20200016 Ver 1_Mitigation Plan-FINAL_20210923

* +' ,_
y7 e
it 4
a
�.. „erg _ '.
. = _ Few- .
z
tR
w
F
MITIGATION PLAN CROSS CREEK RANCH MITIGATION SITE
Montgomery County, NC
FINAL NCDEQ Contract No. 7879-01
DMS ID No. 100138
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040104
September 23, 2021 USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-00051
RFP#: 16-007879—Issued May 6, 2019
DWR#: 20200016
PREPARED FOR:
11111k
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652

ANT °F DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
ati7% ��•t� WILMINGTON DISTRICT,CORPS OF ENGINEERS
69 DARLINGTON AVENUE
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28403-1343
ATTENT ION OF September 7, 2021
Regulatory Division
Re: NCIRT Review and USACE Approval of the NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site /
Montgomery Co./ SAW-2020-00051/ NCDMS Project # 100138
Mr. Kelly Phillips
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
Dear Mr. Phillips:
The purpose of this letter is to provide the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services
(NCDMS) with all comments generated by the North Carolina Interagency Review Team
(NCIRT) during the 30-day comment period for the Cross Creek Ranch Draft Mitigation Plan,
which closed on July14, 2021. These comments are attached for your review.
Based on our review of these comments, we have determined that no major concerns
have been identified with the Draft Mitigation Plan, which is considered approved with this
correspondence. However, several minor issues were identified, as described in the attached
comment memo, which must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan.
The Final Mitigation Plan is to be submitted with the Preconstruction Notification (PCN)
Application for Nationwide permit approval of the project along with a copy of this letter. Issues
identified above must be addressed in the Final Mitigation Plan. All changes made to the Final
Mitigation Plan should be summarized in an errata sheet included at the beginning of the
document. If it is determined that the project does not require a Department of the Army permit,
you must still provide a copy of the Final Mitigation Plan, along with a copy of this letter, to the
USACE Mitigation Office at least 30 days in advance of beginning construction of the project.
Please note that this approval does not preclude the inclusion of permit conditions in the permit
authorization for the project, particularly if issues mentioned above are not satisfactorily
addressed. Additionally, this letter provides initial approval for the Mitigation Plan, but this does
not guarantee that the project will generate the requested amount of mitigation credit. As you
are aware, unforeseen issues may arise during construction or monitoring of the project that may
require maintenance or reconstruction that may lead to reduced credit.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter, and if you have any questions
regarding this letter, the mitigation plan review process, or the requirements of the Mitigation
Rule, please email me at [e-mail] .
Sincerely,
Kim Browning
Mitigation Project Manager
for Ronnie Smith, Deputy Chief
USACE Regulatory Division
Enclosures
Electronic Copies Furnished:
NCIRT Distribution List
Paul Wiesner—NCDMS
Jeff Keaton—WEI

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
September 23, 2021
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Division
Raleigh Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Attention: Kim Browning
Subject: Mitigation Plan Report and Construction Plans
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Project, Montgomery County
Yadkin River Basin HUC 03040104
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-00051/DWR No. 20200016
Dear Kim:
We have reviewed the IRT's comments on the draft mitigation plan for the Cross Creek Ranch Stream
and Wetland Mitigation Site. We have made the necessary revisions to the draft documents and we are
submitting revised versions of the documents along with this letter. Below are responses to each of the
IRT's comments in your letter dated August 18, 2021. Your original comments are provided below
followed by our responses in bold italics.
USACE Comments, Kim Browning:
1. Figure 10: Crossing 2 is listed as an internal crossing. Since a utility line will be co-located with
this crossing, it's more appropriate to make this an external crossing considering the utility
company already has an easement in this area. All existing utility easements, primary roads (i.e.,
NCDOT, city/county roads), maintained residential driveways, greenways, or access corridors
reserved for future development should be excluded from the conservation easement. Setbacks
may be required for some of these crossings to account for future maintenance or widening. If
future development is anticipated, Crossing 1 should also be external to the easement.
As we discussed during a Teams meeting on September 7, there were multiple conversations
about these stream crossings including a conversation between Kim, Todd Tugwell, and John
Hutton from our office on April 27, 2021. Our understanding of the outcome of that April27
conversation was that the IRT would prefer an internal crossing in a situation where cattle will
be maintained on the site so that they can be kept out of the crossing. However, we
understood that room should be provided in the crossing for any future uses. Therefore, we
made the crossings 60 feet and 100 feet wide to account for the possible future uses of the
property. As we discussed on September 7, the easement has been recorded with internal
crossings and you stated then that, since it has been recorded, it is fine as it is.
Wildlands Engineering,Inc. • phone [phone] • fax [phone] • 1430 S.Mint Street,#104 • Charlotte,NC 28203

