream sinuosity and belt width increases. The stream
profile will become slightly entrenched as UT2 approaches the confluence with the larger stream. A
Bank Height Ratio above 1.0will not be considered an indicator of instability in this area.
6.7 Vegetation, Planting Plan, and Land Management
Non -forested areas within the conservation easement will be planted, which includes additional buffer
areas beyond the minimum requirement of 30 feet f rom top of bank. Riparian buffers will be planted
with early successional native vegetation chosen to develop a forested wetland and riparian zone. The
specific species composition to be planted was selected based on the community type, observation of
occurrence of species in riparian buffers adjacent to the Site, availability of nursery stock and best
professionaljudgementon species establishment and anticipated Site conditions in the early years
following project implementation. Species chosen forthe planting plan are listed on Table 17 below and
on Sheet3.1 of the preliminary plans located in Appendix 12. Wildlands used the following community
types and associated species for section for the site:
• Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
Canopytrees include but not limited to Betulanigra, Platanusoccidentalis, Liquidambar
styraciflua, Liriodendron tulipifera, Ulmus americana, Celtis laevigata, Juglans nigra, Fraxinus
pennsylvanica, Caryacordiformis, Caryaovata, Quercusimbricaria, and Acerrubrum. Subcanopy
trees typically found in mesic mixed hardwood forest include Acer negundo, Acerfloridanum,
Acer rubrum, Asimina triloba, Ilex opaca, and Carpinus caroliniana.
• Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
Canopy trees include but not limited to Fagusgrandifolia, Quercusrubra, Liridondron tulipifera,
Acer rubrum, Acersaccharum, Tsuga canadensis. Subcanopy trees in mixed hardwood forest
include Corpus florida, Ostrya virginiana, Evonymus americana, Kalmia latifolia.
• Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
Canopytrees include but not limited to Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambarstyraciflua, Quercus
pagoda, Quercus michauxii, Ulmus american, Celtis laevigata, Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Pinus
taeda, CaryaOvata, and Craya cordiformus. Subcanopy trees typically found in bottomland
forest include Carp inus carolinion a, A cerfloridan um, Acerrubrum, Cornus florida, Ilex opaca,
and Asimina triloba.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 22 August 2021

Dry— MesicOak— Hickory Forest
Can opytrees include but not limited to Quercusalba, rubra, velutina, and muehlenbergii, Carya
alba (tomentosa), glabra, and ovalis, Liriodendron tulipifera, Liquidambarstyraciflua and various
Pinus species. Subcanopytrees typically include Acerrubrum, Cornusflorida, Oxydendrum
arborem, Ilexopaca, and Nyssasylvatica.
The riparian bufferand most wetland areas will be planted with bare root seedlings. Species chosen to
be planted within wetland areas were selected based on above referenced community types as well as
their ability to handle wetter ground conditions based on standing water and high groundwater levels
observed in wetland areas at the Site. The stream banks will be planted with live stakes and the channel
toe will be planted with multiple herbaceous species. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on
streambanks, floodplain areas, and disturbed areas within the project easement. Bare root seedlings
and live stakes will be planted in the dormant season between November 15 and March 15. Figure 10
illustrates the proposed planting zones throughout the site.
Land management activities on the site will largely focus on treating invasive plant populations and
pasture grasses. Existing invasive plant populations on the site include Chinese privet(Ligustrum
sinense), Japanese stiltgrass (Microstegium vimineum), and tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima). Some of
the existing invasive species and pasture grasses along restoration reaches will be treated
preconstruction, while others will be treated primarily by mechanical removal during construction. The
extent of invasive species coverage will be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout
the required monitoring period. Please referto Appendix 7for the post construction invasive species
plan. Additional monitoring and maintenance issues regarding vegetation are in Sections 8 and 9 and
Appendix 10.
Table 17: Planting List
Species
Common Name
Wetland Indicator
Open Buffer Planting Zone
Acer negundo
Boxelder
FAC
Platanus occidentalis
Sycamore
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
Magnolia acuminate
Cucumber Tree
FACU
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
FACU
Oxydendrum arboretum
Sourwood
UPL
Ulmus fulva
Slippery Elm
FAC
Morus rubra
Red Mullberry
FACU
Carya cordiformis
Bitternut Hickory
FACU
Quercus alba
White Oak
FACU
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
FACU
Euonymus americanus
Strawberry Bush
FAC
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
OBL
Hamamelis virginiana
Witch Hazel
FACU
Cornusflorida
Flowering Dogwood
FACU
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
FAC
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 23 August 2021

Species
Common Name
Wetland Indicator
Amelanchier arborea
Serviceberry
FAC
Partially Vegetated Buffer Planting Zone
Carpinus caroliniana
American Hornbeam
FAC
Euonymus americana
Strawberry Bush
FAC
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
FAC
Fagus grandifolia
American Beech
FACU
Ulmus rubra
Slippery Elm
FAC
Hamamelis virginiana
Witchhazel
FACU
Calycanthus floridus
Sweetshrub
FACU
Corpus florida
Flowering Dogwood
FACU
Asima triloba
Pawpaw
FAC
Quercus rubra
Northern Red Oak
FACU
Ilex opaca
American Holly
FACU
Wetland Planting Zone
Plantanus occidentalis
Sycamore
FACW
Betula nigra
River Birch
FACW
Salix nigra
Black Willow
FAC
Ulmus americana
American Elm
FACW
Nyssa sylvatica
Black Gum
FAC
Acer negundo
Boxelder
FAC
Celtis laevigata
Sugerberry
FACW
Alnusserrulata
Tag Alder
OBL
Lindera benzoin
Spicebush
FAC
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
FAC
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
OBL
Streambank Planting Zone
Salix nigra
Black Willow
OBL
Corpus amomum
Silky Dogwood
FACW
Salix sericea
Silky Willow
OBL
Cephalanthus occidentalis
Buttonbush
OBL
Sambucus canadensis
Elderberry
FAC
luncus effusus
Common Rush
FACW
Carex crinita
Fringed Sedge
OBL
Carex lurida
Lurid Sedge
OBL
Carex lupulina
Hop Sedge
OBL
Scirpus cyperinus
Woolgrass
FACW
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 24 August 2021

6.8 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general, this project is low risk. The landowners live in the immediate area and are active on the
property. They will be able to repair damaged fences and/or remove stray livestock from the easement
quickly.
The risk of hydraulic trespass from the project is low. On the two tributaries, the design will set the pipe
inverts within the first 50 ft of the stream entering the property and reduce the chance of trespass
upstream. The beginning of East Prong Hunting Creek ties to existing infrastructure and the design will
only slightly raise water surface elevations through the pipe. The end of the stream will tie back to the
existing stream bed before the property line.
The proposed culverts at the top of the tributaries do pose some risk of diminished flow due to woody
debris clogging the pipe entrances, resulting in erosion around the crossing. Both culverts are relatively
large (minimum 54" diameter) for the stream, which should allow the pipes to function even with some
debris present at the entrance of the pipes. The Landowner will be responsible for long-term culvert
crossing maintenance and clearing any significant debris jams from the pipes. All culvert infrastructure is
located within internal conservation easement crossings or outside of the conservation easement with
adequate room for the landowner to access and complete any necessary maintenance.
All of the streams exhibit large erosive areas along the stream banks. To address this the design
incorporates relatively high width/depth ratios for the channel geometries of all the streams. Additional
bank revetment in the form of brush toe and geolifts will be constructed in areas of concern.
Aggradation of sediment in stream channels is a possibility and has previously been observed at low
slope areas of streams, at slope changes in the profiles, and in areas that experience frequent backwater
conditions, for instance smaller streams near their confluence with larger systems. Areas of concern on
the project include UT1 and UT2 near the confluence with East Prong Hunting Creek and the plunge
pools areas of East Prong Hunting Creek and UT1. Total sediment loads for all project streams are
expected to be much lower post -construction due to the exclusion of livestock, stabilization of stream
banks, and establishment of the vegetated buffer reducing the risk of aggradation. Improved floodplain
access along the streams will provide low velocity areas for sediment to deposit during flood events
while stream channels continue to convey water, encouraging sediment deposition in the floodplain
rather than the stream channels. The high width/depth ratio channel geometries should also allow any
deposition to occur along stream banks rather than mid -channel of the stream.
Land use changes in the watersheds of UT1 and UT2 could pose some risk to the project resulting in
higher peak flows and sediment loads. The East Prong Hunting Creek watershed, while very rural, will
likely see some continued development as it contains a large section of Highway 18. A majority of this
development is expected to remain as low -density residential for the immediate future and is not
expected to greatly affect the hydrology at the Site location. Additionally, existing erosion areas
upstream of the Site on any of the project streams may be a continued sediment input to the Site.
Higher peak flow risk is reduced with the bank revetment and high width/depth ratio design
considerations discussed above. Higher sediment loads and in -stream aggradation risk is reduced with
the improved floodplain connection and high width/depth ratio design considerations discussed above.
Priority 2 restoration of streams have resulted in difficulty establishing vegetation on stream banks and
floodplain benches when attempting to plant on subsoils. To address this the contractor will be required
to harvest topsoil in these areas before grading and reapply the topsoil before seeding or planting.
All stream and wetland projects have some risk for beaver colonization. There is no onsite evidence of
current or past beaver activity in the project limits. If beaver move into the project areas, Wildlands will
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 25 August 2021

follow the Maintenance Plan (Appendix 9) to address the issue. Similarly, should utility/roadway
maintenance work occur in the future and encroach within the conservation easement, Wildlands will
follow the Maintenance Plan to repair disturbed signage or damaged stream areas.
7.0 Performance Standards
The stream and wetland performance standards forthe project will follow approved performance
standards presented in the DMS Mitigation Plan Template (Version 2.3,June 2017), the Annual
MonitoringTemplate (June 2017), and the Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation U pdate issued October 2016 by the USACEand NCI RT. 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). Performance standards
are summaries in Table 18.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 26 August 2021

Table 18: Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter
Monitoring Feature
Performance Standard
STREAM SPECIFIC PERFOMANCE STANDARDS1, 2
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
• Cross -Section Photos
Photo
• Culvert Photos
No excessive erosion or degradation of banks
Documentation
No mid -channel bars, Stable grade control
Photo Points
Hydrology
Pressure Transducer
• Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate years
SITE PERFOMANCE STANDARDS
MY3 success criteria:320 planted stems per acre',
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre, average of 6
feet in height in each plot within Riparian Planting Zones and
Partially Vegetated Planting Zones or 4 feet in height in Wetland
Vegetation
Vegetation Plots
Planting Zones as identified in Figure 104.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre, average of 8
feet in height in each plot within Riparian Planting Zones and
Partially Vegetated Planting Zones or 7 feet in height in Wetland
Planting Zones as identified in Figure 104.
Visual Assessment
CCPV
Signs of encroachment, instability, invasive species
1: BHR = bank height ratio, ER = entrenchment ratio
2: The tributaries are designed to incise as they approach the main streams, sothis would not be considered a trend towards
instability. Riffles mayfine over the course of monitoring due to the stabilization of contributing watershed sediment sources.
3: All volunteer stems or supplemental plantings must be present in the plot data for 2 years to be included as meeting
established vegetation performance standards.
4: The floodplain along East Prong Hunting Creek and UT1 Reach 2 contains standing waterand high-water tables for much of
the year. It is anticipated that increased inundation will inhibit some woody species growth and that some of these areas may
have increased herbaceous and scrub/shrub vegetation. A reduced height vegetation performance standard is requested as
shown in the table.
8.0 Monitoring Plan
Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 19. Approximate locations of the
proposed vegetation plots and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 9.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 27 August 2021

Gl
C
-i
fV
M
'T
Ln
l0
Z
n
n
n
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
m
Ln
Ln
m
Ln
m
m
c
m
d
N
Z
Z
N
N
Q
W
c-I
c-I
a)
c-I
a)
a)
a)
Ln
Ln
Ln
Ln
m
m
m
N
z
z
-i
N
Q
Q
U
N
N
M
LD
t
a
Z
Z
m
m
aj
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
t
M
Z
M
:3 aj
z
z
z
z
z
z
z
c
�
a
J
r
OA N
Y
Q
\
m
d C Gl V
m
-,
-,
M
L
u )
Z
Z
M
W
ULn
U
—'
a d M
Z
Z
Z
>
M
= U
W
m
O
L
Y
Q)
Q
Q)
M
U
V
m V)
E
L
G7
W
in
w
Q
a)
D-
V'
L
a)
Q
(p
U
is
U Q)
Q
i
0
VI
+�+
++
=
o
r
U
U
Q
—
m m
;
O
t
_
t:Lo
aJ
-O
Q
_
O
J
Q
J
V)
U
u
m
U
v
m
L
r
O
m
U.0
O
Q)
m a) O
mu
d
Q)m
CF
O
'+�
mE
m °
M
Q)
E
++
a
O
V
L
a)
V V
Q)R
>
'z- VI a)
pX =
m
u
a)
a
o
Q
_
v
>
Q
v
w E: Q,
.v
a) Q
0
Q
f6
3
m O LL6
° 3 Y
m m O
�
3�
_
L
L E
y 0
•�
°
> m
E N
N
CA
LJ
rn Q
d'
°_
O >•
m v
m
�' OO
3
i Y Y
a,
o
a) o
N
Y
C C
m
0
m
O a)
ro ° a
y
a)o
o
O
i 7 U
w — n
>
0
_
.3
3 a
cn
`O
v a'
N bD
-o
Y co: >,
-O aJ •> Vf
u
o f
m a a s a
Q
m L
o c
'C
cB N
�n
>, E
u D- v u
m m
a
Y 3 a, —
D m E
'0 m
° p o
Y
w
f6 m-
Q w a) Q
bp
v
v
m m
v
v o
— tn
L
E
E
v
c >
m
a)
u m
v 3
.� >w
v m -o
o °
m E D )
in
u in
a
7
U
i
° O 6
Ou
Q
a,
— L
.3
w ,
a) ° v
-o
a) a)
a i
- Q Q W
-
w
.2 O N
3
p O cn
cL
N a)
E
__ a, E
3
m
o
3 m
m tO
a �
u U -o
N v
u -
'u)o m 3 v
u m
v)
CD
m c) m
7 O
E E
Q
o0
J O
Qa
r4
m
o
a
E
•,�
+� a,
4Z
r �, Q 3 �
ao
Q
L m
mo v L
�n
�n
j am+ E m
—
0
o
a
u
N
m a >
a
�
Y a B
a
o
cmo '—
v o o m
Q am
E -=o3
a Q
m
m
E
bD m Y
m u
ao
m 48
Q>>
(U6
++
LJ aJ
-6 W aJ a)
U
3
u
v
O E: N
o
m
>
E 7E v E .E
O
O
° ° E
a v
E E� ° Q>�
a O
of
T,
Q
m- v v
u a)O
c
m
ate) E
3 >
m
a+
T
O
a
-a Y"
u
�_ Q m E
m y
o
Q
= m
O m E W
O
O
a)
Z
m
>• �
•3
Q +,
'O m
u
.O
O
z
Q v m
o D
3 u a —
WM
x v
a) >
> 0
p
UD 'O °
'6 u
) >
aQ am+
— —
47
L Ln
.Y
u
3 m 3 o
a) Q ++ a) m
E cn a
O O
m
am
O m m° E
CA
O O
J D
a) u a)
- Y-a E E Q
a a
�_cL
U
(6 a-d'
E U d m
J J
ci
N m
4 un
lD r�

9.0 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 holderand long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation ease mentare upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis
until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQStewardship Program is developing an
endow me nt system within the non -reverting, interest -bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund
Account. The use offundsfrom the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General
Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained bythee ndowmentfund maybe used for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The Stewardship Program will periodically install signage as needed to identify boundary markings as
needed. Any livestock or associated fencing or permanent crossings will be the responsibility the owner
of the underlyingfee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 8.
Table 20: Long-term Management Plan
Long -Term Management Activity
Long -Term Manager Responsibility
Landowner Responsibility
The landowner shall report
damaged or missing signs to the
The long-term steward will be
long-term manager, as well as
will be installed and
responsible for inspecting the Site
contact the long-term manager if
ma
maninttaiai ned along the Site
boundary during periodic inspections
a boundary needs to be marked,
(everyone to three years) and for
or clarification is needed
boundary to denote the area
maintaining or replacing signage to
regarding a boundary location. If
protected by the recorded
ensure that the conservation
land use changes in future and
conservation easement.
easement area is clearly marked.
fencing is required to protect the
easement, the landowner is
responsible for installing
appropriate approved fencing.
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting periodic
inspections (everyone to three years)
and for undertaking actions that are
The landowner shall contact the
The Site will be protected in its
reasonably calculated to swiftly
long-term manager if clarification
entirety and managed under the
correctthe conditions constituting a
terms outlined in the recorded
breach. The USACE, and their
is needed regarding the
conservation easement.
authorized agents, shall have the right
restrictions associated with the
to enterand inspectthe Site and to
recorded conservation easement.
take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
10.0 Adaptive Management Plan
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implementthe post -construction monitoring
defined in Sections 8 and 9. Project maintenance will be performed duringthe monitoringyearsto
address minor issues as necessary (Appendix 9). If during annual monitoring it is determined the Site's
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 29 August 2021

ability to achieve Site performance standards are jeopardized in any other way, Wild lands and DMSwilI
notify theme m be rs of the NCIRT and work with the NCIRTto develop contingency plans and remedial
actions.
11.0 Determination of Credits
11.1 Determination of Credits Overview
Mitigation credits presented in Table 21 are projections based upon the proposed design.
The credit ratios proposed forthe Site have been developed in consultation with the NCIRTas
summarized in the included meeting minutes (Appendix 6).
The requested stream restoration credit ratio is 1:1 for mitigation activities that include
reconstruction of the channels to a stable form and connection of the channels to the adjacent
floodplain.This level of effort will occur on East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1 and Reach2, UT1
Reach 2, and UT2.
UT1Reach 1 is proposed for preservation creditata 15:1 ratio. Proposed work along this reach
includes establishing the conservation easement and invasive species removal.
The credit release schedule is provided in Appendix 11.
11.2 Credit Calculations for Non -Standard Buffer Widths
To calculate functional uplift credit adjustments, the latest published version of the Wilmington District
Stream BufferCredit Calculator from the USACEwas utilized. To perform this calculation, GISanalysis
was performed to determine the area (in square feet) of ideal buffer zones and actual buffer zones
around the Project stream. Minimum standard bufferwidths are measured from the top of bank(30
feet in the mountain county of Burke). The ideal buffers are the maximum potential size (in square feet)
of each buffer zone measured around all creditable stream reaches, calculated using GIS, including areas
outside of the easement. The actual buffer is the square feet in each buffer zone, as measured by GIS,
excluding non -forested areas, all other credit type (e.g., wetland, nutrient offset, buffer), easement
exceptions, open water, areas failingto meet the vegetation performance standard, etc. The stream
lengths, mitigation type, ideal buffer, and actual buffer are all entered into the calculator. This data is
processed, and the resulting credit amounts are totaled for the whole project. Based on the credit
analysis, the Buffer Credit Calculator computed a net gain of104.840 credits; therefore, the total
adjusted SMUs forthe Project is 4,836.307. Appendix 13 contains details of the Non -Standard Buffer
width calculation including the credit calculator spreadsheet result and buffer credit calculation figure.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 30 August 2021

Table 21: Project Asset Table
Project Components
Project Component or Reach ID
Existing
Footage/
Acreage
Restoration
Footage/
Acreage
Mitigation
Category
Restoration
Level
Priority Level
Mitigation
Ratio
Proposed
Credit
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
416
498
Warm
R
P1, P2
1
498.000
East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
912
686
Warm
R
P1, P2
1
686.000
UT1 Reach 1
457
457
Warm
P
N/A
15
30.467
UT1 Reach 2
1,633
1,975
Warm
R
P1, P2
1
1,975.000
UT2
1,470
1,542
Warm
R
P1, P2
1
1,542.000
Total Stream LF
1 4,888
1 5158
Project Credits
Restoration
Level
Stream
Riparian Wetland
Non -Rip
Wetland
Coastal
Marsh
Warm
Cool
Cold
Riverine
Non-Riv
Restoration
4,701.000
Re-
establishment
Rehabilitation
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement 11
Creation
Preservation
30.467
Totals
4,731.467
Project Credit AdjustmentS2
Type
SMUs
Total Base SMU
4,731.467
Credit Loss in Required Buffer
-256.640
Credit Gain in Required Buffer
361.480
Net Change in Credit Buffers
104.840
Total Adjusted SMUs
4,836.307
Notes: 1. Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.
2. Credit adjustment for Non-standard Buffer Width calculation using the Wilmington District Stream Buffer Credit
Calculator issued by the USACE in January 2018. See Section 11.2 for more information.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 31 August 2021

References
Andrews, E.D.1980. Bed -material entrainmentand hydraulicgeometry ofgrave l-bed rivers in Colorado.
Geological Society of America Bulletin 95: 371-378.
Harman, W.H. et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina Streams. In
AWRA Wildland Hydrology Symposium Proceedings, D.S. Olsen and J.P. Potyondy (Ed.) AWRA Summer
Symposium, Bozeman, Mt. Pp 401-408.
Harman, W.H. et al. 2000. Bankfull Regional CurvesforNorth Carolina Mountain Streams. In: Kande, D.L.
(Ed.). ProcAWRA Conf. Water Resources in Extreme Environments, Anchorage, AK. Pp 185-190.
Hosking,J.R.M., and J.R. Wallis. 1993. Some Statistics Useful in Regional Frequency Analysis. Water
Resources Research, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp 271-281.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2011. Web Soil Survey.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ). 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://Portal.ncdenr.org/web/wq/ps/csu/classifications
North Carolina Geological Survey (NCGS), 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina 1:500,000 scale.
Compiled by Philip M. Brown at el. Raleigh, NC, NCGS.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP), 2009. Natural Heritage Element Occurrence Database,
Gates County, NC.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Schafale, M.P.2012. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Fourth App roximation.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
Shields, A.1936. Application of similarity principles and turbulence research to bedload movement. Mit.
Preuss. Verchsanst., Berlin. Wasserbau Schiffbau. In W.P Ottand J.C. Uchelen (translators),
California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Report No.167: 43 pp.
Sweet, W.V. and Geratz, J.W. 2003. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships and Recurrence Intervals
for North Carolina's Coastal Plain. Journal of the American Water Resources Association. 39(4):861-871.
Weaver, J.C., Feaster, T.D., and Gotvald, A.J., 2009, Magnitude and frequencyof rural floods in the
Southeastern United States, through 2006—Volume 2, North Carolina: U.S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5158, 111 p.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Revised Draft for IRT Review
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 32 August 2021

FIGURES

..........
. . . . . :0305010tOQO 20 0 . . . . . . .
N..
� . . . . . . . . . .
C Cltin:Wa.ter M.anageTe�nt
8'� Fundiiiiiiing . -, Trust Fund Easement,.e:
03050101030070 .... . . .0305 , 01(
01010300"
,7.
1060040
Ae
North Carolina -Sch-Col-for
--the-Deaf Historic District
. . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . Broughton Hospital
Historic Distric
NCDMS Conservation
Easement -
Bailey Fork (EBX)
03O501 01050050
South Mountains Game Land
i Mountain North Slope
)w 0305C
yo
)3550 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
,�0800201
a 0�0501�19�0q3�
!ai�a RV -er
050101070040
............... ........
------
toric District 41LA
Dunavant Cotton Manufacturing C . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . Valdese
.. .. .. . . . . . . .. . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
�10 060-50
.............
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . ..
Burke County Open Space . . . . . . . . . .
4/
NC Department of Transportation
mitigation\% e
East Prong
rnting Creek 03050102010021
Project Location
V
Yellow Mountain/ Ironmonger Mountain
Smith Cliff/Henry Fork River Smith Cliff/ Henry Fork River
Registered Heritage Area
Broughton Hospital/ Keller Knob
7 7 7 7 7
:-. — Project Location L._.i Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit) Significant Natural Heritage Areas
L—J County Line C Targeted Local Watersheds INC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Municipalities . . . . Water Supply Watershed Local Watershed Plan
Catawba 01 River Basin 0 NC Historic Preservation Areas —303d Listed Streams
wiltv, WILDLANDS
E NA G I N E E R I N G
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
0 0.75 1.5 Miles Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
I I I I _J t Catawba River Basin (03050101)
Burke County, NC

a v.� u
m " � Z
� '^ p
c
Gl � � �
' �
N O�q � U
� - C X a
� � A
Oq � f0 m m
— Gl
7
i 4'
Gl A
a
� 3
m m
V
��

0
I

s
!
I+ +
r �
� r 1
Project Location
■ Conservation Easemen
tii■�r
t
�► `� g r �
w
10
4
t
0'
Morganton South, NC USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle 140
W I L D L A N D S 0 250 500 Feet
kt� E N G I N E E R I N G
I I I I I
0 '
a
i
's..�
i
r,�'■t�r
■y
4
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101
Burke County, NC
jhessler 5/19/2021

o
c �
o p
M
� O
A
T m
Gl �
i K
lj

c
T
L
N
I
�
i
a
I~
I
�
I
�
I
G
a
m
a
-
H
- I
m
I
o
�-
OI
=
O
0
C
1)

1111"■■I■I�1�1111■■■■��111■■■■��111■■■■�
Illlll■■.aIIIIi1�■■■l1111�■■■l1111�■■■
IIIII\L�JI�IIIa1■■■■1"'■'�7■IIIII■■■
■Illlll■■
IlllleMIMMI11N■■■■I
Illounw;llllr!■■■I
■Illlll■■
I
1�
11
■t111■■l=
��111■■■■�
\■�■�1
11 • - •
II ' ..
■�1111■\\'■EMI
■■1111�1\\I'7v1
'
��111■■■■�
■11111�■■■
II � : -
■■r1111\=�r�1
■■IIIII■■■
II -
■■II111■��a�ll�.....a■IIIII■■■
, �
II
■■II��II�.�■,I1IIII■■■Illlll■■
•
II
■�Illi�■■
\■��■II■■■■IIIII■■■
IIIII■■��IIIII�■�,III��■■■.IIIII■■■
'�
II
`11I
11■■■■■��11■■■■■n�1►11l�S■��111■■■■�
111�■■■��111�■■■■1�1111�■1■■11■�111�■■■�
IIIII■■■l1111�■■■�l1111��■■�1l1111�■■■
IIIII■■■■IIIII■■■�111111■■v■IIIII■■■
IIIII■■■■IIIII■■■1�1111\I■■��IIIII■■■
Illlll■■■Illlll■■�IIIIII■■�IIIIII■■
,
I11I■■■��1
I111�■■■!I
•
■l1111�■■■l1111�■■■
IIIII■■■■I
,
,
■■IIIII■■■■IIIII■■■
Illlll■■■I
�
;
Illlll■■■I
■■Illlll■■■Illlll■■
IIIII■■■■I
■■IIIII■■■■IIIII■■■
IIIII■■■.I1111■■.IIIII■■■.IIIII■■■
O O
O O
C T
T (Sio) e6jewSIQ
I
0
0
O T O
T
m
c
O
LO
jN O
U w 3 E
o v
L N J
c o a
o C.,o � c aa
g rn a�
z 0� o of ao
m m
cc
03�
J
7
LL
l)

}
�
•, °fir T 9
.d
r
Y
N N
�
a
C
N
_
O N E
E E oo=
�vQ
Q m m
v u o o mzJ d° u
O O w
C O Oi
— w r"o a
° ou ou ou ou m w E c
zi
O
a T o
w E E -
Y
O T N
-
O
V
x x x u a E
X
x x
O
0

a a� U
m o z
� u' o �;
� c �,
c � o �
m �
Q o1°c � u°
o � A
� �. m m
rn v `y
_ �
oc y m
�` � 3
m ,�
V
M
z
lj

v
N
v�
O �
♦+ N � C
v N a a
a
m ro t
O V V
>• -O W N > a m m m
v
0 0 °' v $- v r v - v v O 0 -
V
� 0
O
V)0
Az
z�
W
az
AZ
W
I --I
tj

APPENDIX 1
Historic Aerial Photos

Punch Buggy Mitigation Site
3923 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Inquiry Number: 5733275.5
July 30, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
IrE
��� Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com

EDR Aerial Photo Decade Package 07/30/19
Site Name: Client Name:
Punch Buggy Mitigation Site
3923 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
EDR Inquiry # 5733275.5
Wildlands Eng, Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Charlotte, NC 28203
Contact: Andrea Eckardt
CEDW
Environmental Data Resources, Inc. (EDR) Aerial Photo Decade Package is a screening tool designed to assist
environmental professionals in evaluating potential liability on a target property resulting from past activities. EDR's
professional researchers provide digitally reproduced historical aerial photographs, and when available, provide one photo
per decade.
Search Results:
Year
Scale
Details
Source
2016
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2016
USDA/NAIP
2012
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2012
USDA/NAIP
2009
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2009
USDA/NAIP
2006
1 "=500'
Flight Year: 2006
USDA/NAIP
1998
1 "=750'
Flight Date: March 15, 1998
USGS
1993
1 "=500'
Acquisition Date: March 06, 1993
USGS/DOQQ
1984
1 "=500'
Flight Date: February 02, 1984
USDA
1976
1 "=500'
Flight Date: April 01, 1976
USGS
1964
1 "=500'
Flight Date: October 24, 1964
USGS
1961
1 "=500'
Flight Date: August 29, 1961
USGS
1950
1 "=500'
Flight Date: November 14, 1950
USGS
1947
1 "=500'
Flight Date: February 21, 1947
USGS
When delivered electronically by EDR, the aerial photo images included with this report are for ONE TIME USE
ONLY. Further reproduction of these aerial photo images is prohibited without permission from EDR. For more
information contact your EDR Account Executive.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data Resources, Inc. It cannot
be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from other sources. NO WARRANTY
EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY
DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE
OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE,
WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE, ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any
analyses, estimates, ratings, environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to
provide, nor should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any property.
Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole or in part, of any report or map of
Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other trademarks used herein are
the property of their respective owners.
5733275 - 5 page 2