2. The IRT site visit notes indicate that you agreed to move Crossing 1 on UT1B to the top of that
reach adjacent to the conservation easement boundary to reduce fragmentation.
As we have previously discussed on April 8, 2021, the landowner decided that he did not want
to move the crossing to the upstream end of the reach. He decided that the crossing should be
in a specific location that would work best for him and that is where we put the crossing.
3. Please make sure to capture the wetland rehabilitation areas with random veg plots during
monitoring; particularly,the pond bottom area.
Random vegetation plots will be included in wetland rehabilitation areas in addition to the
upland areas.
4. Section 6.8 and Appendix 5: the PJD completed November 2020 lists the pond as a wetland
feature. Typically, re-establishment should only be proposed for areas that are not currently
wetland; however, in a situation where open water exists and the dam is not currently
breached, re-establishment at 1:1 is appropriate.
Noted. The pond is part of wetland area 2, which is re-establishment at a 1:1 ratio.
5. Section 6.8: The plan should specifically address how the pond dam will be dewatered and
removed, to include considerations that ensure undesirable species are removed from the pond
or prevented from accessing downstream reaches. A discussion on the pond bottom sediment
removal and relocation should also be included.
Text has been added to Section 6.8 to describe how the pond will be dewatered and how
undesirable species will be prevented from accessing downstream reaches.
6. Section 6.8:The fringe wetland areas upstream of the open water portion of the pond that is
proposed for removal should consider the loss or degradation of these areas. We anticipate that
more wetlands will be restored on site than will be negatively affected; however, any loss of
wetlands should be accounted for in the PCN.
No permanent loss will occur in the fringe wetland areas upstream of the open water portion
of the pond. Temporary impacts to these wetlands are accounted for in the PCN.
7. Table 4: Big Branch received an NCSAM rating of High, yet it is proposed for restoration. Is this
correct?
A thorough evaluation considering many factors is used when determining the necessity for
restoration and the restoration activities that are proposed for project streams.Although Big
Branch had an overall score of High on the NCSAM form, the stream scored low within the
stream stability sub function and is incised and disconnected from its floodplain. Restoration
activities include reconstructing the channel with a more stable dimension,pattern, and
profile and reconnecting streams to their floodplains.
8. Page 20 &Table 18: Based on 2020 gauge data, three of the wells already meet the proposed
performance standards. Additional data would have been helpful to determine baseline
conditions. Wetlands proposed for re-establishment or rehabilitation must demonstrate
measurable hydrologic uplift.The Corps supports a 12% hydroperiod for wetlands proposed for
re-establishment, and 11%for rehabilitation.
We have changed the text on page 20 and Table 18 to indicate that wetland areas proposed
for re-establishment have hydroperiod performance standard of 12%.
9. Section 6.9: Please include the proposed planting dates and growing season.
2