,.
� s•
'•y ` i
.act 4.8
VIA lk
� f
klo�
t

INQUIRY k 5733275.5 1 N
YEAR: 2009 - (r
500' FOR

4
INQUIRY #: 5733275.5 �jJr /� N
YEAR: 1984
= 500' FOR
r 'Oor
• ; P,
MUCIA
k

:`
4
i• I
Y
II L
LOL
•, 1
y .4;.7,1.�`_ �x L 1 r�. , 4 1 jl••+ �Li L ' r, 4 �.. } ' x Y4L
1 _ _
I • .f - .�Y.I'r
_ r
,L. � ' . 4 's ' -� 4 , 4 _ . �*_+ 131t - •STD_-.
. .. -. - .. y a •.� - r
'�..�r.. S.'Y �Lr }� f•1. �J Y•Y 'y•�.,. •'T. y���1'•.`+•�• y ,1� ,a f. ' � ,+.
i• }+._Svc ,1_ - ai• h'. Yiv ,;'`y; .1,���24 _`�� .+'4••=1}:.r.• 1
;4, • +V'
_ , `�'• ram' �',�y . a _ :' .•} ' ,�'�'' +• �... ; •�,�, �}r��
X q'f . t . ■_ '�•T r. a. r. ..... •-' } , .. • 4r1
.. •� � ~ Tyr.. • ' .,,� ,r_�•�'y`: `, } •- i {,
' •Ljw� L i�M1,{'J•L7�C• lT=i?',�. �`y. •I -1 i. �`�y ,.�'-'• _'�r'�+ _�' '=.�•••- •' ''�.. F --}}ti{
' � iY {'. • .•l- - — - _ - - 0• � '~ - r . _ -•: •�rJyJ, .� L �'L i _ 'r _r !.
.. ''r: �',h'-• � ., ,. rr '{' i� t �•: .�� +S'.ti: } rfF •i� ,�}.'l S�h.�_.. �Y'+' .J',-_ `�.�ti{
J.
'' _ •.+}`i I t } •'�' 1, - Lam, t 4.� 'h7✓ •.
r� J� r • } , i h+ .. - !t L�• : � .. ,- - rrr���� irL .
r'L '1 rL

�. - ��- }'CIS �� � � �•"
rk J3 i
0. CAP
t�
r
}a
i th ., h
r
y r ` btv
Sri ir
—mac
_ L T 1 .,/ �arA r•� M
' • `fir �a•J �.y3K � .
go
or L
'! ��f i.•T � r
?'' i S i '• • r' tii' ;'� �I•
,;{Subject boundary not shown because it
eds image extent or image is not
exce
,�
• `` 1 P t

40�1 k
OOPPO"
JAI
1A

' r r7. F •�
APIL
do r L
+ t
dof
f t
jw
lire *1
II
'014.; wl,
;.m

APPENDIX 2
Preliminary Jurisdictional
Determination Approval

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. SAW-2020-00053 County: Burke U.S.G.S. Quad: NC -Morganton South
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Win Taylor
Address:
497 Bramson Court
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone Number:
843-277-6221
E-mail:
wtaylor(&wildlandseng.com
Size (acres) 24 Nearest Town Morganton
Nearest Waterway East Prong Hunting Creek River Basin Santee
USGS HUC 03050101 Coordinates Latitude: 35.703225
Longitude:-81.642877
Location description: The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is located at 3923 Hawkins Drive, Morganton, Burke 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 delineation map dated 2/16/2021. 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
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion, this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once

SAW-2020-00053
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
steven.l.kichefski(&usace.armv.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 07/19/2021.
D. Remarks: See attached delineation map for verified resources.
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)
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: Mr. Philip A. Shannin
Administrative Appeal Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW, Floor M9
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8803
AND
PHILIP.A. SHANNINgUSACE.ARMY.MIL
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: 07/19/2021 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2020-00053
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.anny.mil/cm_apex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished (via email):
Erin Davis (NCDWR)
Property Owner:
John Hewat, Jr.
Address:
3923 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Telephone Number:
828-443-2093
E-mail:
i hewat 2000(a,vahoo.com

r
r
r
East Prong Hunting Creeks
\ Wetland E
(DP8)
Upland Upland
(DP9)
(DP11)
h
1!&
4t
,V
Wetland E
J
Wetland C
(DP4) \
t Upland
(DP5)
�,�/ Wetland G fr --_AL
(DP12) d
Upland
(DP13) _
i
• � + ,..���* 'fir,+�
• � x • wit. d
�r
t
tland E
�(DP2)
Upland
/ (DP3)
Wetland A
(DP1)
Upland
/ (DP7)
*4
Itxv— Wetland D
� (DP8)

NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
A licant: Wildlands En ineerin Inc., Win Taylor File Number: SAW-2020-00053 Date: 07/19/2021
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
❑X
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.anny.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Re ug latoiyProgramandPermits.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.
II - REQUEST FOR APP L 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
If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact:
also contact:
District Engineer, Wilmington Regulatory Division
MR. PHILIP A. SHANNIN
Attn: Steve Kichefski
ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL REVIEW OFFICER
Asheville Regulatory Office
CESAD-PDS-O
U.S Army Corps of Engineers
60 FORSYTH STREET SOUTHWEST, FLOOR M9
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8803
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
PHONE: [phone]; FAX [phone]
EMAIL: PHILIP.A.SHANNIN(a USACE.ARMY.MIL
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 opportum to participate in all site invest] ations.
Date:
Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
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. Philip Shannin, Administrative
Appeal Officer, CESAD-PDO, 60 Forsyth Street, Room 1OM15, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 07/19/2021
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering, Inc., Win
Taylor, 497 Bramson Court, Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: Wilmington District, DMS-Laurel Valley
Mit Site, SAW-2020-00053
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The Laurel Valley
Mitigation Site is located at 3923 Hawkins Drive, Morganton, Burke County, North Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC
RESOURCES AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State: NC County: Burke City: Morganton
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.703225 Longitude:-81.642877
Universal Transverse
Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: East Prong
Hunting Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
❑Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
N Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEWAREA WHICH "MAY BE" SUBJECT TO
REGULATORY JURISDICTION
Site Number
Latitude
Longitude
Estimated
Type of aquatic
Geographic authority to
(decimal
(decimal
amount of
resources (i.e.,
which the aquatic
degrees)
degrees)
aquatic
wetland vs.
resource "may be"
resources in
non -wetland
subject (i.e., Section 404
review area
waters)
or Section 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
1
2
3
4
5
6

i
H
v
r
u
r6 U)
r6 U)
r6 U)
'�
�j
j
�j
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v
v
v
+l
c +l
41
oc:
o c
oc:
oc:
oc:
o c
oc:
Qc
=O
p O
p o
C:
p o
}, 26
+, 26
+, 26
a_ 26
+, 26
+, 26
+, 26
rn
rn a'
— N
— N
N
'E
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
1
-I-
z
V
v
v
v
z
z
z
z
z
z
CL
CL
CL
u
7
GmJ
Q Q
0 3
GJ
4-1
C
O a)
LnlD
LnO
M
m
CO
ri
Ln
O
M
N
--t
O
r
O
O
m
I,
O
E .O
r-
N
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
Q GJ
GJ
++ O
f6
E GJ
4
tA
w
N
(U
(U
E
E
E
N
N
N
tA
U)
U)
U)
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
ft0
r6
r6
r6
0)
�
Ln
Iii
t
V
C
C
C
E
Ca)
E
o
Ca)
E
Ca)
E
o
0
v
v
v
w
w
w
w
w
w
w
v
v
v
CL
v
v
v
v
v
m
O
V
(U
Q
v
Q
Q
v
Q
Q
+�
Ln
+
L
Ln
+
>
+
Ln
41
Ln
ti�
ti�
ti�
c
c
c
41
O
co
o
tD
ro
coli
W
o
It
m
m
Ul
�
L.0
It
k.0
k.0
k.0
k.0
k.0
O
J
co
W
W
W
i
W
W
W
W
W
W
GJ
O
N
N
rt
M
M
m
rq
m
CO
O
CO
N
O
�
NO
N
lD
N
W
ri
M
ri
Lll
M
N
M
N
ri
J
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
c
v
4-
�
Q
m
V
p
w
w
l7
N
-J
N
r6
r6
r6
r6
r6
r6
r6
LL
o V
CL
>N
>N
>N
>N
>N
>N
>(U
Ln
ra
ui

I
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.
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 orjudicial compliance or enforcement action, or in any administrative
appeal or in any Federal court; and (7) whether the applicant elects to use either an
AID 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:

1171
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:
Q Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:
R Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.
❑ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
❑ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Rationale:
❑ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
❑ Corps navigable waters' study:
❑ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
❑ USGS NHD data.
❑ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: 7.5 Minute South Morganton
QNatural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: https."Webso''suNey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSuNey.wpx
❑ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
❑ State/local wetland inventory map(s):
❑ FEMA/FIRM maps:
❑ 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: .(National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
0 Photographs: FEJ Aerial (Name & Date): 2018
or ❑ Other (Name & Date):
❑ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
❑ Other information (please specify):
IMPORTANT NOTE: The information recorded on this form has not necessarily
been verified by the Corps and should not be relied upon for later jurisdictional
determinations.
KICHEFSKI.STEVE Digitally signed by
KICHEFSKI.STEVEN.L.1386908539
N.L.1386908539 Date: 2021.07.19 07:12:45 -04'00'
Signature and date of
Regulatory staff member
completing PJD
Signs a and date o
person requesting PJD
(REQUIRED, unless obtaining
the signature is impracticable)'
' Districts may establish timeframes for requestor to return signed PJD forms. If the requestor does not respond
within the established time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is
necessary prior to finalizing an action.

APPENDIX 3
DWR and NCSAM Identification Forms

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Dater
ProjecVSite: a
Latitude:. -/ 10 � r}-
1 y
Evaluator: f (_A C
County:
Longitude: -
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
Stream Determination (circle
-
Other 1 vfr'
if a 19 or perennial if;-,30, -J
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennia
e.g. Quasi Name: _
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = [ J ]
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strang
1 a. Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
; 2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ri le- ool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
3
B. Headcuts
o, ''
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1
1.5
10, Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1.5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes = 3
"artificial ditches are not rated; see discussip s in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = i I 1 ]
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
3
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
_. -1.-"
2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = 3
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1. P I t ]
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
3
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1.5
24. Amphibians
0.
1
1.5
25. Algae
o
t7 5
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
t_her = 0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: ; r" {
+
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date:
IZ0
prajetlSite: U
Lme
Latitude:
Evaluator: OA
County: " I,
Longitude: - �� � Li
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent
if a 19 or perennial if a 30*
Stream Determination icircle e]
1Ephemeral Intermitten erennia
Other I� `
e.g. Otiad Name:
'1
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = L__�) )
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
11' Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
3
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
2
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
3
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
2
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
3
7. Recent alluvial deposits
0
1
2
a_
8. Headcuts
0
1
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.5
1.5
10. Natural valley
❑
0.5
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 t
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0
1
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
0.5
1 _7>
1.5
16. Organic debris lines or piles
0
0.5
1.5
17. Soil -based evidence of high water table?
No = 0
Yes = '3-,
C. Hiology (Subtotal = v L_ ) -
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
.3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3 '
2
1
0
20. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
❑
1
2
22, Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1
1,5
24. Amphibians
❑
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
0.5
# #
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL = 1.5
Other =_O)
'perennial streams may also he identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes:
4
Sketch:

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Gate: 12>b � 01 (�
V
ProjectfSite: L o kt t`0l VLf/
Latitude: > b0y�
Evaluator:
County: r I
Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at feast intermittent rl
Stream Determination 'c.
Ephemeral Intermittent Perennia
Other
e.g. Quad Name:�
if � Igor perennial if 2 34` 1
V l� i-
A. Geomorphology {Subtotal = 1 `
j
Absent
Weak
Moderate
Strong
1a- Continuity of channel bed and bank
0
1
2
(7 3 _
2. Sinuosity of channel along thalweg
0
1 _
2
3
3. In -channel structure: ex. riffle -pool, step -pool,
ripple -pool sequence
0
1
3
4. Particle size of stream substrate
0
1
2
_
_3�
5. Active/relict floodplain
0
1
3
6. Depositional bars or benches
0
1
2
3
7. Reoent alluvial deposits
0
1
` _275
3
8. Headcuts
D .
2
3
9. Grade control
0
0.
1
10. Natural valley
0
0.5
1
1,5
11. Second or greater order channel
No = 0
Yes =
11 a artificial ditches are not rated; see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = { D .5 )
12. Presence of Baseflow
0
1
2
r . 3�
13. Iron oxidizing bacteria
0 .
1
_-2
3
14. Leaf litter
1.5
1
0.5
0
15. Sediment on plants or debris
0
r 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
Yes =
C. Biology (Subtotal = 1'?-, 5 )
18. Fibrous roots in streambed
3
2
1
0
19. Rooted upland plants in streambed
3
2
1
0
20. Macrobentho5 (note diversity and abundance)
0
1
2
3
21. Aquatic Mollusks
0
1
2
22. Fish
0
0.5
1
1.5
23. Crayfish
0
0.5
1-
1.5
24. Amphibians
0
0.5
1
1.5
25. Algae
0
p 57
1
1.5
26. Wetland plants in streambed
FACW = 0.75; OBL
= 1.5' Other =
"perennial streams may also be identified using other methods. See p. 35 of manual.
Notes: '( r
4
Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.704275,-81.643651
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): East Prong Hunting Crei 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 1354
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3-4 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 20 - 23 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (i Perennial flow Intermittent flow { Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (i Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (*' a *%W� (- b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (` Size 1 (< 0.1 me) r Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) (t Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (i Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area-
r— Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r II r III (o IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
PA Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
r A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
ro A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
r B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10 % of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
(o C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
ro B ro B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
j— B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream- assessment reach metric
Yes (: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `
r P P 9 0 U) r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r 0 r I Sand bottom
F., C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. r Yes (i No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F., A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F., B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
(o ( r r ( Bedrock/saprolite
r (i r r ( Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( r r* ( r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (Z r ( Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r r r (o ( Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r (o r ( Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
r r (Z Detritus
(i r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (' Yes r* No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ro Yes (' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (" No Water r Other:
12b. (i Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams-
r- r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r F Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
i A i A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
is B is B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i C i C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A i`' A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
B is B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
is C i`' C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
is Y is Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
i N i N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
i A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
is B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
i. A i. A i A t ' A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B i`' B i B t-' B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C i`' C i C t-' C From 30 to <50-feet wide
D ;`' D ; D ; D From 10 to <30-feet wide
E i`' E is E ;`." E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A t A Mature forest
( B t B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
{: C t: C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
{ D ; D Maintained shrubs
( E t E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A i`" A i`' A i A i A i A Row crops
B i`' B i`' B t' B t' B t' B Maintained turf
C i`' C i`" C ;`" C t-' C t-' C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
is D is D is D ;`." D t: D t: D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A r A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
ro C (o C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(o A (i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r* B {o B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r C r C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes {i No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. (' No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.700463,-81.646774
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 Preservation 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 541
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 6-7 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 15 - 20 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (i Perennial flow r Intermittent flow r Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (i Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (I) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %.
valley shape (skip for (" a ��� (o b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip Size 1 (< 0.1 min) r. Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 min) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 miz) Size 4 (>_ 5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? {i Yes (- No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( (— I (" II (" III (` IV (` V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect F— Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r YesCo— No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(i A Water throughout assessment reach.
( B No flow, water in pools only.
( C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
r A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
(i B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
( A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances)-
(4— B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
(i A < 10 % of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
r C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
( A f- A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(i B fo B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C f- C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
F A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F- C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
F D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
F F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
F- G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
F., J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
{ A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
{ B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
(i C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream- assessment reach metric
Yes (• No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
F- A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
Fe B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o U) Cr H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r 0 r I Sand bottom
F., C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
F., D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. (' Yes (: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
r A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F., B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
F- C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10 % , Common (C) _ > 10-40 % , Abundant (A) _ > 40-70 % , Predominant (P) _ > 70 % . Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
Detritus
r ("' Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (' Yes (i No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. (i Yes (` No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r No Water r Other:
12b. (i Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
F r Aquatic reptiles
F r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
F r Asian clam (Corbicula )
P r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
F r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
F r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
F r Midges/mosquito larvae
F- r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
F- r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F r Other fish
F r Salamanders/tadpoles
F_ r Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F r Tipulid larvae
F r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
t A A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B ' ' B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
t C t C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
t ' C t` C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F- A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
F- B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
F., D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r- F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
I- A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F_ B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
PJ D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F- E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
I- F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
t: A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
t ' A ': A A f; A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
t ' B t ' B t` B ; B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
D t D t: D t D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
t E t E t E t`' E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
t ' A A Mature forest
B ' ' B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C ' ' C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
D D Maintained shrubs
t E t E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: 7
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
(` A C- A C- A (` A (` A (` A Row crops
r B B B r B r B B Maintained turf
r C C C r C r C C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
r D {` D D r D r D {` D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
(* A A Medium to high stem density
(` B B Low stem density
(` C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(i A (i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
( B (` B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
( C (' C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition —First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
( A (i A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
( B ( B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
(i C ("' C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (- Yes (i No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
("A <46 (—B 46to<67 ("C 67to<79 rD 79to<230 rE >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.703689,-81.644714
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 R2 Lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 242
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 1 - 2 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 3-4 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? (` Yes (" No
14. Feature type: (S Perennial flow r Intermittent flow (` Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (o Mountains (M) (" Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) (" Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (o a � r b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? : Yes C' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( C' I C' II (` III i• IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(: A Water throughout assessment reach.
(` B No flow, water in pools only.
(` C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
(: A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
(: A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
r B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability —assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
ro A < 10 % of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
r C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streams ide Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
(o A ro A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
r B ( B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C ( C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F- C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
f- J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
• A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
• B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent $ - 2 2,r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r I Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. (` Yes (o No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
j- A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
j- C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
r r r (` (` Bedrock/saprolite
(` r r (` (` Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
(` r r r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r r r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
( r r r r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
( r r r r Silt/clay (<0.062 mm)
( r r r r Detritus
( r r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (o Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. (o Yes r No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r No Water r Other:
12b. (: Yes C' No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
F., r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F_ r Other fish
F_ r Salamanders/tadpoles
F_ r Snails
F_ r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F_ r Tipulid larvae
F_ r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A f` A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
[: B f: B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C (' C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A C A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
i« B C B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f- C f: C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
is Y t: Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
7 A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
7- B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F, C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
• D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
(w E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
7 F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
* A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
F, D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
7 F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
(i A {: A C` A C` A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
C B ( B f: B C B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C ( C r C C C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D {' D r D C D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C E C E r E f: E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
i`. A r A Mature forest
r B B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
r C i`. C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
r D i` D Maintained shrubs
' E i` E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F_
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
C A r A C A C A C A i` A Row crops
C B r B C B C B C' B i` B Maintained turf
r C r C C C r C r C i` C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
f: D ro D fo D f: D f: D i`• D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
(•` A (` A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
r C ro C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(t A (o A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B (` B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent-
r.0 C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r, B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
( C (*. C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(` A <46 ( B 46 to < 67 (` C 67 to < 79 (` D 79 to < 230 (' E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.703110,-81.645092
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 R2 Middle 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 651
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3-4 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 11 - 12 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? (` Yes (" No
14. Feature type: (S Perennial flow r Intermittent flow (` Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (o Mountains (M) (" Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) (" Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (" a� (: b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? : Yes C' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( C' I C' II (` III i• IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(: A Water throughout assessment reach.
(` B No flow, water in pools only.
(` C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
(` A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
is B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
(` A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
(o B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability —assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
(` A < 10 % of channel unstable
(' B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
(o C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streams ide Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A (" A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(o B Co B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C ( C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F- C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
f- J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
• A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
• B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent $ - 2 2,r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r I Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. (` Yes fo No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F, A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
ro r r r r Bedrock/saprolite
( (o r r r Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( (o r r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (o r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
( r r (o r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
( r (o r r Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
( r (o r r Detritus
ro r r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (o Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. (: Yes C' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (` No Water (` Other:
12b. (: Yes C' No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams-
* r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F_ r Other fish
F_ r Salamanders/tadpoles
F_ r Snails
F_ r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F_ r Tipulid larvae
F_ r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A f` A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r- B f` B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
f`_ C r C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A C A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B C B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f- C r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
f: Y t` Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
f` N fi N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
~ A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
7- B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F, C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
• D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
(w E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
7 F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
* A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
i- D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F, E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
7 F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
(i A f: A f` A 4 A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
C B ( B f' B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C ( C f' C r C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D f' D 4 D r D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C E C E f' E r- E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A `. A Mature forest
4 B B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
r C i` C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
r D i` D Maintained shrubs
' E i` E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F_
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
C A r A C A C A C A f` A Row crops
C B r B C B C B C' B f` B Maintained turf
r C r C C C r C r C f` C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
f.' D ro D fo D f: D f: D f`• D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
(•` A ro A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
r C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(t A (S A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B (` B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent-
r.0 C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
(: B (o B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees-
r.0 r C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes (: No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(` A <46 ( B 46 to < 67 (` C 67 to < 79 (` D 79 to < 230 (' E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.701813,-81.646055
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT1 R2 Upper 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 699
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4-5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 8-10 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? (` Yes (" No
14. Feature type: (S Perennial flow r Intermittent flow (` Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (o Mountains (M) (" Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) (" Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (" a� (: b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? : Yes C' No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( C' I C' II (` III i• IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
(: A Water throughout assessment reach.
(` B No flow, water in pools only.
(` C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
(` A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
is B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
(` A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
(o B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability —assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
(` A < 10 % of channel unstable
(' B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
(o C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streams ide Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A (" A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(o B Co B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C ( C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
F- C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
F- H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
F I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
f- J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
• A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
• B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent $ - 2 2,r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r o r I Sand bottom
r C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
F E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. (` Yes fo No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F, A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
r B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
ro r r r r Bedrock/saprolite
( (o r r r Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( r (o r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (o r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
( r r (o r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
( r (o r r Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
( r (o r r Detritus
ro r r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (o Yes r No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. (: Yes C' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (` No Water (` Other:
12b. (: Yes C' No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F_ r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
F_ r Snails
F_ r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F_ r Tipulid larvae
F_ r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A f` A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r- B f` B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
f`_ C r C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
C A C A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
C B C B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
f- C r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
f` Y t` Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
fi N fi N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
7 A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
7- B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
i- C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
• D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
(w E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
7 F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
* A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
F, D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r- E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
7 F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
(i A f: A f` A 4 A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
C B ( B f' B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C C ( C f' C r C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
C D f' D f' D r D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
C E C E 4 E r- E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A `. A Mature forest
r B B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
i`• C i` C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
i` D i` D Maintained shrubs
' E i` E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F_
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
C A r A C A C A C A f` A Row crops
C B r B C B C B C' B f` B Maintained turf
r C r C C C r C r C f` C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
f.' D ro D fo D f: D f: D f`• D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
(` A (: A Medium to high stem density
(` B (` B Low stem density
(•' C C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(t A (o A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B (` B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent-
r.0 C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r B (o B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees-
r,. C r C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (- Yes a No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
(' A <46 B 46 to < 67 (` C 67 to < 79 D 79 to < 230 (' E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.702785,-81.642563
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 Lower 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 304
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3-4 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 6-8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (i Perennial flow Intermittent flow { Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (i Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (*' a � ( b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip (` Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (i Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area-
r— Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r II r III (o IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
PA Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
r A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
ro A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
r B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10 % of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
(o C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
ro B ro B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
j— B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream- assessment reach metric
Yes (: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `
r P P 9 0 U) r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r 0 r I Sand bottom
F., C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. r Yes (i No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F., A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F., B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
(o ( r r ( Bedrock/saprolite
r (i r r ( Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( r r* ( r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (Z r ( Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r r r (o ( Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r (o r ( Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
r r (Z Detritus
(i r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (' Yes r* No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ro Yes (' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (" No Water r Other:
12b. (i Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams-
r- r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

r r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
r jr Snails
r r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r F Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
i A i A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
is B is B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i C i C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
A i`' A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
B i`' B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
is C is C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y i`' Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ii N ii N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
r A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
i A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
i B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
i. A i. A i A t ' A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B i`' B i B t-' B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C i`' C i C t-' C From 30 to <50-feet wide
D ;`' D ; D ; D From 10 to <30-feet wide
E i`' E is E ;`." E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A t A Mature forest
( B t B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
{: C t: C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
{ D ; D Maintained shrubs
( E t E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A i`" A i`' A i A i A i A Row crops
B i`' B i`' B t' B t' B t' B Maintained turf
C i`' C i`" C ;`" C t-' C t-' C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
is D is D is D ;`." D t: D t: D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A r A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
ro C (o C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(o A (i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
(o C (o C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes {i No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. (' No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.702162,-81.642982
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 Middle 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 322
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 4-5 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 7-8 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (i Perennial flow Intermittent flow { Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (i Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (' a� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (i Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area-
r— Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r II r III (o IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
PA Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
r A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
r A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances)-
ro B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10 % of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
(o C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
ro B ro B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
j— B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream- assessment reach metric
Yes (: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `
r P P 9 0 U) r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r 0 r I Sand bottom
F., C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. r Yes (i No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F., A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F., B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
(o ( r r ( Bedrock/saprolite
r (i r r ( Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( r r* ( r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (Z r ( Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r r r (o ( Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r (o r ( Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
r r (Z Detritus
(i r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (' Yes r* No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ro Yes (' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (" No Water r Other:
12b. (i Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
r r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F r Other fish
F r Salamanders/tadpoles
F jr Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
F- r Tipulid larvae
F F Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
i A i A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i B i B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i C i C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
r A (`' A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
r B r B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r C r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y i`' Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ii N ii N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F- A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F_ C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
i A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
is B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
i. A i. A i A t ' A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B i`' B i B t-' B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C i`' C i. C P: C From 30 to <50-feet wide
D ;`' D ; D ; D From 10 to <30-feet wide
E i`' E i`" E ;`" E < 10-feetwide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
i. A t-- A Mature forest
i B t B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
i C t: C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
i D t D Maintained shrubs
E t E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A i`" A i`' A i A i A i A Row crops
B i`' B i`' B t' B t' B t' B Maintained turf
C i`' C i`" C ;`" C t-' C t-' C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
is D is D is D ;`." D t: D t: D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
ro A (` A Medium to high stem density
r B (o B Low stem density
r C r C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(o A (i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r* B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r C (o C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes {i No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. (' No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

user manual version z.-i
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7-5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (if any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicantlowner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7-5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.699703,-81.643696
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 Upper 1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 157
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 2-3 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 10 - 11 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (i Perennial flow Intermittent flow { Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: (i Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic %
valley shape (skip for (' a� b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 me) Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 me) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 me) r Size 4 (>_ 5 min)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (i Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area-
r— Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r II r III r IV V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes • No
1. Channel Water— assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
PA Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction — assessment reach metric
r A At least 10 % of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
B Not
3. Feature Pattern — assessment reach metric
A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
+ B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile — assessment reach metric
r A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances)-
ro B NotA
5. Signs of Active Instability — assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10 % of channel unstable
(o B 10 to 25 % of channel unstable
r C > 25 % of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction — streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
ro B ro B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors — assessment reachlintertidal zone metric

Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
j— B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"
section.
r F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
r G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
r H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
r I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
r J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather - watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought; for Size 3 or4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
ro C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream- assessment reach metric
Yes (: No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. Yes No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5 % coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses m w r F 5 % oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats) F_ m r G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent `
r P P 9 0 U) r H Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation r 0 r I Sand bottom
F., C Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees) r m r J 5 % vertical bank along the marsh
r D 5 % undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots O r K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E Little or no habitat
*********************************REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS****************************
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
1 la. r Yes (i No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
F., A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11 c)
F., B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach - whether or not submerged.
Check at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent, Rare (R) = present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages should not exceed 100 % for each assessment reach.
NP R C A P
(o ( r r ( Bedrock/saprolite
r (i r r ( Boulder (256 - 4096 m m)
( r r* ( r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
r r (Z r ( Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
r r r (o ( Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
r r (o r ( Silt/clay(<0.062mm)
r r (Z Detritus
(i r r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
1 ld. (' Yes r* No Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. ro Yes (' No Was an in -stream aquatic life assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. (" No Water r Other:
12b. (i Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams-
r- r Adult frogs
r r Aquatic reptiles
r r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
r r Beetles (including water pennies)
r r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [f])
r r Asian clam (Corbicula )
r r Crustacean (iso pod/am ph ipod/crayfish/sh rim p)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r Dipterans (true flies)
r r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
r r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishfly, dobsonfly larvae)
r r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Corbicula )

F r Other fish
r r Salamanders/tadpoles
F jr Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
F F Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
i A i A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i B i B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
i C i C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage - streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB RB
r A (`' A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water_ 6 inches deep
r B r B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r C r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
Y i`' Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
ii N ii N
16. Baseflow Contributors - assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
F- A Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
F_ C Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
F F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors - assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
F A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
F B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C Urban stream (>_ 24 % impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
F E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F F None of the above
18. Shading - assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
i A Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
is B Degraded (example: scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
i. A i. A i A t ' A >- 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
B i`' B i B i-' B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
C i`' C is C i_' C From 30 to <50-feet wide
D ;`' D ; D ; D From 10 to <30-feet wide
E i`' E i`" E ;`." E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
i. A i-- A Mature forest
i B i B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
i C is C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
i D i D Maintained shrubs
E i E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: F
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
A i`" A i`' A i A i A i A Row crops
B i`' B i`' B t' B t' B t' B Maintained turf
C i`' C i`" C ;`" C i-' C i-' C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
is D is D is D ;`." D is D is D Pasture (active livestock use)

22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
ro A (` A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
r C (o C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer— streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(o A (i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse-
r* B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
r C (o C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity— assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. (` Yes {i No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. (' No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >_ 230
Notes/Sketch:

INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the "Notes/Sketch" section if any supplementary
measurements were performed. See the NC SAM User Manual for examples of additional measurements that may be relevant.
NOTE EVIDENCE OF STRESSORS AFFECTING THE ASSESSMENT AREA (do not need to be within the assessment area).
PROJECT / SITE INFORMATION:
1. Project name (d any): Laurel Valley 2. Date of evaluation: 09/30/2020
3. Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Eng. 4. Assessor name/organization: Brandon R.
5. County: Burke 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Catawba on USGS 7.5-minute quad: East Prong Hunting Creek
8. Site coordinates (decimal degrees, at lower end of assessment reach): 35.701333,-81.643169
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9. Site number (show on attached map): UT2 Upper 2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated (feet): 674
11. Channel depth from bed (in riffle, if present) to top of bank (feet): 3-4 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12. Channel width at top of bank (feet): 5-7 13. Is assessment reach a swamp stream? r Yes r No
14. Feature type: (: Perennial flow r Intermittent flow r Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: Mountains (M) r Piedmont (P) r Inner Coastal Plain (1) r Outer Coastal Plain (0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape (skip for r a �- (: b
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream, flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream, steeper valley slope)
17. Watershed size: (skip r Size 1 (< 0.1 mf) (: Size 2 (0.1 to < 0.5 mf) r Size 3 (0.5 to < 5 mf) r Size 4 (>_ 5 miz)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18. Were regulatory considerations evaluated? (: Yes r No If Yes, check all that appy to the assessment area.
r Section 10 water r Classified Trout Waters r Water Supply Watershed ( r I r 11 r III r IV r V)
r Essential Fish Habitat r Primary Nursery Area r High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property r NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect r Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish r 303(d) List r CAMA Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat (list species):
19. Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in "Notes/Sketch" section or attached? r Yes • No
1. Channel Water - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
re A Water throughout assessment reach.
r B No flow, water in pools only.
r C No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction - assessment reach metric
r A At least 10% of assessment reach in -stream habitat or riffle -pool sequence is adversely affected by a flow restriction or fill to the
point of obstructing flow or a channel choked with aquatic macrophytes or ponded water or impounded on flood or ebb within
the assessment reach (examples: undersized or perched culverts, causeways that constrict the channel, tidal gates).
G B Not
3. Feature Pattern - assessment reach metric
(e A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern (examples: straightening, modification above or below culvert).
r B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile - assessment reach metric
r A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile (examples: channel down -cutting, existing damming,
over widening, active aggradation, dredging, and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
ri B Not
5. Signs of Active Instability - assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability, not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure, active channel down -cutting (head -cut), active widening, and artificial hardening (such as concrete, gabion, rip -rap).
r A < 10% of channel unstable
r B 10 to 25% of channel unstable
(i C > 25% of channel unstable
6. StreamsideAreaInteraction- streamsideareametric
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB).
LB RB
r A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
(e B (: B Moderate evidence of conditions (examples: berms, levees, down -cutting, aggradation, dredging) that adversely affect
reference interaction (examples: limited streamside area access, disruption of flood flows through streamside area,
leaky or intermittent bulkheads, causeways with floodplain constriction, minor ditching [including mosquito ditching])
r C r C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction (little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access
[examples: causeways with floodplain and channel constriction, bulkheads, retaining walls, fill, stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area] or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access [examples:
impoundments, intensive mosquito ditching]) or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors - assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
r A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone (milky white, blue, unnatural water discoloration, oil sheen, stream foam)
r B Excessive sedimentation (burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
r D Odor (not including natural sulfide odors)
r E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the "Notes/Sketch"

section.
F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
G Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone (removal, burning, regular mowing, destruction, etc.)
I Other: (explain in "Notes/Sketch" section)
J Little to no stressors
8. Recent Weather- watershed metric
For Size 1 or 2 streams, D1 drought or higher is considered a drought, for Size 3 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
r A Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
r B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
(e C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream - assessment reach metric
r Yes r. No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? ff Yes, skip to Metric 13 (Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In -stream Habitat Types - assessment reach metric
10a. r Yes r No Degraded in -stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach (examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation, mining, excavation, in -stream hardening [for example, rip -rap], recent dredging, and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only, then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur (occurs if > 5% coverage of assessment reach) (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
r A
Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses
- r F
5% oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r G
Submerged aquatic vegetation
r B
Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent
o Co r H
Low -tide refugia (pools)
vegetation
r o r l
Sand bottom
Fe C
Multiple snags and logs (including lap trees)
r IF J
5% vertical bank along the marsh
Fe D
5% undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots
02 r- K
Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
r E
Little or no habitat
""*********'*************** —* REMAINING QUESTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR TIDAL MARSH STREAMS..........**....``````..
11. Bedform and Substrate -assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
11a. r Yes t: No Is assessment reach in a natural sand -bed stream? (skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
Fe A Riffle -run section (evaluate 11c)
F- B Pool -glide section (evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent (skip to Metric 12, Aquatic Life)
11c. In riffles sections, check all that occur below the normal wetted perimeter of the assessment reach -whether or not submerged.
Check
at least one box in each row (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain Streams and Tidal Marsh Streams). Not Present (NP) _
absent,
Rare (R) =
present but <- 10%, Common (C) _ > 10-40%, Abundant (A) _ > 40-70%, Predominant (P) _ > 70%. Cumulative
percentages
should not exceed 100% for each assessment reach.
NP
R C
A P
{o
r r
r r Bedrock/saprollte
•
(: r
r r Boulder (256 - 4096 mm)
•
r re
r r Cobble (64 - 256 mm)
•
r re
r r Gravel (2 - 64 mm)
•
r r
{o r Sand (.062 - 2 mm)
•
r (:
r r Silt/clay (< 0.062 mm)
r
r r.
r r Detritus
(:
r r
r r Artificial (rip -rap, concrete, etc.)
11d. r Yes
{o No
Are pools filled with sediment? (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12. Aquatic Life - assessment reach metric (skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
12a. {o Yes r No Was an in -stream aquatic Iffe assessment performed as described in the User Manual?
If No, select one of the following reasons and skip to Metric 13. r No Water r Other:
12b. (: Yes r No Are aquatic organisms present in the assessment reach (look in riffles, pools, then snags)? If Yes, check
all that apply. If No, skip to Metric 13.
1 >1 Numbers over columns refer to "individuals" for size 1 and 2 streams and "taxa" for size 3 and 4 streams.
F r Adult frogs
F r Aquatic reptiles
F r Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses (include liverworts, lichens, and algal mats)
F r Beetles (including water pennies)
F r Caddisfly larvae (Trichoptera [r])
F r Asian clam (Cor6icula )
F r Crustacean (isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
F r Damseffly and dragonfly larvae
F r Dipterans (true flies)
F r Mayfly larvae (Ephemeroptera [E])
F r Megaloptera (alderfly, fishily, dobsonfly larvae)
F r Midges/mosquito larvae
r r Mosquito fish (Gambusia) or mud minnows (Umbra pygmaea)
r r Mussels/Clams (not Cor6icula)
r r Other fish
F r Salamandersttadpoles
F r Snails
F r Stonefly larvae (Plecoptera [P])
r r Tipulid larvae
r r Worms/leeches
13. Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition - streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams and B valley types)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Consider storage capacity with regard to both overbank flow and
upland runoff.
LB RB
r A r A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
r B r B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area

r C
r C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area (examples include: ditches, fill,
soil, compaction, livestock disturbance, buildings, man-made levees, drainage pipes)
14. Streamside Area Water Storage — streamside area metric (skip for Size 1 streams, Tidal Marsh Streams, and B valley types)
Consider
for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) of the streamside area.
LB
RB
r A
r A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water >_ 6 inches deep
r B
r B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
r C
r C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water < 3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence —streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal
wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB
RB
r Y
r Y Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
f: N
f+' N
16. Baseflow
Contributors —assessment reach metric (skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
j— A
Streams and/or springs (jurisdictional discharges)
r B
Ponds (include wet detention basins, do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
r C
Obstruction that passes some flow during low -flow periods within assessment area (beaver dam, bottom -release dam)
r D
Evidence of bank seepage or sweating (iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
r E
Stream bed or bank soil reduced (dig through deposited sediment if present)
r F
None of the above
17. Baseflow
Detractors — assessment area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
r A
Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach (includes areas excavated for pump installation)
r B
Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach (ex: watertight dam, sediment deposit)
r C
Urban stream (>_ 24% impervious surface for watershed)
r D
Evidence that the stream -side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
r E
Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
r F
None of the above
18. Shading — assessment reach metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider "leaf -on" condition.
r A
Stream shading is appropriate for stream category (may include gaps associated with natural processes)
r B
Degraded (example: scattered trees)
(: C
Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider "vegetated buffer" and "wooded buffer" separately for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.
Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
(? A {o A r A r A ? 100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
r B r B r B r B From 50 to < 100-feet wide
r C r C r C r C From 30 to < 50-feet wide
r D r D r D r D From 10 to < 30-feet wide
r E r E to E [: E < 10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Vegetated" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A r A Mature forest
r B r B Non -mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
(: C (s C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees < 10 feet wide
r D r D Maintained shrubs
r E r E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream (Abuts), does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream (< 30 feet), or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream (30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank, check here and skip to Metric 22: r
Abuts < 30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
r A r A r A r A r A r A Row crops
r B r B r B r B r B r B Maintained turf
r C r C r C r C r C r C Pasture (no livestock)/commercial horticulture
(7 D {? D r D (: D (: D ro D Pasture (active livestock use)
22. Stem Density — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank (LB) and right bank (RB) for Metric 19 ("Wooded" Buffer Width).
LB RB
r A r A Medium to high stem density
r B r B Low stem density
(: C (: C No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer — streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream (parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation > 10-feet wide.
LB RB
(i A [i A The total length of buffer breaks is < 25 percent.
r B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
r C r C The total length of buffer breaks is > 50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition — First 100 feet of streamside area metric (skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed (whichever comes first) as lt contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
r A r A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species, with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.

r B r B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions, but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear -cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
G C (J C Vegetation is severely disturbed in terms of species diversity or proportions. Mature canopy is absent or communities
with non-native invasive species dominant over a large portion of expected strata or communities composed of planted
stands of non -characteristic species or communities inappropriately composed of a single species or no vegetation.
25. Conductivity — assessment reach metric (skip for all Coastal Plain streams)
25a. r Yes (. No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No, select one of the following reasons. r No Water r Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement (units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r A <46 r B 46 to < 67 r C 67 to < 79 r D 79 to < 230 r E >> 230
Notes/Sketch:

APPENDIX 4
Supplementary Design Information

Table 1: E Prong Hunting Creek Reach 1
Notation
Units
Designed Conditions
Notes
min max
design
stream type
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
1.53
bankfull design discharge
Qbkf
efs
116.0
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abk f
SF
33.0
side slopes
H:V
ft/ft
4.0
channel bottom width
b bk f
feet
8.5
bankfull wetted perimeter
Kpbk f
feet
25.0
bankfull hydraulic radius
rbkf
feet
1.3
mannings 'n'
0.040
average velocity during bankfull event
wbkf
fps
3.5
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
24.5
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.3
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkAkf
18
Design Parameters
maximum depth at bankfull
dm-
feet
1.6
2.0
max depth ratio
dm-/dbkf
1.2
1.5
1.5
Design Parameters
bank height ratio
BUR
1.0
1.0
Design Parameters
floodprone area width
wfpa
feet
54
123
entrenchment ratio
ER
7_722
5.0
Slope
valley slope
Salley
feet/ foot
0.0075
channel slope
S&_l
feet/ foot
0.0058 0.0068
0.0060
Riffle Features
riffle slope
S j.,
feet/ foot
0.0069
0.0232
riffle slope ratio
SrifHo Scheme)
1.2
3.4
Reference Range
Pool Features
pool slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0000
0.0027
pool slope ratio
Spool/Schemel
0.00
0.40
Reference Range
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
39
152
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/wbkf
1.6
6.2
Reference Range
maximum pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
2.7
4.0
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
2.0
3.0
Reference Range
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
24.5
39.2
pool width ratio
wpool/wbkf
1.0
1.6
Reference Range
pool cross -sectional area at bankfull
Apool
SF
36.3
82.5
pool area ratio
Apool/Abk f
1.1
2.5
Design Parameters
Pattern Features
sinuosity
K
1.10
1.30
1.20
Design Parameters
belt width
wblt
feet
49
162
meander width ratio
wbh/wbkf
2.0
6.6
Design Parameters
linear wavelength
LW
feet
147
294
linear wavelength ratio
LW/wbkf
6.0
12.0
Design Parameters
meander length
L.
feet
184
368
meander length ratio
Lm/wbkf
7.5
15.0
Reference Range
radius of curvature
R�
feet
49
74
radius of curvature ratio
R./ wbkf
2.0
3.0
Design Parameters
X:\Shared\Projects\W02187_Laurel_Valley\Design\Stream Design\Typical Design\Design Parameters & Typical Section.xlsm, Design Parameters -
EPHC R1

Table 1: East Prong Hunting Creek Reach 2
Notation
Units
Designed Conditions
Notes
min max
design
stream type
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
1.99
bankfull design discharge
Qbkf
cfs
129.0
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abk f
SF
33.0
side slopes
H:V
ft/ft
4.0
channel bottom width
b bk f
feet
8.5
bankfull wetted perimeter
Kpbk f
feet
25.0
bankfull hydraulic radius
rbkf
feet
1.3
mannings 'n'
0.040
average velocity during bankfull event
wbkf
fps
4.1
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
24.5
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
1.3
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkAkf
18
Design Parameters
maximum depth at bankfull
dm-
feet
1.6
2.0
max depth ratio
dm-/dbkf
1.2
1.5
1.5
Design Parameters
bank height ratio
BUR
1.0
1.0
Design Parameters
floodprone area width
wfpa
feet
54
123
entrenchment ratio
ER
7_722
5.0
Slope
valley slope
Salley
feet/ foot
0.0105
channel slope
S&_l
feet/ foot
0.0081 0.0095
0.0085
Riffle Features
riffle slope
S j.,
feet/ foot
0.0097
0.0325
riffle slope ratio
SrifHo Scheme)
1.2
3.4
Reference Range
Pool Features
pool slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0000
0.0038
pool slope ratio
Spool/Schemel
0.00
0.40
Reference Range
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
39
152
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/wbkf
1.6
6.2
Reference Range
maximum pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
2.7
4.0
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
2.0
3.0
Reference Range
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
24.5
39.2
pool width ratio
wpool/wbkf
1.0
1.6
Reference Range
pool cross -sectional area at bankfull
Apool
SF
36.3
82.5
pool area ratio
Apool/Abk f
1.1
2.5
Design Parameters
Pattern Features
sinuosity
K
1.10
1.30
1.20
Design Parameters
belt width
wblt
feet
49
162
meander width ratio
wbh/wbkf
2.0
6.6
Design Parameters
linear wavelength
LW
feet
147
294
linear wavelength ratio
LW/wbkf
6.0
12.0
Design Parameters
meander length
L.
feet
184
368
meander length ratio
Lm/wbkf
7.5
15.0
Reference Range
radius of curvature
R�
feet
49
74
radius of curvature ratio
R./ wbkf
2.0
3.0
Design Parameters
X:\Shared\Projects\W02187_Laurel_Valley\Design\Stream Design\Typical Design\Design Parameters & Typical Section.xlsm, Design Parameters -
EPHC R2

Table 1: UT1 Reach 2
Notation
Units
Designed Conditions
Notes
min max
design
stream type
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.21
bankfull design discharge
Qbkf
efs
29.0
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abk f
SF
8.0
side slopes
H:V
ft/ft
3.0
channel bottom width
b bk f
feet
5.0
bankfull wetted perimeter
Kpbk f
feet
11.3
bankfull hydraulic radius
rbkf
feet
0.7
mannings 'n'
0.040
average velocity during bankfull event
wbkf
fps
3.5
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
11.0
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.7
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkt/dbkf
15
Design Parameters
maximum depth at bankfull
do,-
feet
0.9
1.1
max depth ratio
do,-/dbkf
1.2
1.5
1.5
Design Parameters
bank height ratio
BUR
1.0
1.0
Design Parameters
floodprone area width
wfpa
feet
24
55
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.2
5.0
Slope
valley slope
Sauey
feet/ foot
0.0168
channel slope
Sc1­, 1
feet/ foot
0.0129 0.0153
0.0140
Riffle Features
riffle slope
Sriule
feet/ foot
0.0155
0.0519
riffle slope ratio
Sfiffl Schannet
1.2
3.4
Reference Range
Pool Features
pool slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0000
0.0038
pool slope ratio
Spool/Soh-el
0.00
0.25
Reference Range
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp_p
feet
18
68
pool spacing ratio
Lp_p/wbkf
1.6
6.2
Reference Range
maximum pool depth at bankfull
dpoot
feet
1.5
2.2
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
2.0
3.0
Reference Range
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
11.0
17.6
pool width ratio
wpool/wbkf
1.0
1.6
Reference Range
pool cross -sectional area at bankfull
Apool
SF
8.8
20.0
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
1.1
2.5
Design Parameters
Pattern Features
sinuosity
K
1.10
1.30
1.20
Design Parameters
belt width
wblt
feet
22
73
meander width ratio
wblt/wbkf
2.0
6.6
Design Parameters
linear wavelength
LW
feet
66
132
linear wavelength ratio
LW/wbkf
6.0
12.0
Design Parameters
meander length
L.
feet
83
165
meander length ratio
L./wbkf
7.5
15.0
Reference Range
radius of curvature
Re
feet
22
33
radius of curvature ratio
Ro/ wbkf
2.0
3.0
Design Parameters
X:\Shared\Projects\W02187_Laurel_Valley\Design\Stream Design\Typical Design\Design Parameters & Typical Section.xlsm, Design Parameters -
UT1

Table 1: UT2
Notation
Units
Designed Conditions
Notes
min I max
design
stream type
C4
drainage area
DA
sq mi
0.24
bankfull design discharge
Qbke
cfs
33.0
Cross -Section Features
bankfull cross -sectional area
Abk f
SF
8.0
side slopes
H:V
ft/ft
3.0
channel bottom width
bbkf
feet
5.0
bankfull wettedperimeter
Kpbkf
feet
11.3
bankfull hydraulic radius
rbkf
feet
0.7
mannings 'n'
0.040
average velocity during bankfull event
wbkf
fps
4.0
width at bankfull
wbkf
feet
11.0
mean depth at bankfull
dbkf
feet
0.7
bankfull width to depth ratio
wbkl/dbkf
15
Design Parameters
maximum depth at bankfull
dm-
feet
0.9
1.1
max depth ratio
dm-/dbkf
1.2
1.5
1.5
Design Parameters
bank height ratio
BUR
1.0
1.0
Design Parameters
floodprone area width
wfpa
feet
24
55
entrenchment ratio
ER
2.2
5.0
Slope
valley slope
Salley
feet/ foot
0.0230
channel slope
S&_l
feet/ foot
0.0177 0.0209
0.0185
Riffle Features
riffle slope
S j.,
feet/ foot
0.0212
0.0711
riffle slope ratio
SrifHo Scheme)
1.2
3.4
Reference Range
Pool Features
pool slope
Spool
feet/ foot
0.0000
0.0052
pool slope ratio
Spool/Sch-1
0.00
0.25
Reference Range
pool -to -pool spacing
Lp-p
feet
18
68
pool spacing ratio
Lp,/wbkf
1.6
6.2
Reference Range
maximum pool depth at bankfull
dpool
feet
1.5
2.2
pool depth ratio
dpool/dbkf
2.0
3.0
Reference Range
pool width at bankfull
wpool
feet
11.0
17.6
pool width ratio
wpool/wbkf
1.0
1.6
Reference Range
pool cross -sectional area at bankfull
Apool
SF
8.8
20.0
pool area ratio
Apool/Abkf
1.1
2.5
Design Parameters
Pattern Features
sinuosity
K
1.10
1.30
1.20
Design Parameters
belt width
wblt
feet
22
73
meander width ratio
wbll/wbkf
2.0
6.6
Design Parameters
linear wavelength
LW
feet
66
132
linear wavelength ratio
LW/wbkf
6.0
12.0
Design Parameters
meander length
L.
feet
83
165
meander length ratio
Lm/wbkf
7.5
15.0
Reference Range
radius of curvature
R�
feet
22
33
radius of curvature ratio
R./ wbkf
2.0
3.0
Design Parameters
X:\Shared\Projects\W02187_Laurel_Valley\Design\Stream Design\Typical Design\Design Parameters & Typical Section.xlsm, Design Parameters -
UT2

1 �
1 � .
�s oe
4.
•
� 1
�v
�9
1�
Riffle
1118
1116
1114
c
0
1112
v
w
1110
1108
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Width (ft)
� Existing Conditions—Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Pool
1115
1113
c 1111
0
v
w
1109
1107
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
Existing Conditions-Bankfull

�s ..�_ _.. .. _ .
— , �,..
_ — �
�_
w,. -
�_

SectionCross ,
1 •
•
1mean
depth (ft)
1.3
max depth (ft)
1
••
1
• .•
18.7
• • • •
low bank height ratio
Downstream1.6
View
Riffle
1139
1138
1137
1136
1135
c
0
1134
v
w
1133
1132
1131
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (

Section 5, UT2
Pool
1139
1137
Al
1135
c
0
1133
v
w
1131
1129
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
— Existing Conditions —Bankfull
Bankfull Dimensions
7.4
x-section area (ft.sq.)
7.3
width (ft)
1.0
mean depth (ft)
1.8
max depth (ft)
9.1
wetted perimeter (ft)
0.8
hyd radi (ft)
7.2
width -depth ratio
22.5
W flood prone area (ft)
3.1
entrenchment ratio
1.2
low bank height ratio
View Downstream

Cross ..
MIN 1 •
• • - • •
_
�-
w
••• • •Or
a
Riffle
1139
1137
1135
Y
W
'@ 1133
v
u,
1131
1129
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Width (ft)
Existing Conditions —Ban kfull—FloodproneArea

MIN
Riffle
1126
1124
1122
c
0
v
w
1120
1118
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
� Existing Conditions—Bankfull—Floodprone Area

Ow
71
QU
'i
Pool
1128
1126
1124
= 1122
c
0
Y
(0
1120
w
1118
1116
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Width (ft)
— Existing Conditions—Bankfull

Riffle
1128
1126
1124
1122
c
0
Y
(0
1120
w
1118
1116
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Width (ft)
tExistingConditions—Ban kfull— FloodproneArea

O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
T
ry
i-1
O
o
r
f0
7
O
O
d
rI
U
N
co
� _
CO
O
Q'
U
�
cn
c�
Of
W
�
a�
iL
0
r
0
0
(%) aATjujnuxnD
V
O
d
m
i
d
7
O
m
N
O
U
� 1
C9
U

O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
T
O
o
r
f0
7
O
O
d
Alk
1
N
CO
N
'
U
U
�
VU
r�
1
^�
1
co
O
lit
r
0
0
c-.
(%) aATjujnuxnD
V
O
d
m
i
d
7
O
m
N
O
U
i
U

O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
T
ry
i-1
O
o
r
f0
7
O
O
d
fi
AN
.w
r
(n
N
U
�
VU
r�
1
^�
1
co
c-�
O
co
r
0
0
c-.
(%) aATjujnuxnD
V
O
d
m
i
d
7
O
m
N
O
U
i
U

O
O
O
O
r
T
(6
T E
r
�
N j �
Q CO
m m
a_ cn co
i
•°
� 1
� A
v �
�
,4
V ;-4
m
�
r�
N
o
U
bA c�
O �
w �
4�
c�
0
r
0
0
00 0 0� o 0 0 0� o N o 0
c-.
(%) aATjujnwnD
V
O
d
m
d
7
O
m
.o
U
c�
1 ,
'
cn
U

O
O
O
O
r
O
O
r
T
f0
�E
E
� C
E E
N j E
0.0
O
. rl
� �
r
d U) m
� A
IL
..
lk
V
WJ
N
O �
'lE
b10 �
O �
c�
w
4�
It
0
r
0
0
00 0 0� o 0 0 0� o N o 0
c-.
(%) aATjujnwnD
V
O
d
m
d
7
O
m
N
U
1
U

O
O
O
O
r
T E
O
O
f0
�
� �
N
f0
�
i-I
o
r
IL
A
_
SDI
c�
C%
4�
c�
0
r
0
0
1-0
c-.
(%) aATjujnwnD
V
O
d
m
d
7
O
m
U
mot.
C9
,
,
U

O
O
O
O
r
O
O
O
�
N
A
a
U)
,--i
Vr C�
in
a�
N
c�
4�
4�
co
14
c�
0
r
0
0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
r
anilrinuznD ;uaz)aa,l
C.1
O
i
d
m
i
d
7
O
m
l
N
O
U
C9
,
U

O
O
O
O
r
T
(6
T E
O
O
O
r
COCO
� c
� �
N �
� N
> n
a_ (n
i
o
A
_
SDI
N
O
Ca
i
4�
4�
0
r
0
0
00 0 00 o 0 0 0� o N o 0
c-.
(%) aATjujnwnD
V
O
d
m
d
7
O
m
U
i
U

O
O
O
O
r
T E
f0
N j �
a cn
-0= c6
N
a-U) m
i
i
•°
� 1
A
_
SDI
CN m
N
Ca
16,
i
4�
C�
�I
0
r
0
0
00 0 00
c-.
(%) aATjujnwnD
V
O
d
m
d
7
O
m
O
U
C9
,
,
U

PRRRi.R COUNT FTFILD FORM
I, l
Project Name:
I LQUre 1 V G I I Cy
Data Collected By:
ILocadon:
I E Pr 0 h j - 0Uv,\-k--%VCJ Gf e C,yS j
(Data Collected On:
[lob #:
I
(Reach: 2
(Date:
I
I ��� I 2-0
(Cross Section #:
Diameter (min)
Particle Count
Particle
Class
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY.,.
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
r
Very floe
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
Medium I
0.250
0.500
Coarse I
0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Very Fine I
2.8
I 4.0
4
Fine I
I 5.7
i yj 11 1
4.0
Fine I
5.7
I 8.0
I
I
Il�yy���
Medium
8.0
11.3
I
I
�jj
11'[l
I I
Medium
11.3
16.0
l
I
I
Coarse
16.0
22.6
I
I
Coarse
22.6
32
I
I
Very Coarse
32
45
Very Coarse
45
64
Small
64
90
`
Small
90
128
I
I 180
11-Y11
Large
128
Large
180
256
Small
256
362
_
Small I
362
I 512
Medium I
512
I 1024
Iar a/Very Lar e
1024
2048
BEDROC%
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm): I�
XAShareMAsset Management\Monitoring Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form
-70-1 0. I
X y &
LA,)M) �
50
gii'A.t lit

I�IVIRNUNN
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
+3„
% Gravel I % Sand
% Fines
Coarse
Fine Coarse Medium Fine
Silt Clay
31.2
0.8
0.0
36.5 10.8 16.2 4.5
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.* 1 PASS?
Material Description
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT (X=NO)
XS-1 Subpavement, CDB, NBH, SNT
3
100.0
2
93.6
1
0..1
8 7 .0
Atterherg Limits
#4
32.3
PL= LL= P1=
#10
21.5
Coefficients
#18
14.0
D90= 41.7027 D85= 33.0813 D60= 14.7465
#35
6.7
D50= 10.8829 D30= 4.0487 D15= 1.0925
#60
2.2
D10= 0.6940 Cu= 21.25 Cc= 1.60
#120
1.0
Classification
#230
0.7
USCS= GW AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Weight: 7631.86g
Secondary Axis: 3.30", 2.70"
(no specification provided)
Location: Stream E: Prong Hunting Creek
Date: 08-21-20
Summit Engineering Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Ft. Mill South Carolina Project No: 6565.L0002 Figure
Tested By: JC Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.L0002
Location: Stream E: Prong Hunting Creek
Material Description: XS-1 Subpavement, CDB, NBH, SNT
Date: 08-21-20
USCS Classification: GW
Testing Remarks: Total Weight: 7631.86g
Secondary Axis: 3.30", 2.70"
Tested by: JC Checked by: MH
Sieve Test Data
E-1PUKIKII
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
7631.86
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
486.10
93.6
1
1676.00
78.0
0.375
4110.90
46.1
#4
5168.20
32.3
#10
5989.20
21.5
#18
6561.10
14.0
#35
7119.20
6.7
#60
7460.40
2.2
#120
7558.90
1.0
#230
Fractional
7575.60
Components-L--
0.7
Cobbles
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Coarse[7 Fine Total
Coarse
Medium Fine Total
Silt
Clay
Total
0.0
31.2 36.5 67.7
10.8
16.2 4.5 31.5
0.8
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90
D95
0.4063
0.6940
1.0925
1.7380
4.0487
7.3799
10.8829
14.7465
27.2104
33.0813
41.7027
55.1207
Fineness
Modulus Cu Cc
6.13 21.25 1.60
Summit Engineering

1
111
lull
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3„ % Gravel
% Sand % Fines
Coarse
2.7
Medium
7.9
Fine Silt Clay
6.0 0.5
Coarse Fine
0.0 72.2
10.7
SIEVE
PERCENT SPEC.' PASS?
Material Description
SIZE
FINER PERCENT (X=NO)
XS-1 Bar Sample, CDB, NBH, SNT
3
100.0
2
90.9
1
0#4
21.4
21.1
Atterber Limits
9
#4
17.1
PL= LL= Pl=
# 10
14.4
Coefficients
#18
11.9
D90= 49.8790 D85= 45.7033 D60= 33.0277
#35
7.7
D50= 29.1436 D30= 20.4362 D15= 2.6416
#60
3.0
D10= 0.7119 Cu= 46.39 Cc= 17.76
#120
#230
0.9
0.4
Classification
USCS= GP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Weight: 5771.89g
Secondary Axis: 3.41 ", 3.06"
(no specification provided)
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Summit Engineering
Ft. Mill, South Carolina
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project No: 6565.1,0002
Date: 08-21-20
Fi
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 8/28/2020
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.L0002
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Material Description: XS-1 Bar Sample, CDB, NBH, SNT
Date: 08-21-20
USCS Classification: GP
Testing Remarks: Total Weight: 5771.89g
Secondary Axis: 3.41 ", 3.06"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
5771.89
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
525.85
90.9
1
3439.70
40.4
0.375
4539.20
21.4
#4
4787.40
17.1
#10
4941.40
14.4
#18
5087.60
11.9
#35
5328.70
7.7
#60
5600.70
3.0
#120
5720.80
0.9
._Fractional
#230
5748.10
Components
0.4
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine Total
Coarse
Medium Fine Total
Silt Clay
Total
0.0
72.2
10.7 82.9
2.7
7.9 6.0 16.6
0.5
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90
D95
0.3456
0.7119
2.6416
1 7.2873
20.4362
25.2321
29.1436
33.0277
42.4644
45.7033
49.8790
56.5945
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
7.21
46.39
17.76
Summit Engineering

PRRRT.R MV111T FTRT.n MRM
Project Name:
`—� Ur e
Data Collected By: N60
(Location:
I E �rV n� N ur�Yi
(Data Collected On: 7/ 9.`i / 20
Job #:
I
(Reach:
IDate:
I
(Cross Section #: XS3 I
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
S&TICLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Fine I
0.125
I 0.250
Medium I
0.250
I 0.500
I �I
Coarse I
0.5
I 1.0
I
Very Coarse I
1.0
I 2.0
`
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Very Fine I
2.8
I 4.0
I
Fine
4.0
5.7
j
11 t
Fine
5.7
8.0
1l
Medium
8.0
11.3
11.3
16.0
Medium
Coarse
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
Coarse I
I 45
Very
32
Very Coarse
45
64
! 1
Small
64
90
small I
90
I 128
I !,
Large I
128
I 180
I �1
Large
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium I
512 I
1024
Lar e/Very Large
1024
2048
BEDROCg
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm): / Q U
X:\Shared\Asset Management\Monitoring Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