The proposed planting dates and growing season have been added to Section 6.9.
USACE Comments, Casey Haywood:
1. Section 3.5. The overhead powerline that parallels NC-73 at the upper end of Big Branch, is the
setback from the utility corridor adequate to avoid future encroachments or maintenance of the
utility corridor?
Yes, the easement is outside of the DOT right-of-way and should provide room for
maintenance.
2. Section 6.6 Stream Design Implementation. Please add a discussion on the proposed
enhancement II work that will be done on Clarks Creek.
Text has been added to describe the enhancement 11 work on Clarks Creek.
3. Section 6.8 Appreciate the level of detail in this section. Existing wetlands (A, B, D, E, F, G, H, and
Q) are proposed for rehabilitation based on hydrologic uplift- how will this be demonstrated
given only wetland Q had a pre-monitoring gauge and not any of the others?
Although pre-construction gauge data is not available for every wetland, the data we have
should give a general representation of the hydraulic uplift that will occur on site. Existing
Conditions data included in the mitigation plan and visual observations of the site prior to
construction can also aid in the comparison of wetland hydrology during the pre-and post-
construction stages. Post Construction groundwater Gauges will be placed as shown in
Mitigation Plan Figure 11. These gauges will ensure that the wetlands are meeting hydrologic
success criteria.
4. Section 6.9 What(if any) reference(s) were used to help determine appropriate species for the
proposed for piedmont/mountain alluvial forest and piedmont/mountain bottomland forest
community types? Recommend adding these to the narrative and reference section. Also, if you
are using the Natural Communities of NC, please use the most recent version of the document-
Guide to the Natural Communities of NC, 4th Approximation, Schafale, 2012.
We originally used the 3rd Approximation(1990). In response to this comment, we changed
the community type based on information provided in the 4`"Approximation.
a. The narrative suggests that the project is targeting piedmont/mountain alluvial forest and
piedmont/mountain bottomland forest community types. Please clarify if the intent is to
establish these two distinct target communities on the project or if they were used to develop a
single target community. If two distinct target communities are proposed, the planting design
sheets should reflect those communities as separate planting zones.
We updated the reference to the 4th Approximation. Through reviewing this later edition, we
determined that the Piedmont Alluvial Forest community type outlined in that edition is the
most appropriate target community for this site. None of the individual species proposed have
changed.
b. Section 3.4 listed black walnut as a prominent native canopy species on site, do you anticipate
that this will cause any issues with the establishment of planted species?
We do not anticipate any issues with establishing planted species due to the presence of black
walnut. While black walnut does exhibit allelopathic qualities, this has been shown to have
little to no effect on the majority of species found in a typical alluvial forest community where
black walnut itself is a common native species.
3

c. Please state when planting will be performed in the narrative. March 15th should be the
planting target end date.
The target end date of March 15 has been stated in the text.
Section 6.11 Project Risk and Uncertainties:Appreciate the discussion and consideration given
to surrounding land use changes and development pressures. It's unfortunate that UT1B was
not able to be relocated to the top of the reach as discussed during the site visit. In Section 3.5 it
stated that the property owner wants the crossing at UT1B to be usable for a public road in the
future if the property is ever subdivided; is there intention to sell the property for future
development? If so, recommend adding this to the discussion in this section.
The landowner does not have plans to redevelop the site. He plans to leave the land to his
children and wants them to be able to use it as they want in the future. The area is very rural
and there is little development pressure so the chance of a development being built on the site
is relatively small. However, text has been added to Section 6.11 to discuss this small
potential for risk.
5. Section 7, Table 18, footnote 1: Update to "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 and must be a species from the approved planting list." a.Also, please
add a footnote stating "Any single species can only account for up to 50%of the required
number of stems within any vegetation plot. Stems in excess of 50%will be shown on the
monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success."
The footnotes have been updated as requested.
6. Section 8, Table 19: Please update the performance standard column for "Restore wetland
function and hydrology"to be consistent with the performance standards outlined in Table 18.
This change has been made.
7. Figures: Recommend adding a LiDAR map.
A USGS topographic map has already been included with the mitigation plan which has been
the standard for many years. Since no reason for this request was provided, we did not create
the new map. We would provide LiDAR maps in the future, if that is the IRT's preference.
8. Design Sheet 3.0. Appreciate the level of detail on the planting sheets and the inclusion of the
wetland indicator statuses.
Noted, thanks.
a. Zone 5-Tall fescue and orchardgrass are invasive species.Are there other species that can be
considered in lieu of these?
These species are to be seeded outside of the easement only and at the request of the
landowner.
DWR Comments, Erin Davis:
1. Page 2, Section 3.1— Please add on to the last sentence in the section, any review/analysis of
potential future watershed conditions beyond project closeout. Were local/regional planning
resources consulted?
The last sentence in Section 3.1 has been updated to say that watershed processes and
stressors are likely to remain consistent"throughout the life of the project and long after
4