Particle Size Distribution Report
. _ _ .5 0 0 0
10C
9C
8C
70
W
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
tY
W 40
d
30
20
10
0
l7r\AIIY JILC - 111111.
%+3.1
% Gravel I % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine
31.6 33.6
Coarse
10.5
Medium_ _ Fine Silt Clay
18.6 5.1 0.6
0.0
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC.*
PASS?
Material Description
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
Downstream Subpavement, XS-3, CDB, NBH, SNT
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
78.4
0.375
49.3
Atterberg Limits
#4
34.8
PL= LL= Pl=
#10
24.3
Coefficients
#18
15.6
D90= 34.5886 D$5= 30.2384 D60= 14.3732
#35
7.3
D50= 9.7943 D30= 3.3543 D15= 0.9551
#60
2.3
D10= 0.6410 Cu= 22.42 Cc= 1.22
#120
0.8
'
#230
0.5
Classification
USCS= GW AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Dry Weight: 6456.34g
Secondary Axis: 3.60", 2.82"
ono speclncauon provlaea)
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Summit Engineering
Ft. Mill, South Carolina
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project No: 6565.L0002
Date: 08-21-20
u re
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.L0002
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Material Description: Downstream Subpavement, XS-3, CDB, NBH, SNT
Date: 08-21-20
USCS Classification: GW
Testing Remarks: Total Dry Weight: 6456.34g
Secondary Axis: 3.60", 2.82"
Tested by: FG
Dry
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
6456.34
0.00 0.00
Checked by: MH
Sieve Test Data
Cumulative
Sieve
Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
Size
(grams)
Finer
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
1397.50
78.4
0.375
3272.00
49.3
#4
4208.60
34.8
#10
4889.00
24.3
#18
5449.20
15.6
#35
5986.60
7.3
#60
6307.70
2.3
#120
6402.00
0.8
#230
6421.60
0.5
8/28/2020
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine
Total
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Total
Silt
Clay
Total
0.0
31.6
33.6
65.2
10.5
18.6
5.1
34.2
0.6
D5
D10
I D15
I D20
D30
D40
D50
D60 D80
D85
D90 I D95
0.3885
0.6410
1 0.9551
1.4045
3.3543
6.2968
9.7943
14.3732 26.5371
30.2384
34.5886 + 40.2840
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
5.97
22.42
1 1.22
Summit Engineering

100
90
80
70
W 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
cc
W 40
IL
30
20
10
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
\71l/111Y JILC � 111111.
% +3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium_ Fine_ Silt Clay
0.0 10.9 31.0 9.7 21.8 24.9 1.7
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC` PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
94.1
0.375
73.3
#4
58.1
#10
48.4
#18
40.3
#35
30.7
#60
11.5
#120
2.9
#230
1.6
(no specification provided)
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Summit Engineering
Ft. Mill, South Carolina
Material Description
Downstream Bar Sample, CDB, NBH, SNT
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D90= 19.9916 D85= 15.6443 D60= 5.2931
D50= 2.3577 D30= 0.4846 D1 5= 0.2869
D1 0= 0.2337 Cu= 22.65 Cc= 0.19
Classification
USCS= SP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Weight: 4068.54g
Secondary Axis: 2.23 ", 1.8911
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project No: 6565.1,0002
Date: 08-21-20
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 8/28/2020
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.L0002
Location: East Prong Hunting Creek
Material Description: Downstream Bar Sample, CDB, NBH, SNT
Date: 08-21-20
USCS Classification: SP
Testing Remarks: Total Weight: 4068.54g
Secondary Axis: 2.23", 1.89"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
4068.54
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
241.80
94.1
0.375
1084.40
73.3
#4
1706.00
58.1
#10
2100.30
48.4
#18
2427.50
40.3
#35
2818.20
30.7
#60
3601.80
11.5
#120
3948.70
2.9
#230
4001.70
1.6
Jnai c.ompc
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine
Total
Coarse
Medium Fine Total
Slit
Clay Total
0.0
10.9
31.0
41.9
9.7
21.8 24.9 56.4
1.7
D5
1310
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
I D85
I D90
I D95
0.1671
0.2337
0.2869
0.3404
0.4846
0.9692
2.3577
5.2931
12.5538
1 15.6443
19.9916
1 27.1342
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
4.34
22.65
1 0.19
Summit Enaineerina

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name:
L a ►/ (zL 8 1/ ov L
Data Collected By:
Location:
L) _12 J — X S
Data Collected On:
job #:
Reach:
Date:
l l 2�
Cross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
0.�
Very fine
0.062
0.I25
Fine
0.125
0-250
Medium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
�fa
2.0
Ve • Fine
2.0
2.8
VM Fmc
2.8
4.0
Cure
4.0
5.7
Fuze
5.7
8.0
hlcdium
8.0
11.3
[Medium
11.3
16.0
Coarsc
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
very Coarse
32
45
Ve . Coarse
45
64
Small
=. _Small
': i �►.;_ i` `:- `' Large
Lar
64
90
90
128
128
180
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
ivIedium
512
1024
Large/VeryLarge1024
2048
BEDROCK 13edrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm): I l C)
.. . r
► f
a ilb
w ►
6 Y `
y
/ w
d
a
•
qM
A
V
0� pl,,Iti LL
S 010
1 _Js'D 5 ►� rt
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

w
w 60
Z
LL
Z 50
w
U
W 40
a
30
20
10
n
1�
100 10
1
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
OA 0.01 0.001
coarse Fine
Coar!�e
Fine---
Silt
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
85.2
0.375
47.1
#4
34.0
#10
23.6
#18
15.0
#35
6.5
#60
1.6
#120
0.5
#230
0.3
Material Description
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D90= 29.4805 D85= 25.2519 D60= 13.6107
D50= 10.4275 D30= 3.4350 D15= 0_9987
D10= 0.6761 Cu= 20.13 Cc= 1.28
Classification
USCS= GW AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Weight: 3065.10g
Secondary Axis: 4.20", 2.55"
(no specification provided)
Location: UT2, XS-4, Subpavement CDB/NH 09-01-20
Summit Engineering Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Ft. Mill South Carolina Project No: 6565.L0002
Date: 10-29-20
Tested By: FG Checked By:

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 10/29/2020
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.1,0002
Location: UT2, XS-4, Subpavement CDB/NH 09-01-20
Date: 10-29-20
USCS Classification: GW
Testing Remarks: Total Weight: 3065.10g
Secondary Axis: 4.20", 2.55"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
Sieve Test D..
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
3065.10
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
453.50
85.2
0.375
1620.30
47.1
#4
2021.81
34.0
#10
2343.02
23.6
#18
2604.81
15.0
#35
2864.81
6.5
#60
3016.44
1.6
#120
3049.50
0.5
#230
3055.66
0.3
Components
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine
Total
Coarse
Medium
Fine Total
Silt Clay
Total
0.0
25.9
40.1
66.0 1
10.4
18.6
4.6 33.6
0.4
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60 D80
D85
D90
D95
0.4264
0.6761
0.9987
1.4890
3.4350
7.0575
10.4275
13.6107 22.0690
1 25.2519
1 29.4805
1 35.8101
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
5.94
20.13
1.28
Summit Enciineerinq

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name.
Y
Data Collected BF: �-� — Gf
Location:
—
Data Collected On:
job #:
Reach:
Date:
7,C5
Cross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
Medium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
I 0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
Ve • Fine
2.0
2.8
rr
l
Ve Fine
Fine
2.8
4.0
Y
4.0
5.7
Fine
5.7
8.0
Medium
8.0
11.3
1
Medium
i 11.3
16.0
Coarsc
16.0
22.6
+
Coarse
22.6
32
�{
Vc Coarse
- -- ' - Vcry Coarse
32
45
ZZ
45
64
:�inall
a/ Sinall I
GQ :.Lar I
l.ar e
64
90
90
128
128
180 I
I� I
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512 I
I
tV1eciium '
Lar /VervLar>e
512
1024
I
1024
2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

10(
9C
8C
w 60
z
LL
Z 50
W
U
W 40
CL
30
20
10
Particle Size Distribution Report
IIYI
ii OEM nom�
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
Silt clay
0.5
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.* PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
80.0
0.375
49.9
#4
37.0
#10
28.2
#18
18.2
#35
7.4
#60
1.9
#120
0.7
#230
0.5
I
Material Description
Atterberia Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D90= 33.5666 D85= 29.1076 D60= 13.8662
D50= 9.5680 D30= 2.3714 D15= 0.8282
D10= 0.6058 Cu= 2189 Cc= 0.67
Classification
USCS= GP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Weight: 3173.90g
Secondary Axis: 2.46", 2.66"
(no specification provided)
Location: UT2, XS-6, Subpavement CDBMH 09-01-20
Date: 10-29-20
Summit Engineering Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Ft. Mill South Carolina Project No: 6565.L0002 Figure
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.1,0002
Location: UT2, XS-6, Subpavement CDB/NBH 09-01-20
Date: 10-29-20
USCS Classification: GP
Testing Remarks: Total Weight: 3173.90g
Secondary Axis: 2.46", 2.66"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
10/29/2020
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
3173.90
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
633.40
80.0
0.375
1590.40
49.9
#4
1999.49
37.0
#10
2278.46
28.2
#18
2597.74
18.2
#35
2940.20
7.4
#60
3114.67
1.9
#120
3153.26
0.7
AMEN
#230
L=Mft-..
3159.59
0.5
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine
Total
Coarse Medium
Fine Total
Silt Clay
Total
0.0
30.0
33.0
63.0
8.8 22.7
5.0 36.5
0.5
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90
D95
0.4026
0.6058
0.8282
1.1192
2.3714
5.8314
9.5680
13.8662
25.3695
29.1076
33.5666
39.4946
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
5.85
22.89
0.67
Summit Engineerinq

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name:
va
Data Collected By. iV
Location:
Data Collected On:
job #:
Reach: 7]
Date:
Cross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
—
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
++
(� t
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
Medium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
0.5
1.0
VM Coarse
1.0
2.0
f
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Very Fine
2.8
4.0
i'inc
4.0
5.7
Fine
5.7
8.0
I I
Medium
8.0
11.3
{{
Medium
11.3
16.0
I
Coarse
16.0
22.6
,
Coarse
22.6
32
Very Coarse
32
45
Ve • Coarse
45
64
J
`- Small
64
90
Small
Lar e
r' :Late
90
L28
180
128
180
256
0 I I I
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
�`3t•
Medium
512
t024
Lar c/Vern Large
1024
2048
BEIJROCK Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
PW
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

Tested By:
NINE
milli
limillilli
MINIMUM
iiiiiiimiuiiii
millillimmillillim
liimiiiiiiilm�illill
iiiiiiinililillimilliININ
111Nll1i1111EH1111111
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
%+3„ % Gravel %. Sand
Coarse Fine Coarse Medium Fine
0.0 30.1 33.1 �8.9 19.9 6.9
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC." PASS?
PERCENT (X=NO)
3
100.0
2
90.6
1
77.1
0.375
50.6
#4
36.8
#10
27.9
#18
19.0
#35
9.9
#60
3.5
#120
1.4
#230
1.1
(no specification provided)
Location: UTI, XS-7, Subpavement, XBH JMS
Summit Engineering Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Ft. Mill. South Carolina Project No: 6565.L0002
Checked By: MH
11-15-20
% Fines
Silt
1.1
Material Description
Atterberc Limits
PL= LL= P1=
Coefficients
D90= 49.4119 D85= 38.0360 D60= 13,4189
D50= 9.2881 D30= 2.4801 D15= 0.7463
DSO= 0.5062 Cu= 26.51 Cc= 0.91
Classification
USCS= GP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Dry Weight: 3682.40g
Secondary Axis: 3.66", 3.10"
Date:
re

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 11/23/2020
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.1,0002
Location: UT I, XS-7, Subpavement, NBH JMS
Material Description: 11-15-20
USCS Classification: GP
Testing Remarks: Total Dry Weight: 3682.40g
Secondary Axis: 3.66", 3.10"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
3682.40
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
347.10
90.6
1
844.60
77.1
0.375
1817.80
50.6
#4
2326.21
36.8
#10
2654.99
27.9
#18
2980.99
19.0
#35
3319.56
9.9
#60
3552.65
3.5
#120
3629.37
1.4
4230
3643.18
Components-
1.1
milk
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine
Total
Coarse
Medium Fine
Total
Silt
Clay
Total
0.0
30.1
33.1
63.2
8.9
19.9 6.9
35.7
1.1
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
D85
1390 JD95
0.3089
0.5062
1 0.7463 J
1.0709
2.4801
5.8098
9.2881
1 13.4189
29.1808
1 38.0360
1 49.4119 61.9204
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
5.88
26.51
0.91
Summit Enqineerinq

PRRRT.R COT1NT FTRT.n FORM
Project Name:
L
Data Collected By: /V
lLocation:
Data Collected Ou:
job #:
Reach
Date.21)A
Crass Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Clay
0.000
0.062
yu
Very fine
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
Mediwn
0.250
0.500
1
Coarse
0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
Ve Fine
2.0
2.8
G'e 1 ine
2.8
4.0
T'�ne
Vine
`':` Nfcdium
4.0
5.7
5.7
8.0
8.0
11.3
Medium
Coarse
11.3
16.0
I1
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
tt
UK
32
45
{ IVeryCoarse
Very Coarse
1 45
64
timall
64
90
' 1
1
C7�
small
90
128
Large
128
180
:;]Large
e
180
256
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium
512
1024
Large/Very Large
1024 1
2048
BEDRDCg I Bedrock
2048 1
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
J�JNi'
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

Particle Size distribution Report
C C O Ft # N O O
(D C C \ \ tQ v O N M spt0 a�p Ft �
it ii # ak # # #
100
I I I I I I I I I I I I
! I
90
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
1
1
I
I
f k
l
80
!
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
€
I
I
I I
I
I
I
!
I I
I
70
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
W
60
I
I
I
I
1
I!
Z
I
I
I
I
I
50
I
I
I
I
1[
w
d 40
f
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
1
I
I
I I
I
30
I
I
I
I
I 1€
I
I
l
I
I l
l
I
20
I
!
I
I I
I
I
I
11
1
1
10
I
I
I
I
I i
t
I
I
I
I I
I
0
1
I
I
l
f I
I
I
I
I
100 10 1 0.1 0.01 0.001
GRAIN SIZE - mm.
% +3"
% Gravel
% Sand % Fines
Coarse Fine
Coarse
Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0
37.7 19.6
3.9
_
23.0 13.9 1.9
SIEVE
PERCENT
SPEC'
PASS?
Material Description
SIZE
FINER
PERCENT
(X=NO)
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
72.8
Atterper Limits
0.375
48.2
PL= LL= PI=
94
42.7
#10
38.8
Coefficients
#18
32.0
D90= 37.0400 D85= 33.1331 D60= 17.6209
#35
18.9 1
D50= 10.8588 D30= 0.8837 D15= 0.4069
#60
7.7
D10= 0.2983 CU= 59.07 Cc= 0.15
#120
2.9
Classification
#230
1.8
USCS= GP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Dry Weight: 3522.60g
Secondary Axis: 5.01 ", 2.81"
(no specification provided)
Location: UTI, XS-9, Subpavement, NBH JMS
Date: 11-17-20
Summit Engineering
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Ft. Mill South Carolina
Project No: 6565.1,0002 Figure
Tested By: FG Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA 11/23/2020
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.1,0002
Location: UT I, XS-9, Subpavement, NBH JMS
Date: 11-17-20
USCS Classification: GP
Testing Remarks: Total Dry Weight: 3522.60g
Secondary Axis: 5.01 ", 2.81"
Tested by: FG Checked by: MH
SieveData
Dry
Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample
Pan
Sieve
Weight
and Tare
Tare Tare Weight
Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams)
(grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
3522.60
0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
958.70
72.8
0.375
1823.00
48.2
#4
2016.81
42.7
#10
2154.18
38.8
418
2394.53
32.0
#35
2858.10
18.9
#60
3250.50
7.7
#120
3420.06
2.9
#230
-IWFractional
3459.30
1.8
Components
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine I Total
Coarse
Medium
Fine
Total
Silt Clay Total
0.0
37.7
19.6 57.3
3.9
23.0
13.9
40.8
1.9
- f
D5
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
D50
D60
D80
D85
D90 I D95
0.1869
0.2983
0.4069
J 0.5296
0.8837
2.4970 i10.8588
1 17.6209
29.7822
33.1331
37.0400 1 42.0654
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
5.45
59.07
1 0.15
Summit Enqineerinq

100
90
80
70
w 60
Z
LL
Z 50
W
U
W 40
a
30
20
10
0
Particle Size Distribution Report
+3„ % Gravel % Sand % Fines
Coarse I Fine Coarse Medium Fine Silt Clay
0.0 48.9 18.7 1 3.8 1 16.7 9.5 2.4
SIEVE
SIZE
PERCENT
FINER
SPEC.*
PERCENT
PASS?
(X=NO)
3
100.0
2
100.0
1
63.1
0.375
38.9
#4
32.4
#10
28.6
#18
22.4
#35
13.8
#60
6.7
#120
3.1
#230
2.3
(no specification provided)
Location: UT1, XS-9, BAR, NM JMH
Summit Engineering
Ft. Mill, South Carolina
Material Description
Atterbera Limits
PL= LL= PI=
Coefficients
D90= 39.7678 D85= 36.4598 D60= 2 1_9067
D50= 18.4028 D30= 2.7129 D15= t1.5510
D10= 0.3577 CU= 66.83 Cc= 0.9
Classification
USCS= GP AASHTO=
Remarks
Total Dry Weight: 3701.00g
SecondaryAxis: 3.11 ", 2.73"
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project No: 6565.L0002
Date: 11-15-20
Tested By: FG
Checked By: MH

GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST DATA
Client: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project: Laurel Valley
Project Number: 6565.L0002
Location: UT1, XS-9, BAR, NRH JMH
Date: 11-15-20
USCS Classification: GP
Testing Remarks: Total Dry Weight: 3701.00g
Secondary Axis: 3.11 ", 2.73"
Tested by: FG
Checked by: MH
Dry Cumulative
Cumulative
Sample Pan Sieve
Weight
and Tare Tare Tare Weight Opening
Retained
Percent
(grams) (grams) (grams)
Size
(grams)
Finer
2701.00 0.00 0.00
3
0.00
100.0
2
0.00
100.0
1
997.80
63.1
0.375
1649.50
38.9
#4
1825.11
32.4
#10
1927.50
28.6
#18
2095.30
22.4
#35
2328.20
13.8
#60
2520.04
6.7
#120
2617.23
3.1
#230
2639.92
2.3
11 /23/2020
Gravel
Sand
Fines
Cobbles
Coarse
Fine Total
Coarse Medium
Fine
Total
Silt
Clay Total
0.0
48.9
18.7 67.6
3.8 16.7
9.5
30.0
2.4
D6
D10
D15
D20
D30
D40
I D50
I D60
I D80
I D85
I D90
i D95
0.1951
0.3577
0.5510
0.8179
2.7129
10.5261
1 18.4028
1 23.9067
1 33.6216
1 36.4598
39.7678
1 43.9655
Fineness
Modulus
Cu
Cc
6.08
66.83
0.86
Summit Engineering

PEBBLE COUNT FlEfl) FORM
N
Collected On:
1:
Section #:
particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SIL?'/COY Silt/CIA
0.000
0.062
`
{
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Ve Coarse
0.062
0.125
jj
i
0.125
0.250
1 0.250
0.500
0.5
1.0
1
1.0
2.0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Very Fine
2.8
4b
( 4
Fine
L 4.0
5.7
I
Fine
I 5.7
I 8.0
Medium
8.0
11.3
Medium
11.3
l6b
1
1
Coarse
16.0
22.6
wit
I
Coarse
22.6
32
Very Coarse
32
45
Very Coarse
1 45
1 64
Small
64
1 90
Small
90
I 128
Laree
128
I 180
I
I
Laree
180
256
Small
Small
256
362
362
512
Medium
LArg/Very LArE
BEDROCK -' Bedrock
' 512
I 1024
1024
2048
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm): I 1� 1 "gM
11192.168.5.ftharedUechnical GuidancelTemplateslSedimentlPebbleCount Field Form

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Pro'ect Name:
Data Collected By- / V off
Location:
Data Collected On: L 2
ob #:
Reach:
Date:�Toj
Flo
Cross Section #:
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SILT/CLAY"
Silt v
0.000
0.062
Vert• fine
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
�,��
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
L
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
a ti
VM Coarse
Ve Fuse
2.0
2.8
Ve -Fine
2.8
4.0
Pine
4.0
5.7
-
Dine
1 5.7
8.0
medwal
8.0
11.3
Medium
11.3
1 G.0
1
0XLr e
16.0
22.6
•
C:oarsc
22.6
32
f
Vcry Coarse
32
45
o
9 I
I
Very Coarse
45
64
1
Small
64
90
GQ�
Small
90
128
I "I fRe
128
180
Lar e
180
256
Small
256
362
362
512
Small
512
1024
[cilium
11
2048
Lar eIVcn, Lar �e
BEDROCK 3cdrock
2048
>2049
Total:
5,
Largest Part icle (mm):
5-0/co
�,IJ�Aj *X
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name:
p, l
Data Collected B 04
� ❑ { e
Location:
Data Collected On:
job #:
Reach:
Date:
q
J z O
lCross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Cla •
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
�tl
yp.
Fine
0.125
0.250
Nfedium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
kv
_-
"V -
(s� .
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Vc Fine
2.8
4.0
Fine
4.0
5.7
Fine
5.7
8.0
Medium
8.0
11.3
Pil{
Nicdium
11.3
16.0
;t
-:
('nar e
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
Very Coarse
32
45
Verk' Coarse
45
64
1;
Cti
-
mall
64
90
,,mall
90 _
128
l.ar e
128
180
Lar c
180
256
_
E
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium
512
1024
Lar /Very Large
1024
2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

PEBBLE COUNT FlEfl) FORM
N
Collected On:
1:
Section #:
particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SIL?'/COY Silt/CIA
0.000
0.062
`
{
Very fine
Fine
Medium
Coarse
Ve Coarse
0.062
0.125
jj
i
0.125
0.250
1 0.250
0.500
0.5
1.0
1
1.0
2.0
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Very Fine
2.8
4b
( 4
Fine
L 4.0
5.7
I
Fine
I 5.7
I 8.0
Medium
8.0
11.3
Medium
11.3
l6b
1
1
Coarse
16.0
22.6
wit
I
Coarse
22.6
32
Very Coarse
32
45
Very Coarse
1 45
1 64
Small
64
1 90
Small
90
I 128
Laree
128
I 180
I
I
Laree
180
256
Small
Small
256
362
362
512
Medium
LArg/Very LArE
BEDROCK -' Bedrock
' 512
I 1024
1024
2048
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm): I 1� 1 "gM
11192.168.5.ftharedUechnical GuidancelTemplateslSedimentlPebbleCount Field Form

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Pro'ect Name:
Data Collected By- / V off
Location:
Data Collected On: L 2
ob #:
Reach:
Date:�Toj
Flo
Cross Section #:
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
Particle Class
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SILT/CLAY"
Silt v
0.000
0.062
Vert• fine
0.062
0.125
Fine
0.125
0.250
�,��
5
Medium
0.250
0.500
L
Coarse
0.5
1.0
1.0
2.0
a ti
VM Coarse
Ve Fuse
2.0
2.8
Ve -Fine
2.8
4.0
Pine
4.0
5.7
-
Dine
1 5.7
8.0
medwal
8.0
11.3
Medium
11.3
1 G.0
1
0XLr e
16.0
22.6
•
C:oarsc
22.6
32
f
Vcry Coarse
32
45
o
9 I
I
Very Coarse
45
64
1
Small
64
90
GQ�
Small
90
128
I "I fRe
128
180
Lar e
180
256
Small
256
362
362
512
Small
512
1024
[cilium
11
2048
Lar eIVcn, Lar �e
BEDROCK 3cdrock
2048
>2049
Total:
5,
Largest Part icle (mm):
5-0/co
�,IJ�Aj *X
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

PEBBLE COUNT FIELD FORM
Project Name:
p, l
Data Collected B 04
� ❑ { e
Location:
Data Collected On:
job #:
Reach:
Date:
q
J z O
lCross Section #:
Particle Class
Diameter (mm)
Particle Count
min
max
Riffle
Pool
SILT/CLAY
Silt/Cla •
0.000
0.062
Very fine
0.062
0.125
�tl
yp.
Fine
0.125
0.250
Nfedium
0.250
0.500
Coarse
0.5
1.0
Very Coarse
1.0
2.0
kv
_-
"V -
(s� .
Very Fine
2.0
2.8
Vc Fine
2.8
4.0
Fine
4.0
5.7
Fine
5.7
8.0
Medium
8.0
11.3
Pil{
Nicdium
11.3
16.0
;t
-:
('nar e
16.0
22.6
Coarse
22.6
32
Very Coarse
32
45
Verk' Coarse
45
64
1;
Cti
-
mall
64
90
,,mall
90 _
128
l.ar e
128
180
Lar c
180
256
_
E
Small
256
362
Small
362
512
Medium
512
1024
Lar /Very Large
1024
2048
BEDROCK
Bedrock
2048
>2048
Total:
Largest Particle (mm):
\\192.168.5.8\shared\Technical Guidance\Templates\Sediment\PebbleCount Field Form

APPENDIX 5
Categorical Exclusion Checklist and Summary

Appendix A
Categorical Exclusion Form for Ecosystem Enhancement
Program Projects
Version 2
Note: Only Appendix A should to be submitted (along with any supporting documentation) as the
environmental document.
Part 1: General Project Information
Project Name: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Count Name: Burke County
DMS Number: 100140
Project Sponsor: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
Project Contact Name: Kirsten Gimbert
Project Contact Address: 1430 S. Mint Street, Suite 104, Charlotte, NC 28203
Project Contact E-mail: [e-mail]
DMS Project Mana er: HarryTsomides
Project Description
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is a stream mitigation project involving stream preservation and restoration within
the Catawba River Basin. The adjacent land use is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures, barns, and a
house. The project will provide ecological and water quality enhancements while creating a functional riparian corridor
at the site level by excluding livestock from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation,
improving the stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and preserving the
project site through establishing a conservation easement.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
Date DMS P ject Manager
Conditional Approved By:
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By: Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

2: All Projects
Regulation/QuestionPart
p.
Coastal Zone Management Act CZMA
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Does the project involve ground -disturbing activities within a CAMA Area of
❑ Yes
Environmental Concern (AEC)?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Has a CAMA permit been secured?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
4. Has NCDCM agreed that the project is consistent with the NC Coastal Management
❑ Yes
Program?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liabilit Act CERCLA
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been
❑ Yes
designated as commercial or industrial?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
3. As a result of a limited Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential
❑ Yes
hazardous waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. As a result of a Phase I Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within or adjacent to the project area?
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
5. As a result of a Phase 11 Site Assessment, are there known or potential hazardous
❑
Yes
waste sites within the project area?
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
6. Is there an approved hazardous mitigation plan?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
National Historic Preservation Act Section 106
1. Are there properties listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of
❑ Yes
Historic Places in the project area?
✓❑ No
2. Does the project affect such properties and does the SHPO/THPO concur?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. If the effects are adverse, have they been resolved?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act Uniform
Act
1. Is this a "full -delivery" project?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Does the project require the acquisition of real estate?
✓❑ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Was the property acquisition completed prior to the intent to use federal funds?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4. Has the owner of the property been informed:
❑✓ Yes
* prior to making an offer that the agency does not have condemnation authority; and
❑ No
* what the fair market value is believed to be?
❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

3: Ground -Disturbing Activities
Regulation/QuestionPart
..
American Indian Religious Freedom Act AIRFA
1.
Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of
✓❑ Yes
Cherokee
Indians?
❑ No
2.
Is the site of religious importance to American Indians?
❑ Yes
© No
❑ N/A
3.
Is the project listed on, or eligible for listing on, the National Register of Historic
❑ Yes
Places?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Have the effects of the project on this site been considered?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Antiquities Act AA
1.
Is the project located on Federal lands?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2.
Will there be loss or destruction of historic or prehistoric ruins, monuments or objects
❑ Yes
of antiquity?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Archaeological Resources Protection Act ARPA
1.
Is the project located on federal or Indian lands (reservation)?
❑
Yes
❑✓
No
2.
Will there be a loss or destruction of archaeological resources?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
3.
Will a permit from the appropriate Federal agency be required?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
4.
Has a permit been obtained?
❑
Yes
❑
No
❑✓
N/A
Endangered Species Act ESA
1.
Are federal Threatened and Endangered species and/or Designated Critical Habitat
❑✓ Yes
listed for the county?
❑ No
2.
Is Designated Critical Habitat or suitable habitat present for listed species?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
3.
Are T&E species present or is the project being conducted in Designated Critical
❑ Yes
Habitat?
❑✓ No
❑ N/A
4.
Is the project "likely to adversely affect" the species and/or "likely to adversely modify"
❑ Yes
Designated
Critical Habitat?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
5.
Does the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries concur in the effects determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
6.
Has the USFWS/NOAA-Fisheries rendered a "jeopardy" determination?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Executive Order 13007 Indian Sacred Sites
1. Is the project located on Federal lands that are within a county claimed as "territory"
❑ Yes
by the EBCI?
❑✓ No
2. Has the EBCI indicated that Indian sacred sites may be impacted by the proposed
❑ Yes
project?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
3. Have accommodations been made for access to and ceremonial use of Indian sacred
❑ Yes
sites?
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Farmland Protection Policy Act FPPA
1. Will real estate be acquired?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
2. Has NRCS determined that the project contains prime, unique, statewide or locally
❑✓ Yes
important farmland?
❑ No
❑ N/A
3. Has the completed Form AD-1006 been submitted to NRCS?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act FWCA
1. Will the project impound, divert, channel deepen, or otherwise control/modify any
❑✓ Yes
water body?
❑ No
2. Have the USFWS and the NCWRC been consulted?
❑✓ Yes
❑ No
❑ N/A
Land and Water Conservation Fund Act Section 6
1. Will the project require the conversion of such property to a use other than public,
❑ Yes
outdoor recreation?
❑✓ No
2. Has the NPS approved of the conversion?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act Essential Fish
Habitat
1. Is the project located in an estuarine system?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Is suitable habitat present for EFH-protected species?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
3. Is sufficient design information available to make a determination of the effect of the
❑ Yes
project on EFH?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
4. Will the project adversely affect EFH?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
5. Has consultation with NOAA-Fisheries occurred?
❑ Yes
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Migratory Bird Treat Act MBTA
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA?
❑ Yes
✓❑ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated?
❑ Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area?
❑ Yes
❑✓ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining
❑ Yes
federal agency?
❑ No
❑✓ N/A
Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Laurel Valley 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 Laurel Valley 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 19, 2019. 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 EDR Radius Map Report identified three sites within 0.5 mile from
the target property: one site having a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) and an active NPDES
permit (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) and two sites having a recorded report in the
Incident Management Database (IMD). These sites are all located outside of the target property or any
adjacent properties. Overall, 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.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) responded to a scoping letter requesting comment on the
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site on January 28, 2020. Based on the topographical and hydrological situation
within the project area, SHPO stated that there was a high probability for the presence of prehistoric or
historic archaeological sites. SHPO recommended an archaeological survey be completed to identify
and evaluate the significance of archaeological sites and cemeteries.
A Phase I Identification Survey of the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site was performed by Archaeological
Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc. (ACC) on February 17, 2020 and submitted to SHPO on February 24,
2020. Based on the survey, ACC determined that "no significant cultural resources will be impacted by
the proposed restoration activities". SHPO was provided a copy of the Phase I survey. SHPO responded
on April 16, 2020 that they concur with the findings and recommendations in the report and accept the
report as final. A copy of the Phase I Survey and all correspondence is available upon request. All
correspondence related to Section 106 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.
Laurel Valley 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 section of
each of the Option Agreements are included in the Appendix.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS #100140

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.
NCDMS requested review and comment from the Cherokee Nation Tribal Historic Preservation Office
(THPO), the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians THPO and the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee THPO
with respect to any archeological or religious resources related to the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site on
January 17, 2020. At this time, DMS has not received a response from the Cherokee Nation Tribal
Historic Preservation Office, the Eastern Bank of Cherokee, or the United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee.
All correspondence related to AIRFA is 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 Burke County listed endangered and threatened species includes the bog turtle (Glyptemys
muhlenbergii), the northern long-eared bat (NLEB) (Myotis septentrionalis), the dwarf -flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), the heller's blazing star (Liatris helleri), the mountain golden heather
(Hudsonia montana), the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), the white irisette
(Sisyrinchium dichotomum), and the rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare). The United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for the Federally
listed species within Burke County, nor are there any current known occurrences of the above listed
species within a 2-mile radius of the project site. The project site is located approximately 19 miles from
the nearest known hibernaculum for the NLEB.
(https://www.fws.gov/asheville/htmis/project_review/N LEB_in_WNC.html).
Results of a pedestrian survey conducted on January 3, 2020, indicated that the project area provides
areas of suitable habitat for the bog turtle, the dwarf -flowered heartleaf, the small whorled pogonia,
and the white irisette along with potential summer roosting for the NLEB. No individuals or populations
of the five above referenced species were documented on -site.
Bog Turtle
Bog turtle habitat consists of mud, grass and sphagnum moss of bogs, swamps, and marshy meadows.
These wetlands are usually fed by cool springs flowing slowly over the land, creating the wet, muddy soil
needed by the turtles (https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/reptiles/bog-turtle/#habitat-section).
Wildlands surveyed the project area and determined the project "may affect, not likely to adversely
affect" the bog turtle; however, it is listed due to similarity of appearance and is not subject to Section 7
consultation.
Dwarf -flowered heartleaf, the Small Whorled Pogonia, and the White Irisette
The dwarf -flowered heartleaf grows in acidic soils along bluffs and adjacent slopes, in boggy areas next
to streams and creek heads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines.
(https://www.fws.gov/southeast/pdf/fact-sheet/dwarf-flowered-heartleaf.pdf).
The small whorled pogonia can be limited by shade and appears to require small light gaps, or canopy
breaks, and generally grows in areas with sparse to moderate ground cover. Too many other plants in an
area can be harmful to this plant. This orchid typically grows under canopies that are relatively open or
near features that create long -persisting breaks in the forest canopy such as a road or a stream. It grows
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS #100140

in mixed -deciduous or mixed-deciduous/coniferous forests that are generally in second- or third -growth
successional stages. The soils in which it lives are usually acidic, moist, and have very few nutrients.
(https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/plants/small-whorled-pogonia/)
The white irisette species is found on mid -elevation slopes, characterized by open, dry -to -moderate -
moisture oak -hickory forests. White irisette usually grows in shallow soils on regularly disturbed sites
(such as woodland edges and roadsides) and over rocky, steep terrain.
(https://www.fws.gov/southeast/wildlife/plants/white-irisette/)
Wildlands determined the project will have "no effect" on the three listed plant species (the dwarf -
flowered heartleaf, the small whorled pogonia, and the white irisette). Though the survey was
performed outside of the blooming season for these three listed plant species, no populations
resembling the species were found on -site, therefore Wildlands is confident with the determination of
"no effect" outside of the blooming season for that species.
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 (WNS), the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) has issued the finalization of a special rule under section 4(d) of
the ESA that addresses the effects to the NLEB resulting from purposeful and incidental take based on
the occurrence of WNS. Because the project is located within a WNS zone and will include the
removal/clearing of trees, it is subject to the final 4(d) ruling. As previously stated, a review of NCNHP
records did not indicate any known NLEB populations within 2.0 mile of the study area; therefore, the
project is eligible to use the NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form to meet regulatory
requirements for section 7(a)(2) compliance 4(d) consultation. The completed NLEB 4(d) Consultation
Form was submitted to the USFWS by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on January 20, 2020.
To meet regulatory requirements, a scoping letter requesting comment from the USFWS was sent on
December 20, 2019. No response from the USFWS was received within the 45-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. A FHWA signed 4(d) Consultation Form and the correspondence associated with
the above determinations 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.
Laurel Valley 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 Laurel Valley Mitigation Site includes stream restoration. Wildlands requested comment on the
project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) on
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS #100140

December 20, 2019. No response from the USFWS was received within the 45-day response period.
Therefore, Wildlands assumes USFWS has no comments regarding associated laws and do not have any
information relevant to the project at the current time. NCWRC responded to the scoping letter on
January 21, 2020 that they provided comments on the proposed design comment during the agency site
visit on January 14, 2020 (meeting notes are available upon request).
1. It was noted by Wildlife Resource Commission that the existing driveway culvert at the
upstream end of UT1 Reach 2 would need to be replaced to eliminate the current aquatic
organism blockage (perching). Additionally, it was requested that the existing plastic pipe be
replaced with a different material culvert which will mimic a more natural stream bed, allowing
for easier upstream passage of aquatics.
Wildlands agreed to these requests regarding the replaced culvert.
Project activities do not need to be avoided during a trout moratorium. We recommend that
riparian buffers that are to be reestablished be as wide as possible, given site constraints and
landowner needs. NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial
streams to maximize the benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment
of overland runoff, and wildlife habitat.
All project streams will have adequate riparian buffers.
No known records of state or federally -listed rare, threatened, or endangered species within or near the
project area. All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (META)
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 Laurel Valley Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regard to
migratory birds on December 20, 2019. The USFWS has not responded at this time. All correspondence
with USFWS is included in the Appendix.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS #100140

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
APPENDIX

Punch Buggy Mitigation Site
3923 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Inquiry Number: 5733275.2s
July 29, 2019
6 Armstrong Road, 4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
(rEDR . Toll Free: 800.352.0050
www.edrnet.com
FORM-LBD-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
Executive Summary-------------------------------------------------------
ES1
Overview Map
2
Detail Map
3
Map Findings Summary----------------------------------------------------
4
Map Findings
8
Orphan Summary---------------------------------------------------------
13
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking
GRA
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum------------------------------------------
A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary
A-2
Physical Setting SSURGO Soil Map-------------------------------------------
A-5
Physical Setting Source Map
A-14
Physical Setting Source Map Findings----------------------------------------
A-16
Physical Setting Source Records Searched------------------------------------.
PSGR-1
Thank you for your business.
Please contact EDR at 1-800-352-0050
with any questions or comments.
Disclaimer - Copyright and Trademark Notice
This Report contains certain information obtained from a variety of public and other sources reasonably available to Environmental Data
Resources, Inc. It cannot be concluded from this Report that coverage information for the target and surrounding properties does not exist from
other sources. NO WARRANTY EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, IS MADE WHATSOEVER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REPORT. ENVIRONMENTAL
DATA RESOURCES, INC. SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS THE MAKING OF ANY SUCH WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION,
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE OR PURPOSE. ALL RISK IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. IN NO EVENT SHALL
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. BE LIABLE TO ANYONE, WHETHER ARISING OUT OF ERRORS OR OMISSIONS, NEGLIGENCE,
ACCIDENT OR ANY OTHER CAUSE, FOR ANY LOSS OF DAMAGE, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES. ANY LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ENVIRONMENTAL DATA RESOURCES, INC. IS STRICTLY
LIMITED TO A REFUND OF THE AMOUNT PAID FOR THIS REPORT. Purchaser accepts this Report "AS IS". Any analyses, estimates, ratings,
environmental risk levels or risk codes provided in this Report are provided for illustrative purposes only, and are not intended to provide, nor
should they be interpreted as providing any facts regarding, or prediction or forecast of, any environmental risk for any property. Only a Phase I
Environmental Site Assessment performed by an environmental professional can provide information regarding the environmental risk for any
property. Additionally, the information provided in this Report is not to be construed as legal advice.
Copyright 2019 by Environmental Data Resources, Inc. All rights reserved. Reproduction in any media or format, in whole
or in part, of any report or map of Environmental Data Resources, Inc., or its affiliates, is prohibited without prior written permission.
EDR and its logos (including Sanborn and Sanborn Map) are trademarks of Environmental Data Resources, Inc. or its affiliates. All other
trademarks used herein are the property of their respective owners.
TC5733275.2s Page 1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
A search of available environmental records was conducted by Environmental Data Resources, Inc (EDR).
The report was designed to assist parties seeking to meet the search requirements of EPA's Standards
and Practices for All Appropriate Inquiries (40 CFR Part 312), the ASTM Standard Practice for
Environmental Site Assessments (E 1527-13), the ASTM Standard Practice for Environmental Site
Assessments for Forestland or Rural Property (E 2247-16), the ASTM Standard Practice for Limited
Environmental Due Diligence: Transaction Screen Process (E 1528-14) or custom requirements developed
for the evaluation of environmental risk associated with a parcel of real estate.
TARGET PROPERTY INFORMATION
ADDRESS
3923 HAWKINS DRIVE
MORGANTON, NC 28655
COORDINATES
Latitude (North):
Longitude (West):
Universal Tranverse Mercator
UTM X (Meters):
UTM Y (Meters):
Elevation:
35.7012190 - 35' 42' 4.38"
81.6433400 - 81 ° 38' 36.02"
Zone 17
441797.6
3950801.2
1120 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map:
Version Date:
East Map:
Version Date:
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
5947887 MORGANTON SOUTH, NC
2013
5947052 VALDESE, NC
2013
Portions of Photo from: 20140618
Source: USDA
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

F- MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
3923 HAWKINS DRIVE
MORGANTON, NC 28655
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST (ft. & mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
Al STROUPE'S SEPTIC TAN 2698 MOUNT HOME CHUR LUST, NPDES Higher 1976, 0.374, NE
A2 STROUPE'S SEPTIC TAN
rria�y�•ia a•r� r��r
2698 MTN HOME CHURCH IMD
3280 NC HIGHWAY 18 S IMD
Higher 1976, 0.374, NE
Higher 2514, 0.476, NE
5733275.2s Page 2

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
TARGET PROPERTY SEARCH RESULTS
The target property was not listed in any of the databases searched by EDR.
DATABASES WITH NO MAPPED SITES
No mapped sites were found in EDR's search of available ("reasonably ascertainable ") government
records either on the target property or within the search radius around the target property for the
following databases:
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Federal NPL site list
NPL___________________________ National Priority List
Proposed NPL________________ Proposed National Priority List Sites
NPL LIENS -------------------- Federal Superfund Liens
Federal Delisted NPL site list
Delisted NPL__________________ National Priority List Deletions
Federal CERCLIS list
FEDERAL FACILITY__________ Federal Facility Site Information listing
SEMS_________________________ Superfund Enterprise Management System
Federal CERCLIS NFRAP site list
SEMS-ARCHIVE-------------- Superfund Enterprise Management System Archive
Federal RCRA CORRACTS facilities list
CORRACTS------------------ Corrective Action Report
Federal RCRA non-CORRACTS TSD facilities list
RCRA-TSDF------------------ RCRA- Treatment, Storage and Disposal
Federal RCRA generators list
RCRA-LQG------------------- RCRA- Large Quantity Generators
RCRA-SQG------------------- RCRA - Small Quantity Generators
RCRA-CESQG---------------- RCRA - Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity Generator
Federal institutional controls / engineering controls registries
LUCIS_________________________ Land Use Control Information System
US ENG CONTROLS_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Engineering Controls Sites List
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Sites with Institutional Controls
Federal ERNS list
ERNS_________________________ Emergency Response Notification System
State- and tribal - equivalent NPL
NC HSDS_____________________ Hazardous Substance Disposal Site
State- and tribal - equivalent CERCLIS
SHWS------------------------- Inactive Hazardous Sites Inventory
State and tribal landfill and/or solid waste disposal site lists
SWF/LF_______________________ List of Solid Waste Facilities
OLI____________________________ Old Landfill Inventory
DEBRIS_______________________ Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
LCID__________________________ Land -Clearing and Inert Debris (LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST__________________________ Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
INDIAN LUST_________________ Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST_________________ State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST____________________ Underground Storage Tank Listing
UST___________________________ Petroleum Underground Storage Tank Database
AST___________________________ AST Database
INDIAN UST__________________ Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
State and tribal institutional control / engineering control registries
INST CONTROL_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ No Further Action Sites With Land Use Restrictions Monitoring
State and tribal voluntary cleanup sites
VCP___________________________ Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
INDIAN VCP__________________ Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS______________ Brownfields Projects Inventory
FAQQIII 1101kiV 0Oki LTA I:NkiIkTAI=I,kIFA0N=1901NIR
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS----------- A Listing of Brownfields Sites
Local Lists of Landfill / Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY_______________________ Recycling Center Listing
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
HIST LF_______________________ Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI___________________ Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9----------- Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI___________________________ Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS___________ Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste / Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL_________________ Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL_______________________ National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2_______________________ CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS________________________
Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS________________________
Spills Incident Listing
SPILLS 90____________________
SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80____________________
SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen / NLR _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ RCRA - Non Generators / No Longer Regulated
FUDS_________________________
Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD__________________________
Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS_______
State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR_______________
Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST____________
EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_________________________
Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS__________________________
Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS--------------------------
Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD__________________________
Records Of Decision
RMP__________________________
Risk Management Plans
RAATS________________________
RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP___________________________
Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS_________________________
PCB Activity Database System
ICIS___________________________
Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS__________________________
FIFRA/ TSCA Tracking System - FIFRA (Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA (Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS_________________________
Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ Steam -Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA______________
Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER _ _ _ _
_ _ _ PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO ---------------------
Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS____________________
FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS_____________________
Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT____________________
Superfund (CERCLA) Consent Decrees
INDIAN RESERV_____________
Indian Reservations
FUSRAP______________________
Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program
UMTRA_______________________
Uranium Mill Tailings Sites
LEAD SMELTERS____________
Lead Smelter Sites
US AIRS______________________
Aerometric Information Retrieval System Facility Subsystem
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US MINES____________________
Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES ---------
Abandoned Mines
FINDS -------------------------
Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO -------------------------
Enforcement & Compliance History Information
UXO ---------------------------
Unexploded Ordnance Sites
DOCKET HWC----------------
Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
FUELS PROGRAM___________
EPA Fuels Program Registered Listing
AIRS__________________________
Air Quality Permit Listing
ASBESTOS___________________
ASBESTOS
COAL ASH____________________
Coal Ash Disposal Sites
DRYCLEANERS______________
Drycleaning Sites
Financial Assurance -----------
Financial Assurance Information Listing
NPDES------------------------
NPDES Facility Location Listing
UIC----------------------------
Underground Injection Wells Listing
AOP---------------------------
Animal Operation Permits Listing
PCSRP------------------------
Petroleum -Contaminated Soil Remediation Permits
SEPT HAULERS______________
Permitted Septage Haulers Listing
CCB___________________________
Coal Ash Structural Fills (CCB) Listing
EDR HIGH RISK HISTORICAL RECORDS
EDR Exclusive Records
EDR MGP_____________________ EDR Proprietary Manufactured Gas Plants
EDR Hist Auto ----------------- EDR Exclusive Historical Auto Stations
EDR Hist Cleaner_____________ EDR Exclusive Historical Cleaners
EDR RECOVERED GOVERNMENT ARCHIVES
Exclusive Recovered Govt. Archives
RGA HWS____________________ Recovered Government Archive State Hazardous Waste Facilities List
RGA LF_______________________ Recovered Government Archive Solid Waste Facilities List
RGA LUST____________________ Recovered Government Archive Leaking Underground Storage Tank
SURROUNDING SITES: SEARCH RESULTS
Surrounding sites were identified in the following databases
Elevations have been determined from the USGS Digital Elevation Model and should be evaluated on
a relative (not an absolute) basis. Relative elevation information between sites of close proximity
should be field verified. Sites with an elevation equal to or higher than the target property have been
differentiated below from sites with an elevation lower than the target property.
Page numbers and map identification numbers refer to the EDR Radius Map report where detailed
data on individual sites can be reviewed.
Sites listed in bold italics are in multiple databases.
Unmappable (orphan) sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
STANDARD ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LUST: The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Incidents Management Database contains an inventory
of reported leaking underground storage tank incidents. The data come from the Department of Environment, &
Natural Resources' Incidents by Address.
A review of the LUST list, as provided by EDR, and dated 05/03/2019 has revealed that there is 1 LUST
site within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
STROUPE'S SEPTIC TAN 2698 MOUNT HOME CHUR NE 114 - 112 (0.374 mi.) Al 8
Incident Phase: Response
Incident Number: 24386
Current Status: File Located in House
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Records of Emergency Release Reports
IMD: Incident Management Database.
A review of the IMD list, as provided by EDR, and dated 07/21/2006 has revealed that there are 2 IMD
sites within approximately 0.5 miles of the target property.
Equal/Higher Elevation Address Direction / Distance Map ID Page
STROUPE'S SEPTIC TAN 2698 MTN HOME CHURCH NE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.374 mi.) A2 10
Facility Id: 24386
TIME SAVER MARKET 3280 NC HIGHWAY 18 S NE 1/4 - 1/2 (0.476 mi.) 3 11
Facility Id: 28221
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5733275.2s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 8

OVERVIEW MAP - 5733275.2S
Target Property
o 1ia 1/2 1 Miles
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
ioo-year flood zone Disposal Sites
the target property
500-year flood zone
1
Manufactured Gas Plants
National Wetland Inventory
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Punch Buggy Mitigation Site
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 3923 Hawkins Drive
CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Morganton INC 28655
INQUIRY #: 5733275.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.701219 / 81.64334
DATE: July 29, 2019 5:37 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 TonnTom Rai. 2015.

DETAIL MAP - 5733275.2S
A
Hill Dr
0
Me t c i Dr •
*
Target Property
A
Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property
♦
Sites at elevations lower than
the target property
A
Manufactured Gas Plants
t
Sensitive Receptors
National Priority List Sites
Dept. Defense Sites
0 1 /16 1 /9 1 /4 Mlles
Indian Reservations BIA Hazardous Substance
■ National Wetland Inventory Disposal Sites
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide map information. The
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Punch Buggy Mitigation Site
CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 3923 Hawkins Drive
CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Morganton INC 28655
INQUIRY #: 5733275.2s
LAT/LONG: 35.701219 / 81.64334
DATE: July 29, 2019 5:41 pm
Copyright �o 2019 EDR, Inc.(,) 2015 TonnTom Rel. 2015.

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 23, 2019
Renee Gledhill -Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Subject: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Burke 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 a potential stream restoration project on the Laurel Valley
Mitigation Site located in Burke County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a Site Map showing the approximate
project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle, and the site is located at latitude 35.702, longitude-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the Catawba River Basin. The
project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries, will be restored and preserved as
part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding
the streams and channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures,
barns, and a house.
The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by
excluding livestock from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the
stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and preserving the project
site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs
to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss Lake and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and
terrestrial habitats on the project site.
No architectural structures or archaeological artifacts are listed on the National Register with the State Historic
Preservation Office within one mile of the Site. In addition, no architectural structures were observed or noted
within the project area during preliminary surveys of the site for restoration purposes.
We ask that you review the 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 extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
f
Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
704.941.9093
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wild lands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

North Carolina Department of Natural and Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
Ramona M. Bartos, Administrator
Governor Roy Cooper
Secretary Susi H. I Iamilton
January 28, 2020
Kristen Gimbert
1460 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
Re: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site, Burke County, ER 20-0049
Dear Ms. Gimbert:
Office of Archives and History
Deputy Secretary Kevin Cherry
Thank you for your December 23, 2019, submission concerning the above -referenced project. We have
reviewed the materials provided and offer the following comments.
There are no previously recorded archaeological sites located within the proposed project area. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of archaeological
resources. Based on the topographical and hydrological situation there is a high probability for the presence of
prehistoric or historic archaeological sites in the project area.
We recommend that prior to any ground disturbing activities within the project area, a comprehensive
archaeological survey be conducted by an experienced archaeologist. The purpose of this survey is to identify
and evaluate the significance of archaeological sites and cemeteries that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project.
Please note that our office now requests consultation with the Office of State Archaeology Review
Archaeologist to discuss appropriate field methodologies prior to the archaeological field investigation. A list of
archaeological consultants who have conducted or expressed an interest in contract work in North Carolina is
available at https://archaeology.ncdcr.gov/archaeological-consultant-list. The archaeologists listed, or any
other experienced archaeologist, may be contacted to conduct the recommended survey.
One paper and one digital copy of all resulting archaeological reports, as well as one digital copy of the North
Carolina site form for each site recorded, should be forwarded to the Office of State Archaeology through this
office for review and comment as soon as they are available and in advance of any construction or ground
disturbance activities.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not have an effect on any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comments,
please 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
"amonaarto" - s,�e u
P tY
�mf tate Historic Preservation Officer

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
April 16, 2020
Brooke Brilliant brookebrilliant&archcon.org
121 East First Street
Clayton, NC 27520
Re: Archaeological Survey Report of the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site, Burke County, ER 20-0049
Dear Ms. Brilliant:
Thank you for your submission of February 26, 2020, concerning the above -referenced undertaking. We have
reviewed the materials submitted and offer the following comments.
The Phase I archaeological survey report prepared by Archaeology Consultants of the Carolinas, Inc., (ACC),
documented the investigation of approximately 16.5 ac that included the excavation of 120 shovel test pits. No
archaeological resources or artifacts were identified. ACC recommends the proposed project will not impact
any significant archaeological resources and no additional archaeological work is necessary. We concur with the
findings and recommendations and accept the report as final.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill -Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review&ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(2� U
e
amona Bartos, Deputy
state Historic Preservation Officer
Location: 109 East Jones Street, Raleigh NC 27601 Mailing Address: 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 Telephone/Fax: [phone]-6599

of any assignment of this agreement by Buyer.
3.8 Value of Conservation Easement; No Power of Eminent Domain. In accordance with the Uniform
Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Buyer hereby notifies Seller that: (i)
Buyer believes that the fair market value of the Conservation Easement is an amount equal to the Purchase
Price; and (ii) Buyer does not have the power of eminent domain.
3.9 Modification; Waiver. No amendment of this agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and
signed by the parties. No waiver of satisfaction of a condition or failure to comply with an obligation under this
agreement will be effective unless it is in writing and signed by the party granting the waiver, and no such waiver
will constitute a waiver of satisfaction of any other condition or failure to comply with any other obligation.
3.10 Attorneys' Fees. If either party commences an action against the other to interpret or enforce any of the
terms of this agreement or because of the breach by the other party of any of the terms of this agreement, the
losing party shall pay to the prevailing party reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses, court costs, litigation costs and
any other expenses incurred in connection with the prosecution or defense of such action, whether or not the action
is prosecuted to a final judgment.
3.11 Memorandum of Option Agreement. Concurrently with the signing of this agreement, Buyer and Seller
agree to sign a Memorandum of Option that will be recorded against the Property in the Register of Deeds in the
County stated in paragraph A within five days after the Effective Date.
3.12 Tax Deferred Exchange. If Seller desires to effect a tax -deferred exchange (the "Exchange") in
connection with Buyer's purchase of the Conservation Easement, the parties agree to cooperate in effecting the
Exchange. Seller is responsible for all additional costs associated with the Exchange and Buyer shall not have
any additional liability with respect to the Exchange. The parties will execute any additional documents required
for the Exchange at no cost to Buyer.
3.13 Brokers. Shawn D. Wilkerson, Robert W. Bugg and Ian Hazelhoff are North Carolina Real Estate
Brokers. Neither Buyer nor Seller has incurred any liability for any brokerage fee, commission or finder's fee in
connection with this agreement or the transactions contemplated by this agreement.
3.14 . Entire Agreement. Each party acknowledges they are not relying on any statements made by the other
party, other than in this agreement, regarding the subject matter of this agreement. Neither party will have a basis
for bringing any claim for fraud in connection with any such statements.
3.15 Mutual Agreement. This is a mutually negotiated agreement and regardless of which party was more
responsible for its preparation, this agreement shall be construed neutrally between the parties.
3.16 Governing Law. The laws of the State of North Carolina, without giving effect to its principles of
conflicts of law, govern all matters arising out of this agreement. ,
3.17 Counterparts. This agreement may be signed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, but all of which, together, constitute one and the same instrument. A signed copy of this agreement
delivered by electronic mail in portable document format (".pdf" format) shall have the same legal effect as delivery
of an original signed copy of this agreement.
Each party is signing this agreement on the date stated below that party's signature.
4Y711 7-22-19 RWB
Buyer
Seller_

BUYER:
SELLER:
WILDLANDS ENGINEERING, INC., a North Carolina JOHN HEWAT, JR.
corpor ion j�
By: By:
awn D. Wilkerson, President Joh wat, Jr.
Date: 7 3 1I%o / Date: -c2 9—/1
7-22-19 RWB
Buyer
Seller

ROY COOPER NORTH CAROLINA
Governor Environmental Quality
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Elizabeth Toombs 1/17/2020
Cherokee Nation
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
P.O. Box 948
Tahlequah, OK 74465
[e-mail]
Dear Ms. Toombs,
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed stream
restoration project on the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for this proposed mitigation project. A
USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area are
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: 35.702,
-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the
Catawba River Basin. The project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed
tributaries, will be restored and preserved as part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek
drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding the streams and
channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle
pastures, barns, and a house. The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide
ecological and water quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while creating a
functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the
stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and
preserving the project site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will
reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss
Lake and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the
project site.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within 30
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDuelify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

days of receipt of this letter/ email in an effort to implement this necessary stream
restoration/ mitigation project.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
pAU1G w
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
naul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NOII��GA[30
Up.r .m t ut Environmental pua11ty
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
Russell Townsend
Tribal Historic Preservation Officer
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
[e-mail]
Stephen Yerka
Historic Preservation Specialist
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
Eastern Band of the Cherokee Indians
[e-mail]
Dear Mr. Townsend and Mr. Yerka,
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
1/17/2020
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed stream
restoration project on the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for this proposed mitigation project. A
USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area are
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: 35.702,
-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the
Catawba River Basin. The project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed
tributaries, will be restored and preserved as part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek
drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding the streams and
channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle
pastures, barns, and a house. The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide
ecological and water quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while creating a
functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the
stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and
preserving the project site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will
reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mt of FWY—=n lDuality
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

Lake and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the
project site.
We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within 30
days of receipt of this letter/ email in an effort to implement this necessary stream
restoration/ mitigation project.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
PAU4 VY61&vu, -r
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NCI I I H G�NAI_
Up.r .m t ut Environmental pua11ty
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

ROY COOPER
Governor
MICHAEL S. REGAN
Secretary
TIM BAUMGARTNER
Director
NORTH CAROLINA
Environmental Quality
1/17/2020
Ms. Whitney Warrior
Environmental Services & Historic Preservation Director
Tribal Historic Preservation Office
United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians in Oklahoma
P. 0. Box 746
Tahlequah, OK 74465
[e-mail]
CC: [e-mail]
Dear Ms. Warrior,
The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ) - Division of Mitigation
Services (DMS) requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with
respect to archaeological or cultural resources associated with the proposed stream
restoration project on the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) is the lead federal agency for this proposed mitigation project. A
USGS Topographic Map and a proposed project conceptual map showing the project area are
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle. The project location (Latitude and Longitude) is as follows: 35.702,
-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the
Catawba River Basin. The project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed
tributaries, will be restored and preserved as part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek
drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding the streams and
channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle
pastures, barns, and a house. The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide
ecological and water quality enhancements to the Catawba River Basin while creating a
functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the
stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and
preserving the project site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will
reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss
Lake and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the
project site.
NORTH CAROUNA I
Dm rb mf of FWY—=n lDuelify
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 1 1652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

We ask that you review this site based on the attached information to determine the
presence of any known historic properties. We respectfully request a response within 30
days of receipt of this letter/ email in an effort to implement this necessary stream
restoration/ mitigation project.
Please feel free to contact us with any questions that you may have concerning this project.
Respectfully,
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
paul.wiesnerOncdenr.gov
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville, N.C. 28801
Attachments:
Figure 1: USGS Topographic Map
Figure 2: Proposed Project Conceptual Map
cc: Donnie Brew, FHWA
NCI I I H G�NAI_
Up.r .m t ut Environmental pua11ty
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality I Division of Mitigation Services
217 W. Jones Street 11652 Mail Service Center I Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1652
919.707.8976

I Area of Potential Effect
PPD
~ 1
Proposed Limits of Disturbance
Proposed Conservation Easement
Project Streams •� le ;J
Non -Project Streams
o
• Ctllti'�
h �+
-..� •.
P x
�: •
!� (I 'i •=
'...�.• LIy.. -ti -�v. a✓ Lam'
r ��Irr
AL
.`
r
Morganton South, NC USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle.
WO."* WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
Figure 1 USGS Topographic Map
P
0 750 Feet Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101
Burke County, NC