closeout." No regional planning personnel were consulted;this expectation is based on the
highly rural nature of the area and lack of recent development anywhere near the project site.
2. Page 14-15,Tables 11-14— Please make sure the DA acre values are consistent between all of
these tables and Table 5 (e.g. Big Branch, UT1 Reach 1, and UT3 Reach 1).
The drainage areas are now all consistent between the tables.
3. Page 18, UT3—DWR is concerned with flow in the UT3 restoration reach and recommends a
flow gauge and/or trail camera to document perennial flow. If restoration of this reach results in
a shift to an intermittent flow regime, DWR will require a flow gauge be installed within the
upper 1/3 section of the reach.
We have added a flow gauge to UT3.
4. Page 19, Section 6.7.3—Since the 2020 data for gauge 3 already meets the proposed
performance standard, DWR requests any 2021 data be provided for consideration or that the
performance standard for Wetland 2 shift to 12%to demonstrate hydrology uplift resulting from
the proposed project.
The performance standard for Wetland 2 has been increased to 12%.
5. Page 21, Section 6.9—Can a map please be provided to show where the existing bottomland
forest and alluvial forest communities are within the project site? Why are the communities
described as "piedmont/mountain"—are both community types present onsite?Are the onsite
communities reference quality, or was an offsite reference site consulted to develop the
proposed planting plan?
These community types were originally identified using the 3rd Approximation of Guide to the
Natural Communities of North Carolina, which does not specify between piedmont and
mountain subtypes. Using the expanded 4th Approximation, we identified the specific
"Piedmont Alluvial Forest"community type as the existing and target community type.
While the onsite community would likely not be considered"reference quality", we used
observations of the existing vegetation, the reference materials mentioned above, and past
project experience to develop the proposed planting plan.
6. Page 21, Section 6.8
a. Please include a brief description on how the pond will be dewatered and how pond bottom
sediments will be addressed during construction.
A description of the pond dewatering has been added.
b. Is the existing wetland fringe delineated and located within the proposed wetland credit area? If
not and the fringe is expected to be a wetland loss, how will it be accounted for?
The existing wetland fringe areas located upstream of the pond were delineated and are
proposed to generate wetland rehabilitation credit.
c. DWR encourages the placement of large woody debris for habitat enhancement within wetland
restoration areas.
We agree that this is a good idea and will instruct the contractor to place extra debris in the
wetland areas.
5

7. Page 22, Section 6.11—Since the landowner is requiring an easement break width to
accommodate a potential future public road for a subdivision, please address the risk of
adjacent development on the long term stability of the project.
Text has been added to Section 6.11 about the risk of future development.
8. Page 22, Section 7—Please note that wetland restoration credit areas must also meet
vegetation performance criteria.Also, please remove the "up to" phrase from the last sentence.
These changes have been made.
9. Page 24, Table 19— Is there a goal/objective that the bankfull events performance standard
applies to?
"Monitoring of bankfull events"has been added as a monitoring metric for the goal of
Improve the stability of stream channels.
10. Appendix 7—DWR appreciates the level of detail provided in the invasive vegetation
management plan.
Noted, thanks.
11. Sheet 1.1.1—1.1.5—All of the Surveyed/Not Surveyed callouts are a bit confusing, particularly in
how they relate to the associated profile views. I understand that only some of the banks were
surveyed because of the bank grading is being proposed. However, how was the linear footage
for the stream credit total calculated if the centerline of the existing channel wasn't surveyed?
The only stream centerline that was not surveyed was Clarks Creek. The centerline for this
reach was developed based on LiDAR and was field verified.
12. Sheet 1.1.5 —Are both of the existing drainage paths shown within the CE stable?
Yes, both ephemeral channels entering Clarks Creek are stable and vegetated.
13. Sheet 1.2.4—It appears there is an existing small channel that intersects the proposed outer
meander near Sta. 214+00. How is this side channel being addressed to avoid erosion behind
the brush toe?
The small ephemeral channel will be regraded so that it enters Big Branch in the riffle
upstream of the meander with the brush toe as shown on the plans. The old channel
downstream of where it will be redirected will be filled.
14. Sheets 1.4.1 & 1.4.2—Is stream credit being requested for the proposed rock pipe outlets within
the CE?
Credit is requested for portions of the UT1B channel that are within the easement. The rip-rap
lined plunge pools downstream of the culverts have been revised to a typical outlet pool
without rip-rap.
15. Sheet 3.0
a. DWR appreciates the inclusion of herbaceous plugs for the wetland planting zone to enhance
species diversity.Anecdotally, we have been concerned with Juncus effusus forming
monocultures in wetland credit areas based on recent site visit observations.
We have reduced the percentage of Juncus effusus down to 20%.
b. Please note that permanent native seeding will occur within the CE Limits of Disturbance.
6