Figure 2 Proposed Project Conceptual Map
WON WILD LANDS 0 300 Feet Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
E N Gi N E E Rf N G Catawba River Basin 03050101
Burke County, NC

ktwv
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 20, 2019
Claire Ellwanger
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Subject: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Ellwanger,
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 a potential stream
restoration project on the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site located in Burke County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map
and a Site Map showing the approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from
the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle, and the site is located at latitude 35.702,
longitude-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the Catawba River Basin.
The project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries, will be restored and
preserved as part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The
area surrounding the streams and channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm
composed of cattle pastures, barns, and a house.
The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to
the Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished
by excluding livestock from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving
the stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and preserving the
project site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and
sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss Lake and the Catawba River, as well as
reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the project site.
According to your website, Information for Planning and Consultation database (IPaC), the threatened or
endangered species listed within the project area located in Burke County, NC consists of six species; the dwarf
flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora), the heller's blazingstar (Liatris helleri), the mountain golden heather
(Hudsonia montana), the small whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), the white irisette (Sisyrinchium
dichotomum) and the rock gnome lichen (Gymnoderma lineare). If we have not heard from you in 45 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 the extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely, )) +y
t✓
Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
704.941.9093
Attachment:
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

Kirsten Gimbert
From: Brew, Donnie (FHWA) <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2020 8:01 AM
To: claire_ellwanger ([e-mail])
Cc: [e-mail]; Wiesner, Paul; Kirsten Gimbert; Andrea Eckardt
Subject: NLEB 4(d) rule consultation - Laurel Valley mitigation site, Burke County
Attachments: Laurel Valley site- NLEB Consultation Form_FHWA.pdf, Laurel Valley-USGS Map.pdf; Laurel Valley -
Concept Map.pdf
Good morning Claire,
The purpose of this message is to notify your office that FHWA will use the streamlined consultation
framework for the Laurel Valley mitigation site in Burke County, NC.
Attached is a completed NLEB 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation form along with site maps/figures.
Thank you,
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.***

Northern Lone -Eared Bat 4(d) Rule Streamlined Consultation Form
Federal agencies should use this form for the optional streamlined consultation framework for the northern long-
eared bat (NLEB). This framework allows federal agencies to rely upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's
(USFWS) January 5, 2016, intra-Service Programmatic Biological Opinion (BO) on the final 4(d) rule for the
NLEB for section 7(a)(2) compliance by: (1) notifying the USFWS that an action agency will use the streamlined
framework; (2) describing the project with sufficient detail to support the required determination; and (3) enabling
the USFWS to track effects and determine if reinitiation of consultation is required per 50 CFR 402.16.
This form is not necessary if an agency determines that a proposed action will have no effect to the NLEB or if
the USFWS has concurred in writing with an agency's determination that a proposed action may affect, but is not
likely to adversely affect the NLEB (i.e., the standard informal consultation process). Actions that may cause
prohibited incidental take require separate formal consultation. Providing this information does not address
section 7(a)(2) compliance for any other listed species.
Information to Determine 4(d) Rule Compliance:
YES NO
1. Does the project occur wholly outside of the WNS Zone'?
❑
❑X
2. Have you contacted the appropriate agency2 to determine if your project is near
❑X
❑
known hibernacula or maternity roost trees?
3. Could the project disturb hibernating NLEBs in a known hibernaculum?
❑
❑X
4. Could the project alter the entrance or interior environment of a known
❑
❑X
hibernaculum?
5. Does the project remove any trees within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum at
❑
❑X
any time of ear?
6. Would the project cut or destroy known occupied maternity roost trees, or any
❑
❑X
other trees within a 150-foot radius from the maternity roost tree from June 1
through July 31.
You are eligible to use this form if you have answered yes to question 91 or yes to question 92 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.): FHWA, Donnie Brew, Donnie.brew2dot.gov,
919-747-7017
Project Name: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Project Location (include coordinates if known): latitude 35.702, longitude-81.642
Basic Project Description (provide narrative below or attach additional information):
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the Catawba River Basin. The project
streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries, will be restored and preserved as part of this project.
East Prong Hunting Creek drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding the streams and channels
proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures, barns, and a house.
The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the Catawba
River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the stability of stream channels,
improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and preserving the project site through establishing a conservation
easement. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss Lake
1 http://www.fws.gov/"dwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/pdVWNSZone.pdf
2 See http://www.fws.gov/"dwest/endangered/mammals/nleb/nhisites.html
s If applicable - only needed for federal actions with applicants (e.g., for a permit, etc.) who are parry to the consultation.

and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the project site. Construction of the stream
restoration project will include some tree removal (>3' DBH) — approximately 3.33 acres.
General Project Information
YES NO
Does the project occur within 0.25 miles of a known hibernaculum? (19 miles)
❑
❑X
Does the project occur within 150 feet of a known maternity roost tree?
❑
❑X
Does the project include forest conversion'? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑X
❑
Estimated total acres of forest conversion
3.33 ac
If known, estimated acres5 of forest conversion from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of forest conversion from June I to July 316
Does the project include timber harvest? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑X
Estimated total acres of timber harvest
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from April 1 to October 31
If known, estimated acres of timber harvest from June 1 to July 31
Does the project include prescribed fire? (if yes, report acreage below)
❑
❑X
Estimated total acres of prescribed fire
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from April I to October 31
If known, estimated acres of prescribed fire from June I to July 31
Does the project install new wind turbines? (if yes, report capacity in MW below)
❑
❑X
Estimated wind capacity (MW)
Agency Determination:
By signing this form, the action agency determines that this project may affect the NLEB, but that any
resulting incidental take of the NLEB is not prohibited by the final 4(d) rule.
If the USFWS does not respond within 30 days from submittal of this form, the action agency may
presume that its determination is informed by the best available information and that its project
responsibilities under 7(a)(2) with respect to the NLEB are fulfilled through the USFWS January 5,
2016, Programmatic BO. The action agency will update this determination annually for multi -year
activities.
The action agency understands that the USFWS presumes that all activities are implemented as
described herein. The action agency will promptly report any departures from the described activities to
the appropriate USFWS Field Office. The action agency will provide the appropriate USFWS Field
Office with the results of any surveys conducted for the NLEB. Involved parties will promptly notify the
appropriate USFWS Field Office upon finding a dead, injured, or sick NLEB.
Signature:
Date Submitted: 1-23-20
' Any activity that temporarily or permanently removes suitable forested habitat, including, but not limited to, tree removal
from development, energy production and transmission, mining, agriculture, etc. (see page 48 of the BO).
' If the project removes less than 10 trees and the acreage is unknown, report the acreage as less than 0.1 acre.
6 If the activity includes tree clearing in June and July, also include those acreage in April to October.

Kirsten Gimbert
From:
Kirsten Gimbert
Sent:
Friday, February 21, 2020 8:31 AM
To:
Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC
Subject:
Laurel Valley AD1006_FPPA
Attachments:
FPPA_AD1006 Laurel Valley.pdf
Milton,
Please find attached to the email the completed FPPA AD1006 Form for the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site.
Thank You,
Kirsten Gimbert I Senior Environmental Scientist
M: 704.941.9093
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint St, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Date Of Land Evaluation Request 1 /3/20
Name Of Project Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration
County And State Burke County, INC
PART II (To be completed by NRCS) Date Request Received By NRCS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply -- do not complete additional parts of this form). V ❑ none 71 acres
Major Crop(s)
CORN
Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: 164,189 acres % 50
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: 124,626 acres %38
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
Burke County, NC LESA
Name Of Local Site Assessment System
N/A
Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
February 13, 2020 by eMail
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Alternative Site Rating
Site A
Site B
Site C
Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
13.0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
13.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
PART IV (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
9.3
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
3.7
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0.0104
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
6.0
PART V (To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
15
12
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
10
0
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
20
14
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
20
20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
15
10
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
15
10
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
10
0
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
10
0
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
5
5
10. On -Farm Investments
20
0
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
10
0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
10
0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
160
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
100
Total Site Assessment (From Part VI above or a local
site assessment)
160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
260
153
0
0
0
Site Selected:
Date Of Selection
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Yes ❑ No ❑
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006 (10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 20, 2019
Andrea Leslie
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Mountain Coordinator
645 Fish Hatchery Road
Marion, NC 28752
Subject: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Leslie,
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. requests review and comment on any possible issues that might emerge with respect
to fish and wildlife issues associated with a potential stream restoration project on the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
located in Burke County, NC. A USGS Topographic Map and a Site Map showing the approximate project area are
enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Morganton South, 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic
Quadrangle, and the site is located at latitude 35.702, longitude-81.642.
The Laurel Valley Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream mitigation in the Catawba River Basin. The
project streams, East Prong Hunting Creek and two of its unnamed tributaries, will be restored and preserved as
part of this project. East Prong Hunting Creek drains to Rhodhiss Lake on the Catawba River. The area surrounding
the streams and channels proposed for stream mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures,
barns, and a house.
The major goals of the stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Catawba River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level. This will be accomplished by
excluding livestock from stream channels, restoring and enhancing native floodplain vegetation, improving the
stability of stream channels, improving instream habitat, and permanently protecting and preserving the project
site through establishing a conservation easement. These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs
to project streams, and ultimately to Rhodhiss Lake and the Catawba River, as well as reconnect instream and
terrestrial habitats on the project site.
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 extent of site disturbance associated with this project.
Sincerely,
Kirsten Gimbert, Senior Environmental Scientist
[e-mail]
704.941.9093
Attarhmant,
Figure 1 Site Map
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Wild lands Engineering, Inc. (P) 704.332.7754 • 1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104 • Charlotte, NC 28203

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
Gordon Myers, Executive Director
January 21, 2020
Kirsten Gimbert
Wildlands Engineering
1430 South Mint Street, Suite 104
Charlotte, NC 28203
SUBJECT: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Dear Ms. Gimbert:
Biologists with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) received your December
20, 2019 letter regarding plans for a stream mitigation project on East Prong Hunting Creek and two
unnamed tributaries in Burke County. You requested that we review and comment on any possible issues
that might emerge with respect to fish and wildlife from the potential stream restoration project. Our
comments on this project are offered for your consideration under provisions of the Clean Water Act of
1977 (33 U.S.C. 466 et. seq.) and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
The project is proposed as a mitigation project and will involve stream restoration and preservation. No
other information is provided. NCWRC provided comments on the proposed design concept during the
agency site visit on January 14, 2020.
Project activities do not need to be avoided during a trout moratorium. We recommend that riparian
buffers that are to be reestablished be as wide as possible, given site constraints and landowner needs.
NCWRC generally recommends a woody buffer of 100 feet on perennial streams to maximize the
benefits of buffers, including bank stability, stream shading, treatment of overland runoff, and wildlife
habitat.
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this project. Please contact me at (828) 803-
6054 if you have any questions about these comments.
Sincerely,
Andrea Leslie
Mountain Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
Mailing Address: Habitat Conservation • 1721 Mail Service Center • Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] • Fax: [phone]

Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Categorical Exclusion
FIGURES

Figure 1 Site Map
WILD LANDS Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
E N G i N E E R f N G 0 300 Feet Catawba River Basin 03050101
Burke County, NC

r,
Proposed Conservation Easement r ''
ter. 1 � � •: a-
aF
f� fi 931 �,09 r• ` a .
41
ti::�
l is • r �rt� _ � �� R
ti
Morganton South, NC USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Wft.WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
O"dp
INVAP-Oj
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
0 1,000 Feet Catawba River Basin 03050101
1I� Burke County, NC

APPENDIX 6
NCIRT Communications

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit
LAUREL VALLEY Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101: Burke County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100140
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00053
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
Wildlands Project No. 005-02187
DATE: On -site Meeting: Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 1:00 pm
Meeting Notes Distributed: Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Meeting Notes Revised and Redistributed: Tuesday, January 28, 2020.
Revisions shown in red
LOCATION: 3925 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Erin Davis, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Andrea Leslie, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Paul Wiesner, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Kirsten Ullman, NCDMS
Harry Tsomides, NCDMS Project Manager
Casey Haywood, NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 8/13/2019 in response to NCDMS RFP #16-007875
Overall Site Notes/Comments
1. It was noted that the Site is located within the Hunting Creek targeted local watershed and that East
Prong Hunting Creek is 303(d) listed as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria.
2. The property owner had cleared approximately 7.5-acres beyond the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1.
Wildlands noted that they would discuss best management practices with the property owner and have
them install erosion and sediment control measures (likely check dams) to minimize sediment induction
into existing UT1.
Meeting Notes
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed overall site conditions and general
stream approach.
2. The walk began at the upstream end of East Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. The
current culvert is perched and undersized based on initial observation. Wildlands will discuss the
possibility of removing and replacing the existing culvert to improve its current condition and facilitate
the transition to a priority 1 restoration approach with the property owner.
3. Standing water was observed along most of the entire right floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek. The
stream is proposed for priority 1 restoration, which will raise the existing water table. The IRT noted that
while the pocket wetland habitat is positive for ecological uplift, it could inhibit woody species growth.
As such, Wildlands will include discussion in the mitigation plan outlining expected reductions in woody
size and quantity and increased herbaceous vegetation within this area and other wetter areas around
the site.
4. The walk continued along UT2 working upstream. Wildlands noted that they would attempt to save
mature vegetation along the left bank of UT2 by pulling the stream away from the existing hill slope and
relocating it into the valley with minimal disturbance to the left bank.
5. It was discussed that UT2 will likely be broken into two separate reaches based on slope and stream
type.
6. It was noted that an internal crossing with a proposed culvert crossing will be installed at the upstream
end of UT2.
7. The IRT commented that Wildlands needs to be aware of the reduction in stream power at the valley
break along UT1 and UT2 and ensure sediment doesn't settle within flatter portions of the constructed
channels.
8. The IRT also commented that if wetlands were needed by DMS, they would like to see a larger scale
stream and wetland project at this site. Soil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong Hunting
Creek by the IRT (Mac Haupt) indicated hydric soil indicators.
9. Two drainage outlets (shown in Figure 2 of the proposal) have been implemented by the property owner
to reduce ponded water in the fields adjacent to East Prong Hunting Creek. Wildlands indicated that
these drainage features would be stabilized within the work area, but would not be addressed beyond
the limits of the proposed conservation easement unless a larger wetland restoration component is
added to the project.
10. The walk continued to the downstream end of the current UT1 Reach 2 alignment. Wildlands proposal
includes the re -alignment of UT1 Reach 2 to drain to East Prong Hunting Creek. The IRT noted that the
realignment could have potential drainage effects on the downstream property owner and to be aware
of how changes in stream pattern would change downstream hydrology.
11. The IRT noted that the portion of UT1 Reach 2 which will be re -aligned will run through a broad, flat
floodplain. Subsequently the channel may require minor maintenance during the monitoring period to
ensure upstream sediment and vegetation don't choke channel flow. Wildlands will include information
in the adaptive management plan discussing these plans and associated potential maintenance. The IRT
noted that they would not want to see instream channel maintenance except in the first two years of
monitoring.
12. The walk continued upstream along UT1 Reach 2. It was noted that the channel will be relocated to the
left, and mature vegetation along the right (eastern) boundary will be saved along the hillslope. In
sections where UT1 Reach 2 is stable (specifically, between the driveway culvert and the existing S-
shaped meander in the existing stream), Wildlands will consider enhancement style approaches if
feasible with grading and design limitations or ensure justification of restoration in mitigation plan. The
IRT noted that credit ratios would be evaluated and assigned based on the proposed level of work and
may differ from ratios originally presented in the proposal.
13. It was noted by Wildlife Resources Commission that the existing driveway culvert at the upstream end of
UT1 Reach 2 would need to be replaced to eliminate the current aquatic organism blockage (perching).
Additionally, it was requested that the existing plastic pipe be replaced with a different material culvert
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

which will mimic a more natural stream bed, allowing for easier upstream passage of aquatics.
Wildlands agreed to these requests regarding the replaced culvert.
14. The IRT requested that Wildlands explore options to expand the buffer along UT1 Reach 1, specifically in
the right floodplain. Wildlands will follow up with the property owner and provide a memorandum
outlining the potential expansion of the buffer and any associated requested changes to the proposed
credit ratio.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit Memorandum
LAUREL VALLEY Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101: Burke County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100140
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00053
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
Wildlands Project No. 005-02187
DATE: On -site IRT Meeting: Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 1:00 pm
IRT Meeting Notes Revised and Redistributed: Tuesday, January 28, 2020.
Memorandum Distributed: Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Memorandum Revised and Redistributed, May 19, 2020
The following items were discussed at the Post Contract IRT Site Visit and required further investigation from
Wildlands Engineering. Original comments are shown in black while Wildlands responses are shown in blue.
1. The property owner had cleared approximately 7.5-acres beyond the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1.
Wildlands noted that they would discuss best management practices with the property owner and have
them install erosion and sediment control measures (likely check dams) to minimize sediment induction
into existing UT1.
Wildlands discussed this with the property owner. Check dams were placed in the drainage ditch just
upstream of the driveway crossing and the property owner has sewn hay to stabilize the cleared area.
2. The walk began at the upstream end of East Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. The
current culvert is perched and undersized based on initial observation. Wildlands will discuss the
possibility of removing and replacing the existing culvert to improve its current condition and facilitate
the transition to a priority 1 restoration approach with the property owner.
Wildlands discussed this with the property owner, but the adjacent property owner recently replaced
the road crossing and is not interested in allowing Wildlands to replace the crossing. Wildlands will
confirm that the culvert is not on our landowner's property once survey data is received. As much is
possible without hydrologic trespass, Wildlands will attempt to raise the baseflow water surface at the
crossing to improve aquatic organism passage and facilitate transition to a priority 1 approach.
3. The IRT also commented that if wetlands were needed by DMS, they would like to see a larger scale
stream and wetland project at this site. Soil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong Hunting
Creek by the IRT (Mac Haupt) indicated hydric soil indicators.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk Memorandum

Wildlands inquired if there was a wetland need in this basin but NCDMS does not currently have a
wetland need within the basin. Wildlands will not pursue wetland crediting for the project. Groundwater
gages will be installed within existing jurisdictionally delineated wetlands to monitor project effect on
wetland hydrology. Locations of the gages will be shown within the mitigation plan.
4. It was noted by Wildlife Resources Commission that the existing driveway culvert at the upstream end of
UT1 Reach 2 would need to be replaced to eliminate the current aquatic organism blockage (perching).
Additionally, it was requested that the existing plastic pipe be replaced with a different material culvert
which will mimic a more natural stream bed, allowing for easier upstream passage of aquatics.
Wildlands agreed to these requests regarding the replaced culvert.
Wildlands inquired about replacing the culvert with the property owner. The property owner recently
replaced the culvert. Additionally, the property owner noted that there is an existing underground
electric utility line that runs along the crossing. Due to these issues, Wildlands will not be able to replace
the crossing. However, Wildlands will raise the stream grade, backing water up the culvert to help with
culvert perching and aquatic organism passage. Wildlands will also add rock material to create
roughness within the bed of the culvert to give aquatic species some refuge within the culvert.
5. The IRT requested that Wildlands explore options to expand the buffer along UT1 Reach 1, specifically in
the right floodplain. Wildlands will follow up with the property owner and provide a memorandum
outlining the potential expansion of the buffer and any associated requested changes to the proposed
credit ratio.
Wildlands asked the property owner if he would consider a wider buffer along UT1 Reach 1 and he
declined. Wildlands still intends to place the required minimum buffer along each side of UT1 Reach 1
and has revised the proposed credit ratio to 15:1 along the reach based on proposed work (invasive
species, implementation of a conservation easement).
6. The IRT expressed concern that hydrology of UT1 Reach 2 downstream of the project limits would be
completely removed based on the realignment of the proposed channel.
Wildlands will attempt to monitor UT1 Reach 2 as best possible to ensure stream relocation does not
result in a complete loss of hydrology downstream of the project.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk Memorandum

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: IRT Digital Meeting
LAUREL VALLEY Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101: Burke County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100140
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00053
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
Wildlands Project No. 005-02187
DATE: Digital Meeting: Tuesday, July 14, 2020, 10:00 am
Meeting Notes Including Previous Correspondence Distributed:
Wednesday, July 15, 2020
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Casey Haywood, USACE
Kim Browning, USACE
Erin Davis, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Andrea Leslie, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Paul Wiesner, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Harry Tsomides, NC Division of Mitigation Services
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Christine Blackwelder, Wildland Engineering
Materials
• Final Post Contract IRT Site Visit Meeting Minutes Distributed 1/28/2020
• Final Post Contract IRT Site Visit Memorandum Distributed 5/19/2020
• Concept Map of the site with revision notes from virtual meeting on 7/15/2020.
Summary
• A virtual meeting was held to finalize outstanding items regarding the Laurel Valley Mitigation Site.
Previous finalized correspondence listed above is included with these meeting minutes for
documentation. All correspondence, including these minutes, will be included with the project
mitigation plan submittal within the Appendix.
Meeting Notes
1. Wildlands will place the required minimum buffer along each side of UT1 Reach 1. A proposed credit
ratio of 15:1 along the reach was agreed upon based on the preservation approach (invasive species
treatment, implementation of a conservation easement, potential supplemental planning). Wildlands
will evaluate if supplemental planting is required along the outer most edge of the proposed
conservation easement based on previous clearing by the property owner and will establish an approach
within the mitigation plan if required.

2. A preliminary fencing plan will be included with the mitigation plan submittal based on the potential of
cattle along UT1 Reach 1.
3. Crossing #2 (shown in the included map) will be relocated to the upstream extent of UT1 Reach 1. It is
anticipated that the proposed crossing will be a newly installed culvert within a 50' internal easement
break.
4. The hydrology of UT1 Reach 2 downstream of the project limits and the potential impact of rerouting
the existing channel during design was discussed. Wildlands noted that it is hypothesized hydrology
from the spring fed, small pond downstream from the property line will continue to provide flow
downstream of the project after the channel is rerouted, and we will attempt to monitor this for the
mitigation plan. Wildlands will install a pressure transducer to monitor hydrology on the downstream
reach and evaluate results pre and post construction. These monitoring efforts will be discussed within
the submitted mitigation plan.
5. The IRT expressed concern about the downstream extents of proposed UT1 Reach 2 as a potential risk
for aggradation. Wildlands will evaluate this during design and discuss methodology to mitigate this risk
within the mitigation plan. Potential adaptive management regarding this issue will also be presented in
the mitigation plan.
6. The IRT noted that fields around East Prong Hunting Creek could experience a potential hydrologic
increase based on the stream restoration proposed at the Site. Wildland noted that they will evaluate
this risk during design and present design considerations and potential adaptive management within the
mitigation plan.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Virtual IRT Meeting Minutes — 7/14/2020

Revised Concept Map

Q Z
zui
ui
�w
Z
1.40
QZ
a
W
40

Previous IRT Correspondence

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit
LAUREL VALLEY Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101: Burke County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100140
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00053
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
Wildlands Project No. 005-02187
DATE: On -site Meeting: Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 1:00 pm
Meeting Notes Distributed: Wednesday, January 22, 2020
Meeting Notes Revised and Redistributed: Tuesday, January 28, 2020.
Revisions shown in red
LOCATION: 3925 Hawkins Drive
Morganton, NC 28655
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Erin Davis, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Andrea Leslie, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Paul Wiesner, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Kirsten Ullman, NCDMS
Harry Tsomides, NCDMS Project Manager
Casey Haywood, NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 8/13/2019 in response to NCDMS RFP #16-007875
Overall Site Notes/Comments
1. It was noted that the Site is located within the Hunting Creek targeted local watershed and that East
Prong Hunting Creek is 303(d) listed as impaired for fecal coliform bacteria.
2. The property owner had cleared approximately 7.5-acres beyond the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1.
Wildlands noted that they would discuss best management practices with the property owner and have
them install erosion and sediment control measures (likely check dams) to minimize sediment induction
into existing UT1.
Meeting Notes
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed overall site conditions and general
stream approach.
2. The walk began at the upstream end of East Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. The
current culvert is perched and undersized based on initial observation. Wildlands will discuss the
possibility of removing and replacing the existing culvert to improve its current condition and facilitate
the transition to a priority 1 restoration approach with the property owner.
3. Standing water was observed along most of the entire right floodplain of East Prong Hunting Creek. The
stream is proposed for priority 1 restoration, which will raise the existing water table. The IRT noted that
while the pocket wetland habitat is positive for ecological uplift, it could inhibit woody species growth.
As such, Wildlands will include discussion in the mitigation plan outlining expected reductions in woody
size and quantity and increased herbaceous vegetation within this area and other wetter areas around
the site.
4. The walk continued along UT2 working upstream. Wildlands noted that they would attempt to save
mature vegetation along the left bank of UT2 by pulling the stream away from the existing hill slope and
relocating it into the valley with minimal disturbance to the left bank.
5. It was discussed that UT2 will likely be broken into two separate reaches based on slope and stream
type.
6. It was noted that an internal crossing with a proposed culvert crossing will be installed at the upstream
end of UT2.
7. The IRT commented that Wildlands needs to be aware of the reduction in stream power at the valley
break along UT1 and UT2 and ensure sediment doesn't settle within flatter portions of the constructed
channels.
8. The IRT also commented that if wetlands were needed by DMS, they would like to see a larger scale
stream and wetland project at this site. Soil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong Hunting
Creek by the IRT (Mac Haupt) indicated hydric soil indicators.
9. Two drainage outlets (shown in Figure 2 of the proposal) have been implemented by the property owner
to reduce ponded water in the fields adjacent to East Prong Hunting Creek. Wildlands indicated that
these drainage features would be stabilized within the work area, but would not be addressed beyond
the limits of the proposed conservation easement unless a larger wetland restoration component is
added to the project.
10. The walk continued to the downstream end of the current UT1 Reach 2 alignment. Wildlands proposal
includes the re -alignment of UT1 Reach 2 to drain to East Prong Hunting Creek. The IRT noted that the
realignment could have potential drainage effects on the downstream property owner and to be aware
of how changes in stream pattern would change downstream hydrology.
11. The IRT noted that the portion of UT1 Reach 2 which will be re -aligned will run through a broad, flat
floodplain. Subsequently the channel may require minor maintenance during the monitoring period to
ensure upstream sediment and vegetation don't choke channel flow. Wildlands will include information
in the adaptive management plan discussing these plans and associated potential maintenance. The IRT
noted that they would not want to see instream channel maintenance except in the first two years of
monitoring.
12. The walk continued upstream along UT1 Reach 2. It was noted that the channel will be relocated to the
left, and mature vegetation along the right (eastern) boundary will be saved along the hillslope. In
sections where UT1 Reach 2 is stable (specifically, between the driveway culvert and the existing S-
shaped meander in the existing stream), Wildlands will consider enhancement style approaches if
feasible with grading and design limitations or ensure justification of restoration in mitigation plan. The
IRT noted that credit ratios would be evaluated and assigned based on the proposed level of work and
may differ from ratios originally presented in the proposal.
13. It was noted by Wildlife Resources Commission that the existing driveway culvert at the upstream end of
UT1 Reach 2 would need to be replaced to eliminate the current aquatic organism blockage (perching).
Additionally, it was requested that the existing plastic pipe be replaced with a different material culvert
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

which will mimic a more natural stream bed, allowing for easier upstream passage of aquatics.
Wildlands agreed to these requests regarding the replaced culvert.
14. The IRT requested that Wildlands explore options to expand the buffer along UT1 Reach 1, specifically in
the right floodplain. Wildlands will follow up with the property owner and provide a memorandum
outlining the potential expansion of the buffer and any associated requested changes to the proposed
credit ratio.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk

w
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit Memorandum
LAUREL VALLEY Mitigation Site
Catawba River Basin 03050101: Burke County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100140
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00053
NCDEQ Contract No. 7875-02
Wildlands Project No. 005-02187
DATE: On -site IRT Meeting: Tuesday, January 14, 2020, 1:00 pm
IRT Meeting Notes Revised and Redistributed: Tuesday, January 28, 2020.
Memorandum Distributed: Wednesday, April 22, 2020
Memorandum Revised and Redistributed, May 19, 2020
The following items were discussed at the Post Contract IRT Site Visit and required further investigation from
Wildlands Engineering. Original comments are shown in black while Wildlands responses are shown in blue.
1. The property owner had cleared approximately 7.5-acres beyond the left floodplain of UT1 Reach 1.
Wildlands noted that they would discuss best management practices with the property owner and have
them install erosion and sediment control measures (likely check dams) to minimize sediment induction
into existing UT1.
Wildlands discussed this with the property owner. Check dams were placed in the drainage ditch just
upstream of the driveway crossing and the property owner has sewn hay to stabilize the cleared area.
2. The walk began at the upstream end of East Prong Hunting Creek at the outlet from Laurelwood Rd. The
current culvert is perched and undersized based on initial observation. Wildlands will discuss the
possibility of removing and replacing the existing culvert to improve its current condition and facilitate
the transition to a priority 1 restoration approach with the property owner.
Wildlands discussed this with the property owner, but the adjacent property owner recently replaced
the road crossing and is not interested in allowing Wildlands to replace the crossing. Wildlands will
confirm that the culvert is not on our landowner's property once survey data is received. As much is
possible without hydrologic trespass, Wildlands will attempt to raise the baseflow water surface at the
crossing to improve aquatic organism passage and facilitate transition to a priority 1 approach.
3. The IRT also commented that if wetlands were needed by DMS, they would like to see a larger scale
stream and wetland project at this site. Soil borings taken within the floodplain of East Prong Hunting
Creek by the IRT (Mac Haupt) indicated hydric soil indicators.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk Memorandum

Wildlands inquired if there was a wetland need in this basin but NCDMS does not currently have a
wetland need within the basin. Wildlands will not pursue wetland crediting for the project. Groundwater
gages will be installed within existing jurisdictionally delineated wetlands to monitor project effect on
wetland hydrology. Locations of the gages will be shown within the mitigation plan.
4. It was noted by Wildlife Resources Commission that the existing driveway culvert at the upstream end of
UT1 Reach 2 would need to be replaced to eliminate the current aquatic organism blockage (perching).
Additionally, it was requested that the existing plastic pipe be replaced with a different material culvert
which will mimic a more natural stream bed, allowing for easier upstream passage of aquatics.
Wildlands agreed to these requests regarding the replaced culvert.
Wildlands inquired about replacing the culvert with the property owner. The property owner recently
replaced the culvert. Additionally, the property owner noted that there is an existing underground
electric utility line that runs along the crossing. Due to these issues, Wildlands will not be able to replace
the crossing. However, Wildlands will raise the stream grade, backing water up the culvert to help with
culvert perching and aquatic organism passage. Wildlands will also add rock material to create
roughness within the bed of the culvert to give aquatic species some refuge within the culvert.
5. The IRT requested that Wildlands explore options to expand the buffer along UT1 Reach 1, specifically in
the right floodplain. Wildlands will follow up with the property owner and provide a memorandum
outlining the potential expansion of the buffer and any associated requested changes to the proposed
credit ratio.
Wildlands asked the property owner if he would consider a wider buffer along UT1 Reach 1 and he
declined. Wildlands still intends to place the required minimum buffer along each side of UT1 Reach 1
and has revised the proposed credit ratio to 15:1 along the reach based on proposed work (invasive
species, implementation of a conservation easement).
6. The IRT expressed concern that hydrology of UT1 Reach 2 downstream of the project limits would be
completely removed based on the realignment of the proposed channel.
Wildlands will attempt to monitor UT1 Reach 2 as best possible to ensure stream relocation does not
result in a complete loss of hydrology downstream of the project.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
LAUREL VALLEY mitigation site
Post -Contract IRT Site Walk Memorandum