This note has been added.
16. Sheet 6.05
a. Is eight feet long enough for a ditch plug to limit flow when channel plugs are typically 25-50+
feet long?
These are extremely small channels. We believe eight feet is enough length.
b. What is the purpose of the non-woven filter fabric lining the ditch plug? (educational inquiry
only)
This is a good question and I don't not think it is needed and have removed it.
17. Sheet 6.10—Please note that the DEQ Water Quality General Certification No. 4134 General
Condition #11 specifies that 20%of the culvert diameter for culverts less than 48 inches shall be
below the elevation of the streambed to allow low flow passage of water and aquatic life.
We have specified 12 inches of fill over the bottom of this culvert which is more than 20%and
should therefore suffice.
Please contact me at 919-851-9986 x103 if you have any questions.
Thank you,
Jeff Keaton, PE
Project Manager
7

DRAFT MITIGATION PLAN
CROSS CREEK RANCH MITIGATION SITE
Montgomery County, NC
NCDEQ Contract No. 7879
DMS ID No. 100138
Yadkin River Basin
HUC 03040104
USACE Action ID No. SAW-2020-00051
PREPARED FOR:
NC Department of Environmental Quality
Division of Mitigation Services
1652 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1652
PREPARED BY:
WILDLANDS
ENGINE ERING
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 W Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609
Phone: [phone]
This mitigation Plan has been written in conformance with the requirements of the following:
• Federal rule for compensatory mitigation project sites as described in the Federal Register Title
33 Navigation and Navigable Waters Volume 3 Chapter 2 Section § 332.8 paragraphs (c)(2)
through (c)(14).
• NCDEQ Division of Mitigation Services In-Lieu Fee Instrument signed and dated July 28, 2010.
These documents govern DMS operations and procedures for the delivery of compensatory mitigation.
Contributing Staff:
Jeff Keaton, Project Manager Suri Solis,Stream Design and Construction
Shawn Wilkerson, Principal in Charge Documents
Ian Eckardt, PWS, Wetland Delineations Nicole Millns, PE, Lead Quality Assurance
Abigail Vieira, PE, Lead Designer Carlynn Walker, Lead Scientist

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION 1
3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS 2
3.1 Watershed Conditions 2
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover 2
3.3 Geology and Soils 3
3.4 Existing Vegetation 3
3.5 Site Access, Utilities, and Site Constraints 4
3.6 Project Resources-Streams 4
3.7 Project Resources-Wetlands 8
3.8 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification 10
4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS 10
4.1 401/404 11
4.2 Biological and Cultural Resources 11
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass 11
5.0 MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 12
6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN 13
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview 13
6.2 Reference Streams 13
6.3 Design Discharge Analysis 14
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters 14
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis 16
6.6 Stream Design Implementation 16
6.7 Wetland Design Implementation 20
6.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan 21
6.9 Fencing Plan .22
6.10 Project Risk and Uncertainties 22
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 23
8.0 MONITORING PLAN 24
9.0 LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT PLAN 27
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN 27
11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS 28
12.0 REFERENCES 31
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page i September 23, 2021