APPENDIX 7
Invasive Species Treatment Plan

Appendix 7 Invasive Species Plan
Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to assess the condition of the finished
project. These site inspections may identify the presence of invasive vegetation. If, during the
monitoring period, invasive species threaten the survivability of planted woody vegetation in an area
that exceeds 1% of the planted easement acreage, the invasive species shall be treated. Smaller areas
may be treated at the discretion of the project engineer and biologist, if deemed in the best interest of
the Site. Generally, the treatment plan shall follow the below guidelines in Table 1 for common invasive
species found in riparian areas; however, the treatment may be changed based on the professional
judgement of the project engineer and biologist. For invasive species not listed in the below table that
threaten the survivability of the planted woody vegetation, Wildlands shall notify DIMS of the invasive
species observed and the plan for treatment prior to treating the species. All invasive species treatment
will be reported in the following year's monitoring plan.
Table 1. Invasive Species Treatment — Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Invasive Species
Recommended Removal Technique
Foliar treatment of large populations with 4% glyphosate solution. Cut stump treatment is
Multiflora Rose
time consuming, though effective. Treat in spring/summer. Biocontrol using viral
(Rosa multiflora)
pathogen of rose -rosette disease transmitted by European Rose Chalcid wasp is an option.
Rose -rosette disease is also vectored by native mites.
Large trees - Make stem injections and then apply Garlon 3A when safety to surrounding
vegetation is desired, or Pathway* or Arsenal AC* in dilutions and cut -spacings specified on
Tree of Heaven
the herbicide label (midsummer best, late winter somewhat less effective). For felled trees,
(Ailanthus
apply the herbicides to stem and stump tops immediately after cutting.
altissima)
Seedlings and saplings - Thoroughly wet all leaves with the following herbicide in water
with a surfactant (July to October): Garlon 4 as a 1- to 2-percent solution (4 to S ounces per
3-gallon mix) or Garlon 3A as a 2-percent solution (S ounces per 3-gallon mix).
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant: a
glyphosate herbicide as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) in the late fall or
early winter when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, or elsewhere, Arsenal AC*
as a 1-percent solution (4 ounces per 3-gallon mix). Backpack mist blowers can broadcast
glyphosate as a 3-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Escort XP* at 1 ounce
per acre (0.2 dry ounces per 3-gallon mix and 10 gallons per acre) during winter for safety
to dormant hardwoods. Summer applications of glyphosate may not be as effective as
other times and require a higher percent solution. The best time for Arsenal AC* and Escort
Chinese Privet
XP* is summer to fall. For stems too tall for foliar sprays and when safety to surrounding
(Ligustrum
vegetation is desired, apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per
sinense)
3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or
fuel oil or diesel fuel (where permitted); or undiluted Pathfinder II. Elsewhere, apply
Stalker* as a 6- to 9-percent solution (1.5 to 2 pints per 3-gallon mix) in a labeled basal oil
product, vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant, or fuel oil or diesel fuel (where
permitted) to young bark as a basal spray making certain to treat all stems in a clump; or
cut and immediately treat the stump tops with Arsenal AC* as a 5-percent solution (20
ounces per 3-gallon mix) or Velpar L* as a 10-percent solution in water (1 quart per 3-
gallon mix) with a surfactant. When safety to surrounding vegetation is desired,
immediately treat stump tops and sides with Garlon 3A or with a glyphosate herbicide as a
20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon mix) in water with a surfactant. ORTHO Brush-B-
Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for treating cut -stumps and available
in retail garden stores (safe to surrounding plants). For large stems, make stem injections
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 1

Invasive Species
Recommended Removal Technique
using Arsenal AC* or when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired, Garlon 3A or a
glyphosate herbicide using dilutions and cut -spacings specified on the herbicide label
(anytime except March and April). An EZ-Ject tree injector can help to reach the lower part
of the main stem; otherwise, every branching trunk must be hack -and -squirt injected.
Pasture grasses may be pre-treated before construction or up to one week before
Fescue (Festuca
permanent seeding of the invasive area. Mow grasses to very low height, near ground
spp.) and other
level. Broadcast spray, but not to the point of runoff, with non -selective herbicide at rates
Pasture Grasses.
recommended by manufacturer (Preferred 5%-8%Torched* solution). Re -treat if rainfall
occurs within 24 hours of application or as directed by manufacturer.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 2

APPENDIX 8
Site Protection Instrument

Appendix S Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the Hewat parcel listed in Table 1. This property is optioned for purchase of a conservation
easement by Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). Wildlands will record a conservation easement on
the parcels to encompass the streams being restored, enhanced, created and preserved along with their
corresponding buffers.
Table 1: Site Protection Instrument — Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Under
Memorandum of
Parcel ID
Option to
Option
Acreage to be
Property Owner
Number
County
purchase by
Deed Book (DB) and
Protected
Wildlands?
Page Number (PG)
Hewat, John
2712409543
Gaston
Yes
DB: 2418
14
PG: 120 - 123
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.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Appendix 8
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 1

APPENDIX 9
Maintenance Plan

Appendix 9 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be visited semi-annually 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 years
following site construction and may include the following:
Table 1. Maintenance Plan — Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Component/
Maintenance through project close-out
Feature
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 — these shall be conducted
where success criteria are threatened or at the discretion of the Designer. Areas where
Stream
storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance to
prevent bank failures and head -cutting. Beaver activity will be monitored and beaver dams
on project streams will typically be removed, at the discretion of the Designer, during the
monitoring period to allow for bank stabilization and stream development outside of this
type of influence.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted community.
Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental planting,
Vegetation
pruning, mulching, and fertilizing. Exotic invasive plant species requiring treatment per the
Invasive Species Treatment Plan (Appendix 7) shall be treated in accordance with that plan
and with NC Department of Agriculture (NCDA) rules and regulations.
Site boundaries shall be identified in the field to ensure clear distinction between the
mitigation site and adjacent properties. Boundaries may be identified by fence, marker,
Site boundary
bollard, post, tree -blazing, or other means as allowed by site conditions and/or conservation
easement. Boundary markers disturbed, damaged, or destroyed will be repaired and/or
replaced on an as -needed basis.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 1

APPENDIX 10
Financial Assurance

Appendix 10 - 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.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site Appendix 10
DMS ID No. 100140 Page 1

APPENDIX 11
Credit Release Schedule

Appendix 11- Credit Release Schedule and Supporting Information
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
Department of the Army (DA) authorization has been received for its construction or the District
Engineer (DE) has otherwise provided written approval for the project in the case where no DA
authorization is required for construction of the mitigation project. The DE, in consultation with the
Interagency Review Team (IRT), will determine if performance standards have been satisfied sufficiently
to meet the requirements of the release schedules below. In cases where some performance standards
have not been met, credits may still be released depending on the specifics of the case. Monitoring may
be required to restart or be extended, depending on the extent to which the site fails to meet the
specified performance standard. The release of project credits will be subject to the criteria described as
follows:
Table A: Credit Release Schedule — Stream Credits — Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Credit
Monitoring
Interim
Total
Release
Credit Release Activity
Year
Release
Released
Milestone
1
0
Site Establishment
0%
0%
Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made
2
0
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan — see requirements below
30%
30%
Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
3
1
interim performance standards have been met
10%
40%
Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
4
2
interim performance standards have been met
10%
50%
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
5
3
interim performance standards have been met
10%
60%
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
65%
6
4*
5%
interim performance standards have been met
(75%**)
Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
75%
7
5
interim performance standards have been met
10%
(85%**)
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
80%
8
6 *
interim performance standards have been met
5%
(90%**)
Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and
90%
9
7
interim performance standards have been met
10o �
(100%**)
*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 NORT.
**10% reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site DMS Appendix 11
ID No. 100140 Page 1

1.1 Initial Allocation of Released Credits
For this NCDMS project, no initial release of credits is provided. To account for this, the 15% credit
release typically associated with the site establishment is held until completion of all initial physical and
biological improvements made pursuant to the Mitigation Plan. In order for NCDMS to receive the 30%
release (shown in Tables A and B as Milestone 2), they must comply with the credit release
requirements stated in Section IV(I)(3) of the approved NCDMS instrument.
1.2 Subsequent Credit Releases
All subsequent credit releases must be approved by the DE, in consultation with the IRT, based on a
determination that required performance standards have been achieved.
The following conditions apply to credit release schedules:
a. A reserve of 10% of site's total stream credits will be release after four bankfull events have
occurred, in separate years, provided the channel is stable and all other performance standards
are met. In the event that less than four bankfull events occur during the monitoring period,
release of these reserve credits is at the discretion of the NCIRT.
b. After the second milestone, the credit releases are scheduled to occur on an annual basis,
assuming that the annual monitoring report has been provided to the USACE in accordance with
Section IV (General Monitoring Requirements) of 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.
c. The credits associated with the final credit release milestone will be released only upon a
determination by the USACE, in consultation with the NCIRT, of functional success as defined in
the Mitigation Plan.
As projects approach milestones associated with credit release, the DMS will submit a request for credit
release to the DE along with documentation substantiating achievement of criteria required for release
to occur. This documentation will be included with the annual monitoring report.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site DMS Appendix 11
ID No. 100140 Page 2

APPENDIX 12
Preliminary Plans

H -HaH
S Q;Id dTl AA
��
Q� R�
�a
laaus ai3FZ
0 ws
Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing
NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I
Mf
m, v
TZOZ6TZO a
v
75
v
v
W
U
4-j
�
/� �r
U • rl
U
r
a m ry m w m ry m rn
'o ri w m
� cli ri
o
x
cn
o
.
.
�
0
o
v
� o
o
G cn
r.
.�Qro v,
N
pmt°
z
Qo
G o
U�
j
o0
o ." 4
ozo,4�x
�
a
m
w
�a`D� w ro
cn
X ro�Oro
o q"5
og=
m go_

He 1�0 naarnzano;Da[oz� Z•0 '�5
9oa i
t0 Y
S Q N d'I Q'I3I t11 � Ou-11010D u}aoN 'zf}unoD axing M
�a NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A lain—' TZOZITZO
zzm
o
3w°�o 0 6 .3Z o
El
�Ja z/ o —
o
wzo zoa _
a " w
a
aw
-
A
l'.
...
o
f'
5
1.
L _
1
ry.
J
k _
\
O
\
G / ,
-
a
1.
�. '.',',:,-",;,
ZZ z s:.=
oZ:
0
ooao, ----------------------
I'ZZ 133 HS

oa
E 8Ha
to
StOgLUXS pue S@40N ILI@U@D
0 �5
S Q �I d'I Q'I3I AA�
i t0 Y
��s �
�
�a
M11010D u}aoN ' f}unoD axing
M
a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Tainu—I
m, v
EEbt o
Fv
ev
a� a� a�
�
a� a� a� a� a�
O
O
v nn
a
0
� fill
OO Oao
c
a
c
s
.3
v
E
E
Ev
C
E
=
E 3
—
s E b
v
j
U)
6
U)
I
II I
x
E 3 i
E
o
o
f0
o3
blO I I
YI I x
x
I II II x o

11 suopaas IeardX j , �s
�°" H e-L91 d�? JaazD SupunH 3uozd }seg
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11 � Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing M
�a NIS not L'= ?R!W X0110A lain=- v TZOZ6TZO
o
I'✓
c �
1
o
� z5
8 z
zg
Iz
o
iio
o zo
0 8
E
1 -
1
_ i a
it
1 i
_ w
rw -1 1II' O
i
a O
N N
iO 1 i p
i
i x i�i x
II W W
V V
V
i�
+ Z
o8 oo
o w + u
5 +
o o 0 0 0
is olz
ZO
i
w5
a3 00 -
w
ZO
ao 5
50ZO -z�
Y3z 8
�o
1 -
1
i
li
i
i
1 i

�H H M suogDag ILDIdX
�o eH —T d®?y, ZLR 28 iLR
S Q N d'I Q'I3I t11 � t u-1101 D u}aoN 'XlunoD axing M
�a NIS not}L'$?IIIW X0110A Tainu—I TZOZ6TZO
1
I
I
I
�1 za
za �� o8 z
o
M� w as g
z -
z-
I - � 1
g
Fg zg
I
zo
I I i I I
I I
ZO
Iz
i I i to
I I it � Iz
I
1 I I I J
la
� I r
-j o
i i W i + i� n o i O
+ - O
N v ii m i W o
v
j
B O�o o ri Od''� 1 iCJS
Cl)
+ o 0
+ i dU) r F is o i ro i i F is o
'� in '�
it min
i I I i
I - I
ml
i zo i I i i I
I I
0�
a3o
oz�
U
z
I � I �g
way I _ I
��
_' I I
og
0
- Iz
0�
j
i I I
� I I
� I I
I I
I �
I �
I
I
I I
a w
0
1 0
I I a-0
oo 'z
0 g_
0
aE
0
06
_ o'I I
I II
OZ Iz
9 o 9 _OZ z
o
- Iz
-
o �8
I I _
I ogmg I i I I -
-_'
o 9
_ I
I li
I i I
II I
I I II
I
I I
I i I
I I I I

—H-T
�p���
air3ozd pue ueici ureaz;s
V@ID Sur;unH 3uozcl;seg
T T
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11
�
�a
Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing
M
NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I
m, v
TZOZ6TZO
w�
�r G
s
"
+
ZbOL V1S 3NIl HDiVA
---^, -- ----3--�—
44
I
a
s
gipp_ � pia

1-1 �° e e-�9I
do O
alljold pue ueici ureaz;s
V@'D SupunH 3uozcl }seg
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11
�
Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing
M
�a
NIS not L'= ?R!W X0110A lain—'
- v
IIOI6IZo a
Ia+aol
ti
s
"gym
"r' ILL+60L V1S 3NIl HJ1VW r
£LiI
T\ W
Z >
I ,
i Z
W
4 ,
i - 5 iT�
Vm
Ie
FP ` \
—�, Yl) F
--00+SIE 9IIl '
_
^`tidLs�
i"
of
80+60I=tlS
; ,
i
o—o
l
—
/
vis
I8'IIII=A-
s9
—1
=A313
—
II+(oi=tlls
I
II
56ZIII
=A313
m
£L+SOI=tlLS
m
c
££sill
=A313
=
Is

alljozd pue ueil ureaz;s
—H-T ��V@ID Sur;unH 3uozl ;seg Zi • I- • � ' ws
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11 � Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing M
�a NIS notWt?IIIW X0110A Taanu—I TZOZ6TZO
w�
s "
� uw
s "
rtm
OUT
r
EEEE E�� - ��� EE���E
E —EE E E _E; '' EEor C E�EEj=,
ry
�b �f
------------
on
u_
1
w
vi
>»
�LL+60Lt11S-3NIlH51VW
—
5
u

a 1p atijol pue ueil ureasig
—H —T d�? i fl
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11 � Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing M
�a NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I TZOZ6TZO a

a 1p air3ozl pue ueil urealig
_He 9
S d�? iLR v v v
't `t0 y `4S�
Q �I d'I Q'I3I t11 � �s 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}unoD axing M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I TZOZ6TZo
w�
s "
sOT
"
m
o
r..60.
1
m
i
ZZ'6ZII
=A313
1
Ib+60Z=tlLs
f
1
11'6
ZIT
IA313
m
ZI+7
7
61 o£TT =A313
Ia+aOZ=tlls
_
—
—
6I'0£II =A313
ZO+ao-'s
1
aaro£II
=n313
�
-
I£+aoz=tlls
11 I£II =A-
8 L'I£II
=A313
LL+LOZ=tlLs
TO Z£II =A313
S ,oz =tlls
--
1
a
ZI
Z£II
=A—
1
_+
6—oZ=tlls
1
j
i
58 Z£II
=A313
1
IO+LOZ=tlis
ro
£Z'££II
=A313
1
Oa+90Z=tlTs
I
00'I£II
A313:
—90z=tlls
1
i
-
a�
30
-
Sa
1
�
�
zn
.>
i
0
o
r
m
0
1
ry
m
i
y
w
i -__-
3D
--_
J
i
W
n, _
J
� y
i
�f
oF\ _
o
Gw
—n
0
"
°� oo x%*�xENPt y\`
R
- a y o Yk'
- Eix
o
o
o
w
z ;
J.
x w -
�= w l
%! j

a 1p atijozl pue uq I ureal4s
_He 9 d�? I fl
QI d'I � v v
't `t0 y `4S�
S �Q'I3I t11 � �s �% 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}uno� axang M
�a a}tS not L'= ?R!W X0110A Taanu-1 IIOI6IZo
w�
�r G
s "
s "
OS'IZII =A313
46'IZII =A—
r%i r
MATCH LINE - IT 214+50,-
77
08ZZII=n363�,I
Ob+s vis
i
9I'£zii =A313
csszll =n3�3 w - i� .
9,Izlz=vas
8Z+ZIZ=tlLs
SO+ZI vIs
8ff4ii =A3,3 ; n -
£9+I
s0'9ZII =A3,3
Ib+IIZ=tlls
96+01 ,-
96+olz
f d
'LZII =A31371
'ZII =A313

a 1p atijozl pue uqj ureasig
_He 9
S d�?
't `t0 y `4S�
Q �I d'I Q'I3I t11 � �s 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}unoD axing M
�a a}tS not L'= ?R!W X0110A Taanu-1 IIOI6IZo
w�
s
/
> m
zo9III
=n313
/
i
£9+a[z=tl/s
a£9III
=n313
�
zz+alz=tlis
i
o
=
58'9III
=A313
w
86+LIZ=tlLs
I
I
�
"
SZ'LIII =A313
!
�
/
£S+LIZ=tlLs
£L'LIII =A313
b£+LIZ=tlls
o
1
1
i
/
1
1
£raIII
=n313
i
1 j
06+9IZ=Is
1
1
9—z
I
89+9IZ
=tlls
—
/
I
I
:
91'8III
=A313
I
6Z+9IZ=tlLs
/i
40+9IZ
K 6III=A313
-Is
1
I;
li
1:
I
z8'6III
=Al
I9+SIZ=Is
IZ'OZII =A313
I
o
:
Zb+SIZ=Is
I�
19 OZII
=A313
I
—
—
66+qIZ=tlls
off
,
F—
--
1:
'IZII =A313
+11z -Is
i
o � � VOA > >
�b
I�
X
0
rn X �-3—SX J1 X 0
l
m
m
J
1 i
MATCH (IN E- STA 214 5S6

a 1p atijozl pue uqj ureaRS
-He�9 S d�? iLR J v v
't `t0 y `4S�
Q �I d'I Q'I3I t11 � �s 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}unoD axing M
�a a}tS not L'= ?R!W X0110A Taanu-1 — v IIOI6IZo
w�
�r G
s
8I'I III =A313
I
I
8I+£ZZ
- Is
li
r:
vi
I
i
IS'I
III =A313
LL
BIZIII
=A313
I:
j
Is+ZZZ=tlS
1'
o
�ry
I;
I'
8I'ZI
—ZZZ
II = A313
- Is
I '
=A313
1
1;
b
Z L'ZIII
[g+IZZ=tlS
�
11
I
11
I
86'ZI
II =A313
oS IZZ=Is
/1
II
m
\i
a9£I II
91 IZZ-Is
=n313
i
19'£I
£8+oZZ=tlS
II
-A313
II
'
m
\I
1
LI'b I II =A313
—ozz-Is
\
\
_
LI'b III
=A313
/
8I+oZZ=tlS
i
1
98'bi
11 =A313
I
06—Z
-IS
I;
I!
98'bi
11 =A313
/i
—6IZ=tlS
M
£FSIII
=A3l3
���
—6IZ=tlS
I
i�
i
££SIII =A313
£6+alz=IS
I �
J
o
iyW��'.�
Ow
._
--- -----------
-
1
- -----------
I
(jam
W1l
i C
`
Qsx8�
�
N

o�ea 1p atijo� pue ueil ureas;g �s
l- �tin 977
H
S Q ;Td'I Q'I3I t11 � t u�joat u}aoN 'XlunoD axing M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X011 A Taanu—I IIOI6IZo
w�
ZO
�r G
0 o a
I
; > > > > > >
w
oITT
'^
F
- - '-i III�1�
£9'LOII =A313 I _.. _ ".-- �........'.I
z c o
a w
ZO'80II = A313
LT SZZ -, 11
L
asaoll =n313
zl+szz=vis t � �/ IC-j
4
1 OIII % fCE-CE-CE- CE
w
I I'60II = Al
bL+bZZ=tlLS
II I m lam. I y,
6560II -A313 NYC
O a
d 84+bZZ=tlLS
O
I I NW O +
4660II =A313 a w I \\1
m
80+bZZ=tllB
09'0111 =A313 j .�
i
89'0111 =A313
— -

a 1p atijol pue ueil ureas;g �s
—H —T d�? ZLR
QI d'I � � v
't `t0 y `4S�
S �Q'I3I t11 � �s �% 01TVIOD ILRION ' f}uno� axang M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A lain—' m, v IIOI6IZo
�o
s "
s "
81'9£II =A313
SI+40£=tlS
i
TO'L£II =A313
1
-
I6+EOE=tl/s
I
1
/
Ib'L£II
=A313
I9+£0£=tl15
h
5O8EII =A313
£b+£0£=tl15
I
Sb'8£II
=A313
II+£0£=tl15
1
N
9I'6£II
=A-
1
68+ZOE=tlLs
j
1
I9'6£II
=A313
1
09+ZO
'
1
5I'obii
=A313
Ob+ZOE=tlLS
I 1
I :
09
Obi i
= A313
OI+ZOE=tlLS
\
C
56'Obii =A313
F '
I6+IOE
—S
/
ZE IbII =A313
65+IOE=tlLS
�C
�
1
b
_
—
I8'I1II =A313
I
Ob+IO£=tlLS
I
f
8I'Zbii
=A313
£O+IO£=tlLS
i
ill,
-A313
61+00£=tlLS
I
1
�
1
1 /
66EaII
=n313
/

a 1p atijozl pue uqj ureal4s
�'-He 9 d ? ZLR v v
't `t0 y `4S�
S QI d'I �Q'I3I t11 � �s +% 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}uno� axang M
�a a}tS not L'= ?R!W X0110A Taanu-1 --1 Iloi6TZO
tj
3 � r
L
OZ'9ZII =A313
S£'LZI 49+80£=tlLS
09+80£=tlLS
�
'
1
1
N
a0'a ZII
=A313
'
Z£+80£=tlls
OZ'aZi- Ili
8I+80£=tlLS
�
1
r
bE S— = A313
Io+aO£=tlls
60'6Z II -1
-A31�
3
bS6—
as+m£=tlis
88'6ZII =A313
I
�
-
110£II
=A—
bI+LO£=tlLS
Al
I6'0£II
=A313
6L+90£=tlLS
1
0
/
65'I£II
=A313
65+90£=tlLS
1
60Z£II =A313
I9.Z£II
90+90£=tlS
=A313
�,-
11 —1 =A313
sc+so£=tl�s
a—LS££II =A313
as+so£=tl�s
;
_
d
16'££II =A313
l
oa�
#A—VS
_
00+so£=tlls
71.1
£
91'S£II
=A313
£II =A313
1
40£=tlls
i
I.
! i j✓i
�
/
W
P30

a 1p atijozl pue uqj ureas;g �s
-He�9 S d�?
't `t0 y `4S�
Q �I d'I Q'I3I t11 � �s +% 01TVIOD ILRION ' f}uno� axang M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I TZOZ6TZo
N
s �
- c
s
66a iii =n313
sa+zis=vis
i
i
I
I
116111
=n313
6ti+ZI£=ems
bs'oZ
II
=n313
-
Ez+ZI£=ems
I
soZii
=n313
I
bI ZZ
II =n313
os+ii—s
44L'I
I
ozzzii
=n313
;
IZ+II£=ems
i
e
—
£Z'£Z11
s6+o Is=
=n313
S
£9'£ZII
ss+pi£=tlS
=n313
,N
-ii
=n313
e+ois=vis
II
1
ZIT =n313
1
cos='s
r.I
11
o
n313
I:
I:
vis
n313
—
lu
3
1
1
�
l
I
�
I � -
I
1
0-1
1
l

a 1p atijol pue uq I ureas;g �s
—H —T d�? ZLR
QI d'I � � v
't `t0 y `4S�
S �Q'I3I t11 � �s �% 01TVIOD u}aoN ' f}uno� axang M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Taanu—I m, v IIOI6IZo
- �4r
s "
oa£III
=n313
1
00+9I£=tlis
I
I.
lj
I.
m
L6'£III
=A—
1(
of+sl£=tl/s
i.
j
L6'£III =A313
£S+SI£=tlls
l
�o
b'
09-1
=A313
_
6Z+SI£=tlLs
5 111 = A313
OI+SI£=tlls
n
1
1
SI'—I =A313
58+b I£=tlLs
j
I
1
6£'SIII
=A313_
OS+bi£=tlLs
1
0
I
IZ'9III
=A313
£Z+bi£=tlls
I
=A313
/
I
IL'9III
9t+£I£=tlls
I
�
a9'tIII
=n313
F
OS+£I£=tlS
/
OZ'8III
=A313
OI+£I£ - Is
�1 08+Zti£ tl1S - 3NIl HTL V,

111
illlil mli
li
millilli milli
MINIMUM
1111111
) t t t t t t t t t<<§
} !{ j j j j j j j j j j§
li
millilli milli
MINIMUM
1111111
) t t t t t t t t t<<§
} !{ j j j j j j j j j j§
li
millilli milli
MINIMUM
1111111
) t t t t t t t t t<<§
} !{ j j j j j j j j j j§
1111111
) t t t t t t t t t<<§
} !{ j j j j j j j j j j§
) t t t t t t t t t<<§
} !{ j j j j j j j j j j§

8Ha 1�0 IA M@Iano ueicl 3ur;uei� �s
9oa i
t0 Y
S Q N d'I Q'I3I t11 � Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing M
�a NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A lain—' TZOZ6TZO
J
''Dora 'JN0
'a o°, oa sot
°,
ti
5
g
-
5
o
-
5
o E _
3
a

,nzaH e to qp Ruueld P@ID SuunH 3uozd }seg
9oa i
t0 Y
S Q ;Td'I Q'I3I t11 � t u1joat u}aoN 'XlunoD axing M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Tainu—I ozbt o
I
—E_
o -oW
OW o UTl E-E�E�E- i 3o i I
Emowe owe ow
owl owe°o
EJ
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
0
w
Q Z S \\ S S S S S S S S S S
S S S \ S S S S S SAS S i
i
+ +
+ + + + + + _ oo'T,
VZ2 + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + + p0* + + M t + a14'0 + + -
+
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ +++++++++ +
i
I � /
oo+oot i
o E_

110
Ha1-H-
S Q;NTa 3I AA
O�5S��®J
Supuel,l iLR
Ou-11010D u}aoN 'XjunoD axing
NIS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Tainu—I
\
v
E �
F
/
fc

/
T
* q!«o
s cl NV-IdTlAA ` »
t ea �iO %
7Sm7$iIW X0I10&t al _,TZOZ Z
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
�
/ � z
--�\�--
o
\}

`�osse�cars .p uejd uuue,A
HeH9 d uejl SurDuaLl �
® �y,
S Q N d'I Q'I3I t11 � t u1joat u}aoN 'XlunoD axing M
�a a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A Tainu—I ozbt o
l I 3
I -
OW I -r
l
� I
�a3rt �>
lo
OZ
\ � k
\ -
oz I
I I
zaw
oog
w
�m>
°moo t \
o \
w
O
Zw�pO o
V ~ Q O Q Z
LL 7 O 2¢
0 0 X&a -
vu'i vu'i z w w w z ZQ� a
O O w __
O O z p n z
z --
z z z ¢ ¢ ¢ z
a a u w V
I/ zrvo 0

—He- T
o
uejd LuILA
(iLR)Z3urssOID
,ass
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11
�
t u�joat u}aoj� 'XlunoD axing
M
�a
a}tS not}I=�?t}IW X0110A
Tainu—I
m, v
110161Z0
j I
I
Ij
Ali
- ii
g
I
i
mT
II
I
I
0
o _—
°
zz o a
_a�-3�—j —3J
I
�—
- __ __ _
0
_
10
/
3
•\ 0
Iy�
j
Id
a
- - - --;
6s6— =A313
6£ 6— =A313
eo+T = yes
ti
as 0— = A-
J
taro vis
I
�
I
o'oy
i —
i
II
I
L 116
Ili
I
Z< I z
—
zz
—
2L 611, =A313
z �0
—5
zzoa oo
,
—
oz+o
Z ­ff
a
�
�6
o

�—He- T
o
uejd uuILA
(Zlfl) E SutssOID
Zi
S Q ;I d'I Q'I3I t11
�
�a
t u�joat u}aoj� 'XlunoD axing
M
a}tS not}I=�?t}IW
X0110A Tainu—I
m, v
oibi
o
Ili
I i
Ij
I
� I
i
li
I
xl
3�LL�
0.
x-
0. 00
____�
I
0
a
. 0
33
o�=
0 �zm
0 a
z
3a ' �,
r
_ -
I /
_—
1�
x
w
w
m
-U U_
m a
a 5�°
LL
w w °aa�
"Ja
—
of
z
zz a
oN
t
G
.
w
�a ".z.11
U1
___i;;/ _
<
i
i
T
V
— _ _ - - - — ---Si
--
yb Syrr
�s
y
I�
k
a
<
_/ �a
i
u
4
p
_ cL itl__;
H 6— =A313
Z6+0=tlL5
bL'64II = A313
j
O
Z
N
x
w
--
i
'
/ _
�_"__
i
�
i
— —_ I
_
i
_
00'—I = A313
£9+0 = tlL5
i
/
/ ___
—
0 _ _ —_— SSTi-
i I
�
00'—I = A313
Z 0=tlL5
0
—
i
i
�
00'0911 =A313
££+0=tl1£
--
__
_ %--
1 I
�9
a�
I
O zo
ZE
Oz ID a O 0
M
o