Table 1: Project Background Information 1
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information 2
Table 3: Project Soil Types 3
Table 4: Project Resources Part 1—Streams 8
Table 5: Project Resources Part 2—Streams 8
Table 6: Project Resources—Wetlands 9
Table 7: Regulatory Considerations 10
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands 11
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives 12
Table 10: Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters 13
Table 11: Summary of Design Discharge Analysis 14
Table 12: Summary of Morphological Parameters for Big Branch 14
Table 13: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1 15
Table 14: Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT3 15
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis 16
Table 16: Existing Groundwater Monitoring Gage Data and Analysis Results 19
Table 17: Wetland Performance Standards 20
Table 18: Summary of Performance Standards 23
Table 19: Monitoring Plan 24
Table 20: Monitoring Plan 26
Table 21: Long-term Management Plan 27
Table 22: Project Asset and Components Table 29
FIGURE$
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Site Map
Figure 3 Watershed Map
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
Figure 5 Soils Map
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Figure 7 FEMA Map
Figure 8 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
Figure 9 Discharge Analysis Graph
Figure 10 Concept Map
Figure 11 Proposed Monitoring Components Map
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
Appendix 2 Historic Aerials
Appendix 3 DWR, NCSAM, and NCWAM Identification Forms
Appendix 4 Supplementary Design Information
Appendix 5 Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination
Appendix 6 Categorical Exclusion and Resource Agency Correspondence
Appendix 7 Invasives Species Plan
Appendix 8 Maintenance Plan
Appendix 9 Credit Release Schedule
Appendix 10 Financial Assurances
Appendix 11 Preliminary Design Plans
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page ii September 23, 2021

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site (Site) is located in Montgomery County approximately 1.5 miles
northwest of Mount Gilead and 4.5 miles east of Norwood (Figure 1).This stream and wetland
mitigation project involves wetland rehabilitation and re-establishment as well as restoration,
enhancement, and preservation of Clarks Creek, Big Branch, and several unnamed tributaries.The Site is
located within the Clarks Creek targeted local watershed Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) 03040104020020
and was selected to provide mitigation credit in the Yadkin 04 service area.
Four tributaries to Clarks Creek (Big Branch, UT1, UT1B, and UT3) flow through the Site, as depicted in
Figure 2. The Site streams are in various stages of impairment related to the current and historical
agricultural land uses.The project proposes to restore, enhance, and preserve 14,245 existing linear feet
(LF) of streams, re-establish 4.366 acres of wetlands, and rehabilitate 0.467 acres of existing wetlands.
The work proposed on the Site will provide 9,243.517 stream credits and 4.833 wetland credits. The Site
will be protected in perpetuity by a 63.9-acre conservation easement as outlined in the Site Protection
Instrument (Appendix 1).
Table 1: Project Background Information
Project Information
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
County Montgomery
Project Area(acres) 63.9
Project Coordinates(latitude and longitude) 35.232211,-80.02425
Planted Acreage(acres of woody stems planted) 43.5
2.0 WATERSHED APPROACH AND SITE SELECTION
The Site drains to the Pee Dee River,just downstream of the Norwood Dam on Lake Tillery.The Pee Dee
River is classified as water supply V (WS-V) and Class B. WS-V is generally a water supply that drains to a
drinking water supply. Class B waters are protected for primary and secondary human recreation.
The Site was selected based on its potential to support the goals and objectives of the current
conservation and watershed planning documents outlined below:
• The 2009 Lower Yadkin-Pee Dee River Restoration Priorities (RBRP) lists the following specific
goals: continuation of watershed improvement projects, protection of natural resources, and
the development of management strategies for stormwater impacts.The RBRP specifically
states that implementing projects within the targeted local watershed would result in ecological
uplift given that several animal operations already existing within the watershed and that
significant population growth is expected in the watershed.The 2014 North Carolina Integrated
Report lists Clarks Creek as a 303(d) impaired stream with an overall category rating of 5,
meaning the stream does not meet the criteria in almost all categories.
• The 2015 North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission's (NCWRC) Wildlife Action Plan (WAP)
notes that excessive sedimentation and nutrient inputs are primary causes of stream habitat
degradation in the Yadkin River Basin.
Restoration of the Site streams will directly and indirectly address stressors identified in the RBRP and
the WAP by excluding livestock, creating stable stream banks, and restoring a forest in a buffer currently
used for grazing livestock.These actions will reduce fecal, nutrient, and sediment inputs to project
streams, and ultimately to the Pee Dee River, as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on
the Site.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 1 September 23,2021