� � \ « „
, <
SITMaG
sow ? ,m f
%M11010D �iON %
7Sm7$i1W QIm&t al _, Z
o
\ \ \ /oo
\�.
: :` - .
o
!; _
/\ }/ \ / } o\ ` \
! ( - ® -o'j 1
/ - � //
/ \ } /
-- - , - : /
z(\
°I° } }CD
/ / ° } / /y>` /\} //(y
; : _ } \! _
(\) o \�-2 ®
j o
\ooloo
a
((\� }} \ §
(�( \\:
}\)3:
- }� /�� : \�
\ zo < <
\ \Y } ()
(:j 1 -Z> ^ > -
},\
\ St ~ v
\ \ { \j G
SI
10
X
` Eo \
, /, - /j
\: 0 z ! _ ` J}
, ;�
10 >k°: -
§ , ,�0
lzlz--
\
) 0- _
( : \ ±I
}\ - Z.
,
, \%I Z
| ` - \\
/
Iz
o
/ o
\ \
( Z.
` ` (� /,_

,stfMaG
P <—T
sow ?(TT,m +
% ,� _a �iO %
7Sm7$iIW X0I10&t al _,
(\) ^
-
(})
o
:o
K
/6: : (
lo
} \ _ > ,
)}o
` \ / \ j
}ij (\
o ;o
°
-:
(( - _o
}\ }} \,
- " ,
Lo
�~ } }
~ ` 1 ^ I,
- I >:/ - -
�,
. _z zo
~ :
}(\(}\ ^
` }r>}:/
\ \�\� \�
\} } �\ `
<
;
/ \ (�:: ,
\ d 1 ZO
yy\ : -
2= ! _
2 /12
00
/
/,_ _.. y
�~ j /\ \ ° ,\
\ \ 0- \
/
o««
s
Z
(

9oa��N o
si?MaQ
02IxijoaOD u}aoN 'X}unoD axing
a}tS u0t}`02�411W X0110A Taanu-1 m s«o
aom/i Yo o° o o g Y ° 3 z
/o� Groo, ao
T oo� �,
o
o
off°o
\ pY z, 0, TO
p sG
\ / '--\.;
�z_o?z s3o
, zz& a °o
m a \
o _\ice z
IQ
v _
o
8 o o
g / 'o
K o w x o
F \ v o f\%i o
o
o
o
om
ti
o,
o W v11
w _ � `il dip mp O 3 W 2 'n �0l"� O'er
w o� �� w w w m o
m o o eo
m � o
- o 0
00 0
ow
llll
llllllllllilll
lllllllllllllillllllll
llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
illllllilllliilillllllllllllllillllllllll
Lillllllilll llillllllllllllllilllllllllll
llillllllilll lllillllllllllllllillllllllllll
Lillllllill, Lilllllllllllll'�- .11llLlllll
llllllill llilllllllllllllli lllllLlllll
111 ll Lillllllllllllll' llllllll
illlllllilllllllllllllli liiiiii
lilllllllillllllllllllll,l lllLl
lilllllllillllllllllllllilllllll
_ _� llRlllllRillllll llllll
oF 3 lllllllllllllllllll
z iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii
or-- lllllllllllllllli
3ozo lull iiiiliii /o

zoaaz�N aza jai +jr0 cam
PooM� e 9T
�d ? stfMaQ
SQNV'I Q'I3IM���, %a e•x•v�
o1) 01TVIOD Ij}aoN ' f}unoD axing
a}tS notW?R!W X0110A Taanu-1 m s«o
-
--
�ol�z oWm oa�°Gw wQ LLzo °LL oo-
Fw om ozoma� x ��a�i a xLL
w�a a
o oFGo iF aio 3w owo
a �o a¢o3�3 of°owoz _ g�
wp aaOopl 3°F LL�awof Nw � o2ow - v
�lilllllilllllill
�So-<oo oN�o�zwo�ow z o
3z LLoLLGp�Oziwz oo o
°�oo� w�o a m�mz "oopz III=III-III =III=III=III -
vim
- �wz3� - a zow �III� III So
,�
__ a o 5 a 0 5° 3°_ a o III=1=1 III=1=1=1 -
oQ�� °^� oamoLLLLLL "��° v_ III III III III �
i 1N3WN Ntl8 W39NISSOaJ j0301
O w 00,
F a Po w N �-%
a� Sao - ,�, v iN3wr.Ntlew39NlssoaJdo eoi Idlldlldll- a r„ ozzNo aza¢ \OZW oa° 3=-p III III=III=III=III=n -
a°ogza �z oa�oo° 3� �oGo� u' III=III=IIIIII-II L1 o
w ._mow o� ��-G�z - �o�a= W III=111�� A
o�wz °�& 3� - ll llNll -�z�
zI Ia _ �� oF� F-�Gw wow oQo>oa >, 11=III=III=1I la °��-, W
-o- p°a° o33m w --�� G�or
3i w� a °�o w3° a LL�o az o �-III-III o�
w o J o ° C-I I I= ° o O
N �oLLG&�z5� Go 00 TGao=, of E ° dIIII=IIII- >00, ..
1.N v °�o��z���>- a- z =a- pz ,ry o — —cc— — V z
i > pI - w w - z �o �03 oYz -III of oaaw
w a� °so zsa, ogo / - i/ —IU
�03 _ moo x a _ c�.,aa z3 m¢m° �axm ( ogo mill y N
°a aim �o boa `fIT 7 III V
oozz z s -oLL I zC a i—Ili=lil=q�
0 op p zKi a - ,F,IIIIIIIIIIIII yW
zo Ga- 3 Foy oo - - - 9H-
5 w _ 3 r=1I1=
wp °8 a -
LL3QpY _wgF �_ z �z�w w
-3 - -�aoo a3a� az °
oN3pzi o o o5wap5 wz 3
oz zo< i a 5 LL3z .0
o5-ow0 0, 3: azo
ga�o GQo G _ - ol
05a o5
z
m _
LL3 m3 zo
P-. G a -
Voi a a Q z
I O o -
a N�z w z w�
z ao°S°o G a '" �I a
°- a5za5o 00 _ z - i3oz�I
m °z~paz pQz o° a3 a3 as °�wao pz
5p--a 3 z� zG om °�
ao?oo -
goCA <°°° z o3o aa3p_3o z5z o3o�p> a3 a 3 3p v
a �Co ppw a >ow opo 3� a c�
3zozW
aGo
a� 3 LL ° 3 3 a 3
�Q of 10��a�,
0ti m
E 10.
-Ta 0
�LL5°
0 y Q o
? o
x ¢ z 'O
o - (9 3g ono
C
�o pow
>ao > o- 3 �y3: m
°_ `�
ad2�'oz o
ogmooooo
'o'g^
-
a
Vv w - z5a op o
w �F
w a F z
Qa
2 / N 1zazap
LL °
G�z�G°
w a <a z�
�a p

�PooM� -T
stfM aQ
S CrN V'I Q'I3IM �3n �+1,. `ry
OIlijoaOD u}aoN 'X}unoD axing
a}tS notW?IIIW X0110A Taanu-I m s«o
�a
5Z0
oa ovaoo
-o -
o�o z�
o zoz a �T Q�
z 03
a3 i 3
oo
o
_
�``, - ti a G p 3
o
a m �;_o mo _ o00
o
z o i° -
Da 3m ~ o ZZ
Z¢ 1
o _ _ a
o3 L z Sa z3°
Lo
oyo
z°
au oCo
` - - - G zo3 �►a
000
o
zN
� Q
o
pia wa y
o p a 3 -
Lo
a z
o U Z
Q oa Q°
-
G aoo N�
a o
alo
Iz
a�
3L z 'o
a
o
o _
��� -o
G Go oaz aooQ a a
a� az
_"z _ 00 o wo
ao3 ~ oQ o
zooa _ o� ow Fw�
�5��ow _>�o5a�lo
3ga _ N o
wawa v 8 �� o�� a _
o 000a w3Gom�QoS`a�' - o
3� r
oo �_NozG_wa��a�w� zQOQ ^'-'i
Z.
of aaNa�,���3oa3a°�Poa o� - oz Nw 2 m -
O o a3 uo
QoGo�oF a o
y y - = gQo w -
o °3�oaogaoIM
+� o
-
Vz agg- zaNppo-
3a - _ z°_ ,i
0o 5 0' Ga3z5�-oGox -za o
-
W V�p_
rra N 0 3 0� uazo- wp ao G -,
G�z_w3o zoQ -oao oW
Ei
> -a�
z mG o3oG�NFaQa 30wwo
3 �z� z -z z'"3'" oo�
�NFazwG° ­o

�P� -9d
9 9
OullOJOD Iu}aoN 'XjunoD axing
NIS notW?IIIW
X0110A
Tainux
WA
3
- g
Idols lO 3ol
`a
a5
mo;I >1
T
Qo o
°g3G
aG
1
v
z
a
�o
a
m
w
z
'O
Z.°-Ko
5&�°
h og
GIII� Ga
o N
o
�,
o�
z 5p
a o
cn
3aoY
V
- -2
° °
LL
Iz
-0 ZO
og'z
03
5 ~ o ,�
J -
a
OU
o
zao
°�
a5 Fz
��
-u w
z��
oz
0o
GzN
10
-/
i FC3o _
o
-
ova
-p
Oz
T
Y
�o
moil
>
i
o z o
3
-
1 =zp
z
WA ldolsdo loi
i 5
IdAA rNvs Io doi
-
ITS,
o
3a
ga
a° z z
z <
d
<00
g?
O
>ao° 0
oYgg
ago r
a�,p3ga
y
yr,
w
Na_�,
of
u`
a3z
-
u a
agJ
O
oo
°000pWa
a5�
°�ga�a°
w
-
azm
-
3
�a0-oV a o-
-
3-Wz3a z
-
�"'Tu o ° - gm0mz� a��
°o
m3?m
w�
aG
O
0
_
C
m�zg oa 30oa z
- - a o
-
'
°
g
- 3z
_�0
p
°ego _W°13°
ozG ww'<o 0gQ
_- - U
zG
�Oz
00
c
z
�o�g�0
�✓ia0 ✓i��
o
N 3Z
~ p5
3w
�Q ag
O
-lz
o�agog5
z
o�gozQ=azoa°=
3
of 'mow

� w
w
�
8
a �
x o
i
�
S
�
z
0
o
w
�
°
�
z
s
�
stfM aQ
S CrN V'I Q'I3IM �3n �+1,. `ry
0IlijoaOD u}aoN 'X}unoD axing
a}tS notW?IIIW X0110A Taanu-I m s«o
--
pG I
_a3a
2 3 oo oW �F xv og a a
ho
o>o'ogG - Q, ° v�o 03 �o Fz
o ` -a ° a�oNa --�7 - x'o- o ,o °�-o3V�
1 G — ° o
cg T w z oGa=
OF
woo
3Gz3o ap�-
o == zw
y 2
wIzzogma°IFaaa
8-0
/ 3
�3
?z m
0p
Lon
0 3
_ z o
8 0
3 _ �a °o -
3 3 a3
3
/j - _ a
-°ti ti -
zo
/\ z =3 < - 8
o
a3¢
=u3 _
o o - - OF
FQ Q= V
El El El El / _ _
0000 El a
/. �
❑ 0 0 ❑ ❑ °
m ❑0000� v El El El El El o
3 / a z
❑ o 0 0 0 "�
3 ❑000❑/� [. x _ _ W
❑0000]l
❑ ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
El <
o
00000� x'
000003�?imm a
o rTi Z
❑0000� N m a
❑0000�
I I I I
I I I I
a \
aF - /� �a /
-L lo
o3 // _ Ixl�l
`moo _
y z
as a i -al\moo
a - _ m-GSo2 II

9oaaz�Naza,a� �,® �aa�
�PooM� -T
S Q N V3'I Q'I3I MstfMaG
C�? 00 0IxijoaOD u}aoN 'X}unoD axing
a}tS notW?IIIW X0110A Taanu-I
76c m
E c -
4e -a 3e 2-5
.taa gA.e
'-ego
IE o pV
a ~
_°
isoEa
Sac - 3 o w c E E °' m E 3 ° 3 n_ v 3 c _ r .3 a A - a s l
yip °A rc o m 9__ m v n E o
Z
O .i ry m a in ,o n m m ,y ry m ¢ .i ry
75
Z o a 3 a` 0 3 _ -- _ n E
uw
z c - Z - n 3 0 - 3 v-- - o. a - - -= 5 E E (C
z6 `a LE E�, _ - _ `o3c W `o o`_ r'--1
'� 0`3 �v c 3n -
a._ �Z a'0 39 0 o o�,
¢V nEc _ _=
9 3 n Q c o o n�� m
m a o
m N m a F+i
w
a L
o

S Q N V3'I Q'I3I M
t All
+jr Si
C�? ol
SITMaa
0IxijoaOD u}aoN 'X}unoD axing
a}tS notW?IIIW X0110A Taanu-I
FEa
_
s� xEv
C
o
--
fL v E
3 K
6
m
E o
sE
HI C
frn
o
-
E_
4N
�3 vo
_
€SA
�V
-a5a z
C
cew
E
Es
j�E
o�
€
4 Q
S E
�fr
g=o5>
_
B
s
E_
oe c'fr oR c'fr oxr c'fr
'-
as -
m8.�`
v
o
No
�
Go
a�3s
w 3 vo
o
ao E Eo`Ev
o
O aEs
G 636Eo
oo oo
o
o
G a 3 o s Eo
75

APPENDIX 13
Buffer Width Credit Adjustment

\ %
; } }
2kk/J9!!!!!
! !_,!£(||||E
�coE f -
!n. z8 , 00dddd!!
2:lam-!
§)])]§)\
) �
k24
f}§

ay.+ u
m " � Z
� u' o �;
c
p � o �
M �
m W � U
� _ w
U � A i
V T m m
._ N ni

APPENDIX 14
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation Request

Preliminary ORM Data Entry Fields for New Actions
ACTION ID #: SAW- SAW-2020-00053 Begin Date (Date Received):
Prepare file folder ❑ Assign Action ID Number in ORM ❑
1. Project Name [PCN Form A2a]: Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
2. Work Type: ❑Private ❑Institutional ❑✓ Government ❑ Commercial
3. Project Description / Purpose [PCN Form 133d and 133e]:
Stream mitigation site for NC Division of Mitigation Services.
4. Property Owner / Applicant [PCN Form A3 or A41: John Hewat, Jr.
5. Agent / Consultant [PNC Form A5 — or ORM Consultant ID Number]:
Win Taylor Wildlands Engineering
6. Related Action ID Number(s) [PCN Form 135b]:
7. Project Location— Coordinates, Street Address, and/or Location Description [PCN Form Blb]:
35.703225 /-81.642877 3923 Hawkins Dr Morganton, NC
8. Project Location— Tax Parcel ID [PCN Form Bla]: 2712409543
9. Project Location — County [PCN Form A2b]: Burke
10. Project Location — Nearest Municipality or Town [PCN Form A2c]: Morganton
11. Project Information — Nearest Waterbody [PCN Form 132a]: East Prong Hunting Creek
12. Watershed / 8-Digit Hydrologic Unit Code [PCN Form 132c]: Catawba 03050101
Authorization: Section 10 ❑ Section 404 ❑✓
Regulatory Action Type:
❑ Standard Permit
Nationwide Permit #
Regional General Permit #
✓ Jurisdictional Determination Request
Section 10 and 404 ❑
❑✓ Pre -Application Request
❑ Unauthorized Activity
❑ Compliance
❑ No Permit Required
Revised 20150602

klepw
WTLDLANDS
E N G IN EER I N G
February 12, 2021
Ms. Brandee Boggs
US Army Corps of Engineers
Asheville Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
Subject: Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Burke County, North Carolina
Dear Ms. Boggs:
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands) is requesting written verification from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) regarding the extent of potential waters of the United States within the subject project area. The
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site (Site) is located off of Laurelwood Road approximately 4 miles southeast of
Morganton, NC (Figures 1 and 2). The Site has been accepted as full delivery stream mitigation project forthe
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Mitigation Services. To date, a
draft mitigation plan is being developed and Wildlands is currently in the process of finalizing easement
boundaries.
Methodology
Wildlands delineated potential waters of the United States within the proposed project area in July 2020.
These areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On -Site Determination Method. This method is defined
by the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont
Regional Supplement. Wetland Determination Data Forms representative of on -site wetland areas as well as
upland areas have been enclosed.
Stream channels were classified according to USACE and NCDWR guidance. NCDWR Stream Classification
Forms representative of on -site stream channels are enclosed.
Potential Waters of the United States
The results of the on -site field investigation indicate that there are three non -wetland waters within the
proposed project area which include East Prong Hunting Creek and two unnamed tributaries; hereafter referred
to as UT1 and UT2. Seven wetland areas were identified within the proposed project area and are located
within the floodplain and buffer areas associated with the onsite streams (Figure 3).
Approximate linear footage and acreage of on -site waters are summarized in Table 1.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification Page 1

Table 1. Summary of On -Site Potential Waters of the United States
Feature
Classification
Length (LF)
Acreage
Watershed (ac)
NCDWR
Stream Scores
East Prong Hunting
Perennial Non -Wetland
Creek
Water
1,345
1, 274
45
Perennial Non -Wetland
UTi
2121.6
136
3
4 6
Water
Perennial Non -Wetland
UT2
Water
1,475
155
42
Bottomland Hardwood
Wetland A
-
0.020
-
-
Forest
Bottomland Hardwood
Wetland B
2.784
Forest
Wetland C
Headwater Forest
0.003
Wetland D
Seep
o.069
Bottomland Hardwood
Wetland E
0.948
Forest
Wetland F
Headwater Forest
1
0.701.
Wetland G
Seep
1
0.095
Streams
All streams on site were classified as perennial non -wetland waters (Figure 3). The scores on the NCDWR
Stream Classification Form ranged from 42 to 46 out of 63..5 possible points. Throughout the majority of the
project area, the stream channels and riparian corridors have been affected by active livestock grazing and hoof
shear. As a result, degraded channel beds and banks as well as riparian communities are persistent along these
reaches.
Wetlands
There are 7 wetlands located within the project area. These wetland features were classified as bottomland
hardwood forest, headwater forest, and seeps using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method
(NCWAM) classification key and the evaluator's best professional judgment. The wetlands occur in the side
slopes and floodplains that drain to the on -site stream channels. These features exhibited a saturation within
the upper 12 inches of the soil profile, wetland plant communities, and a low chroma matrix. Wetland
Determination Data Forms representative of the wetlands and the associated upland points are enclosed.
Table i shows the acreage of on -site wetland areas.
Soils
Soil types within the assessment area include Colvard sandy loam (CvA), Fairview sandy clay loam (FaC2 and
FaD2), and Arkaqua loam (AaA). Colvard sandy loam (CvA) soils are well drained and are located within the left
floodplain of UTi. Fairview sandy clay loam (FaC2) soils are well drained soils and are limited to the upper
slopes along portions of East Prong Hunting Creek and UT2. Fairview sandy clay loam (FaD2) are well drained
soils located along within the floodplains of UT2 and the right floodplain of UTi. Arkaqua loam (AaA) soils are
somewhat poorly drained soils predominately within the East Prong Hunting Creek floodplain. On -site soils are
mapped in Figure 4.
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification Page 2

Please do not hesitate to contact me at 843-277-6223. or at [e-mail] should you have any
questions regarding this request for preliminaryjurisdictional verification.
Sincerely,
Win Taylor, PWS
Senior Environmental Scientist
Laurel Valley Mitigation Site
Preliminary Jurisdictional Delineation and Request for Verification Page 3

urisdictional Determination Reauest
US Army Corps
of Engineers
Wilmington District
This form is intended for use by anyone requesting a jurisdictional determination (JD) from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District (Corps). Please include all supporting
information, as described within each category, with your request. You may submit your request
via mail, electronic mail, or facsimile. Requests should be sent to the appropriate project
manager of the county in which the property is located. A current list of project managers by
assigned counties can be found on-line at:
htip://www.saw.usace.g my.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiyPermitPro2ram/Contact/CountyLocator.aspx,
by calling 910-251-4633, or by contacting any of the field offices listed below. Once your
request is received you will be contacted by a Corps project manager.
ASHEVILLE & CHARLOTTE REGULATORY
FIELD OFFICES
US Army Corps of Engineers
151 Patton Avenue, Room 208
Asheville, North Carolina 28801-5006
GeneralNumber: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
INSTRUCTIONS:
WASHINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
2407 West Fifth Street
Washington, North Carolina 27889
General Number: [phone]
Fax Number: [phone]
WILMINGTON REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
US Army Corps of Engineers
69 Darlington Avenue
Wilmington, North Carolina 28403
General Number: 910-251-4633
Fax Number: [phone]
All requestors must complete Parts A, B, C, D, E, F and G.
NOTE TO CONSULTANTS AND AGENCIES: If you are requesting a JD on behalf of a
paying client or your agency, please note the specific submittal requirements in Part H.
NOTE ON PART D — PROPERTY OWNER AUTHORIZATION: Please be aware that
all JD requests must include the current property owner authorization for the Corps to
proceed with the determination, which may include inspection of the property when
necessary. This form must be signed by the current property owner(s) or the owner(s)
authorized agent to be considered a complete request.
NOTE ON PART D - NCDOT REQUESTS: Property owner authorization/notification for
JD requests associated with North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
projects will be conducted according to the current NCDOT/USACE protocols.
NOTE TO USDA PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS: A Corps approved or preliminary JD
may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security Act of
1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants, or anticipate participation in
USDA programs, you should also request a certified wetland determination from the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service, prior to starting work.
Version: May 2017 Page 1

Jurisdictional Determination Request
A. PARCEL INFORMATION
Street Address: 3923 Hawkins Drive
City, State: Morganton, North Carolina 28655
County:
Burke
Parcel Index Number(s) (PIN): 2712409543
B. REQUESTOR INFORMATION
Name: Win Taylor - Wildlands Engineering
Mailing Address: 497 Bramson Court, Suite 104
Mt. Pleasant, SC 29464
Telephone Number: 843-277-6221
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
Select one:
❑ I am the current property owner.
✓❑ I am an Authorized Agent or Environmental Consultant'
❑ Interested Buyer or Under Contract to Purchase
❑ Other, please explain.
C. PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION2
Name: John Hewat Jr.
Mailing Address: 3923 Hawkins Dr.
Morganton, NC 28655
Telephone Number: 828-443-2093
Electronic Mail Address: [e-mail]
' Must provide completed Agent Authorization Form/Letter.
2 Documentation of ownership also needs to be provided with request (copy of Deed, County GIS/Parcel/Tax Record).
Version: May 2017 Page 2

Jurisdictional Determination Request
D. PROPERTY ACCESS CERTIFICATION' 4
By signing below, I authorize representatives of the Wilmington District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) to enter upon the property herein described for the purpose of conducting on -
site investigations, if necessary, and issuing a jurisdictional determination pursuant to Section
404 of the Clean Water Act and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899. I, the
undersigned, am either a duly authorized owner of record of the property identified herein, or
acting as the duly authorized agent of the owner of record of the property.
0,
Print Name I
Capacity: ❑ Owner Z Authorized Agents
�ftz(y
E. REASON FOR JD REQUEST: (Check as many as applicable)
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all aquatic resources.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities on this parcel which would be
designed to avoid all jurisdictional aquatic resources under Corps authority.
0 I intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps, and the JD would be used to avoid and minimize
impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources and as an initial step in a future permitting
process.
MI intend to construct/develop a projector perform activities on this parcel which may
require authorization from the Corps; this request is accompanied by my permit application
and the JD is to be used in the permitting process.
❑ I intend to construct/develop a project or perform activities in a navigable water of the
U.S. which is included on the district Section 10 list and/or is subject to the ebb and flow of
the tide.
H
A Corps JD is required in order obtain my local/state authorization.
I intend to contest jurisdiction over a particular aquatic resource and request the Corps
confirm that jurisdiction does/does not exist over the aquatic resource on the parcel.
❑ I believe that the site may be comprised entirely of dry land.
Z Other: Stream Mitiqation Site
s For NCDOT requests following the current NCDOT/USACE protocols, skip to Part E.
4 If there are multiple parcels owned by different parties, please provide the following for each additional parcel on a
continuation sheet.
$ Must provide agent authorization form/letter signed by owner(s).
Version: May 2017 Page 3

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F. JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD) TYPE (Select One)
❑✓ I am requesting that the Corps provide a preliminary JD for the property identified herein.
A Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination (PJD) provides an indication that there may
be "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United States"on a property.
PJDs are sufficient as the basis for permit decisions. For the purposes of permitting, all
waters and wetlands on the property will be treated as if they are jurisdictional "waters of
the United States". PJDs cannot be appealed (33 C.F.R. 331.2); however, a PJD is
"preliminary" in the sense that an approved JD can be requested at any time. PJDs do
not expire.
❑ I am requesting that the Corps provide an approved JD for the property identified herein.
An Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) is a determination that
jurisdictional "waters of the United States" or "navigable waters of the United
States" are either present or absent on a site. An approved JD identifies the limits of
waters on a site determined to be jurisdictional under the Clean Water Act and/or
Rivers and Harbors Act. Approved JDs are sufficient as the basis for permit
decisions. AJDs are appealable (33 C.F.R. 331.2). The results of the AJD will be
posted on the Corps website. A landowner, permit applicant, or other "affected
party" (33 C.F.R. 331.2) who receives an AJD may rely upon the AJD for five years
(subject to certain limited exceptions explained in Regulatory Guidance Letter 05-
02).
❑ I am unclear as to which JD I would like to request and require additional information
to inform my decision.
G. ALL REQUESTS
Map of Property or Project Area. This Map must clearly depict the boundaries of the
review area.
✓❑ Size of Property or Review Area —24 acres.
❑ The property boundary (or review area boundary) is clearly physically marked on the site.
Version: May 2017 Page 4

Jurisdictional Determination Request
H. REQUESTS FROM CONSULTANTS
Project Coordinates (Decimal Degrees): Latitude:
35.703225
Longitude:-81.642877
zA legible delineation map depicting the aquatic resources and the property/review area.
Delineation maps must be no larger than 11x17 and should contain the following: (Corps
signature of submitted survey plats will occur after the submitted delineation map has been
reviewed and approved).6
■ North Arrow
■ Graphical Scale
■ Boundary of Review Area
■ Date
■ Location of data points for each Wetland Determination Data Form or tributary
assessment reach.
For Approved Jurisdictional Determinations:
■ Jurisdictional wetland features should be labeled as Wetland Waters of the US, 404
wetlands, etc. Please include the acreage of these features.
■ Jurisdictional non -wetland features (i.e. tidal/navigable waters, tributaries,
impoundments) should be labeled as Non -Wetland Waters of the US, stream, tributary,
open water, relatively permanent water, pond, etc. Please include the acreage or linear
length of each of these features as appropriate.
■ Isolated waters, waters that lack a significant nexus to navigable waters, or non -
jurisdictional upland features should be identified as Non -Jurisdictional. Please
include a justification in the label regarding why the feature is non jurisdictional (i.e.
"Isolated", "No Significant Nexus", or "Upland Feature"). Please include the acreage
or linear length of these features as appropriate.
For Preliminary Jurisdictional Determinations:
Wetland and non -wetland features should not be identified as Jurisdictional, 404,
Waters of the United States, or anything that implies jurisdiction. These features can be
identified as Potential Waters of the United States, Potential Non -wetland Waters of
the United States, wetland, stream, open water, etc. Please include the acreage and
linear length of these features as appropriate.
Completed Wetland Determination Data Forms for appropriate region
(at least one wetland and one upland form needs to be completed for each wetland type)
6 Please refer to the guidance document titled "Survey Standards for Jurisdictional Determinations" to ensure that the
supplied map meets the necessary mapping standards. http://www.saw.usace.almy.mil/Missions/Reizulatory-Permit-
Program/Jurisdiction/
Version: May 2017 Page 5

Jurisdictional Determination Request
F4Completed appropriate Jurisdictional Determination form
• PJDs, please complete a Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination Form' and include the
Aquatic Resource Table
• AJDs, please complete an Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form'
W1 Vicinity Map
zAerial Photograph
z USGS Topographic Map
Soil Survey Map
Other Maps, as appropriate (e.g. National Wetland Inventory Map, Proposed Site
Plan, previous delineation maps, LIDAR maps, FEMA floodplain maps)
zLandscape Photos (if taken)
NCSAM and/or NCWAM Assessment Forms and Rating Sheets
NC Division of Water Resources Stream Identification Forms
FJ Other Assessment Forms
' www.saw.usace.army.mil/Portals/59/docs/regulatory/regdocs/JD/RGL 08-02_App A Prelim JD Form fillable.pdf
8 Please see hM2://www.saw.usace.army.mil/Missions/Re ug latoiy-Permit-Proaram/Jurisdiction/
Principal Purpose: The information that you provide will be used in evaluating your request to determine
whether there are any aquatic resources within the project area subject to federal jurisdiction under the regulatory
authorities referenced above.
Routine Uses: This information may be shared with the Department of Justice and other federal, state, and local
government agencies, and the public, and may be made available as part of a public notice as required by federal
law. Your name and property location where federal jurisdiction is to be determined will be included in the
approved jurisdictional determination (AJD), which will be made available to the public on the District's website
and on the Headquarters USAGE website.
Disclosure: Submission of requested information is voluntary; however, ifinformation is not provided, the
request for an AJD cannot be evaluated nor can an AJD be issued.
Version: May 2017 Page 6

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRITION: .
Deed Book: 740 Page: 1512 County: Burke
Parcel ID Number: 2712409543
Street Address: 3923 Hawkins Drive, Morganton NC 28655
Property Owner (please print): John Hewat, Jr.
The undersigned, registered property owner(s) of the above property, do hereby authorize
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. to take all actions necessary for the evaluation of the property as a
potential stream, wetland and/or riparian buffer mitigation project, including conducting stream
and/or wetland determinations and delineations, as well as issuance and acceptance of any required
permit(s) or certification(s). I agree to allow regulatory agencies, including the US Army Corps of
Engineers, to visit the property as part of these environmental reviews.
Property Owner Telephone Number: 828-443-2093
We hereby certify the above information to be true and accurate to the best of our knowledge.
Owner Autho*ed Signature) (Date)