3.0 BASELINE AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
3.1 Watershed Conditions
The Site watershed (Figure 3) is in the central portion of the Pee Dee basin 03040104(Pee Dee 04). It is
situated in the rural countryside in Montgomery County near Mt. Gilead, NC.Table 2 summarizes the
overall project watershed information.
Table 2: Project Watershed Summary Information
Project Information
Physiographic Province Piedmont
Ecoregion Carolina Slate Belt
River Basin Pee Dee
USGS HUC(8 digit,14 digit) 03040104,03040104020020
NCDWR Sub-basin 03-07-10
Project Drainage Area(acres) 16,3371
Project Drainage Area Percentage of Impervious Area 0.7%
2011 NLCD Land Use Classification
Forest 71%
Agricultural 24%
Developed 5%
1. This represents the Clarks Creek drainage area,which includes Big Branch,UT1,and UT1B.UT3 is a separate
drainage area which drains to Clarks Creek downstream of the project area.
The watershed of Clarks Creek extends north of the Site and has a gently sloped valley. It encompasses
the drainage areas of Big Branch, UT1, and UT1B, which all drain to Clarks Creek within the Site
boundary. Historical aerials in Google Earth dating back to 1994 reveal that the watershed has
historically been rural and dominated by forest use. Several areas in the lower part of the watershed
have been cleared for pastureland and agricultural purposes. Furthermore, timbering practices have
been occurring in the watershed dating back to 1994 and as recent as 2018 when approximately 300
acres of forested lands was cleared in the watershed. Very few residential developments are present in
the watershed and there are no signs of impending land use changes or development pressures.
UT3 is a small, headwater stream that originates on-site. It is the only Site stream that does not drain to
Clarks Creek within the Site.The upper part of the watershed is predominately pastureland and has a
narrow, forested riparian corridor.The lower part of the watershed is entirely forested.
Overall, land use within the project watershed indicates that watershed processes affecting hydrology,
sediment supply, and nutrient and pollutant delivery have not varied widely over time. With lack of
developmental pressure,watershed processes and stressors from outside of the project limits are likely
to remain consistent throughout the life of the project and long after closeout.
3.2 Land Use/Land Cover
The Site is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures and previously deforested timber areas.
A review of historic aerials from 1955 to 2018 shows that onsite streams have existed in their same
approximate location for the last 65 years (Appendix 2).There have been minor changes to land
management during this period, but generally the Site has been managed in agriculture and timber,
consistent with current land use. A farm pond proposed for removal can be seen in the 1955 aerial.The
riparian buffers along UT1 and UT1B were clear cut sometime prior to 1955, and while some
revegetation has occurred,these riparian zones have remained in this general condition since the initial
clearing. Additionally,the riparian buffers adjacent to Big Branch and Clarks Creek and the forested area
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 2 September 23,2021

upstream of UT1 were cleared between 2013 and 2014. Based on aerial imagery, it appears that a
minimum 50-ft riparian buffer was left on the streams where these clearing activities occurred.
The existing farming activities within the floodplains and wetlands along with timbering activities
adjacent to Site streams are the most likely causes of channel instability and degraded habitat and water
quality conditions at the Site.Trampling of banks from cattle, cattle waste in the streams, runoff from
unpaved farm roads, and increased sediment supplies from timbering activities have contributed to the
degradation of instream habitat.
3.3 Geology and Soils
The Site is located in the Carolina Slate Belt 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 feet above sea level (Figure 4).The Carolina Slate Belt is composed of heated and deformed
volcanic and sedimentary rocks and is known for the numerous abandoned gold mines and prospects.
The underlying geology of the Site is mapped as Metamudstone and meta-argillite—Tillery formation
(CZmd1).The Tillery formation mostly consists of laminated siltstones and mudstones that
metamorphosed to greenschist facies.
The project is mapped by the Web Soil Survey for Montgomery County. Project area soils are described
below in Table 3. Figure 5 provides a soil map of the Site.
Table 3: Project Soil Types
Soil Name Description
BdC—Badin-Tarrus Complex,8-15%Slopes
BdD—Badin-Tarrus Complex, 15-25%Slopes
BeB2—Badin Tarrus Complex,2 8%Slopes, This series consists of moderately deep,well drained, moderately
Moderately Eroded permeable soils with medium runoff potential.These soils are
BeC2—Badin Tarrus Complex,8-15%Slopes, typically found on hillslopes located along ridges in the Piedmont.
Moderately Eroded
This soils series consists of very deep,somewhat poorly drained,
CnA—Chenneby Silt Loam,0-2%Slopes, moderately permeable soils.These soils are typically found in loamy
Frequently Flooded and silty sediments along floodplains and depressions and are
subject to occasional or frequent flooding and ponding.
GoE—Goldston-Badin Complex, 15-45% This soils series consists of shallow,well drained to excessively
Slopes drained, moderately rapidly permeable soils.These soils are typically
found on hillslopes along ridges in the Piedmont.
OkA—Oakboro Silt Loam,0-2%Slopes, This series consists of deep, moderately well drained and somewhat
Occasionally Flooded poorly drained soils.These soils are typically found on nearly level
narrow floodplains along perennial and intermittent streams.
ShA—Shellbluff Silt Loam,0-2%Slopes, This soils series consists of very deep,well drained to moderately
Occasionally Flooded drained, moderately permeable soils that formed in fluvial
sediments.They are typically found along floodplains.
TeB—Tillery Silt Loam,0-6%Slopes, Rarely This soil series consists of very deep, moderately well drained,
Flooded moderate permeable soils that are found on stream terraces.
Source:Soil Survey of Montgomery County,North Carolina, USDA-NRCS,
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
3.4 Existing Vegetation
Project streams flow through a mixture of pasture, early successional forest, and mature forest that can
be predominantly classified as a Piedmont Alluvial Forest community type.
Within the easement area, former pasture areas are dominated by an herbaceous layer of both native
and non-native pasture grasses including fescues, dogfennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), and Brazilian
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 3 September 23,2021

vervain (Verbena braziliensis). Successional and mature forest sections within the easement contain a
mixture of common native and invasive species within the herbaceous, understory, and canopy layers.
Prominent native species within the herbaceous layer include common bottlebrush grass (Elymus
hystrix), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), deer tongue witch grass (Dicanthelium clandestinum),
leathery rush (Juncus coriaceus), soft rush (Juncus effuses), and shallow sedge (Carex lurida). Within the
understory layer prominent native species include black willow(Salix nigra),winged elm (Ulmus alata),
American holly (Ilex opaca), red maple (Acer rubrum), and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Prominent
native canopy species include black walnut (Juglans nigra), Sweetgum (Liquidambarstyraciflua),
American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), sugarberry (Celtis
laevigata),American elm (Ulmus americana), and persimmon (Diospyros virginiana).
The most prominent invasive species identified within the conservation easement include Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora),Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), marsh
dewflower(Murdannia keisak),tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and princesstree (Paulownia
tomentosa). While populations of privet are found on all project streams, mature Chinese privet
dominates the streambanks and wet areas along UT1, UT1B, and Clarks Creek. Populations of multiflora
rose, tree of heaven and princesstree are more scattered and usually consist of only a few mature
plants. Marsh dewflower is an aquatic invasive species that spreads quickly through fragmentation and
disturbance and is especially prevalent in stream crossings and areas where cattle have access to the
stream.
3.5 Site Access, Utilities, and Site Constraints
There will be two internal easement breaks for crossings at the Site (Figure 10).The first crossing will be
60-ft wide and located on UT1B.Two-CMP culverts will be installed to pass the 2-year storm.The
landowner wants this crossing to usable for a public road in the future if the property is ever subdivided.
The second crossing is located on UT1 Reach 2.This 100-ft wide crossing will consist of two concrete
boxed culverts that will also pass the 2-year flow. The areas in these crossings are not proposed for
credit. Maintenance of the crossings will be the responsibility of the landowner once the project is
closed by the regulatory agencies (IRT) and transferred to NCDEQ stewardship. The Site will be
accessible for construction, monitoring, and long-term stewardship from NC-73 (Figure 2).
Two overhead powerlines, owned by Duke Energy, intersect the Site. The first powerline runs north to
south and transects UT1 Reach 2 just upstream of the existing culvert crossing (Figure 2).This powerline
will be relocated through the proposed internal crossing 2 (Figure 10).The second powerline parallels
NC-73 on the south side and crosses the property boundary at the upstream extent of Big Branch. Both
powerlines have a 30-ft wide easement associated with them.
3.6 Project Resources—Streams
There are six jurisdictional stream channels on site: Clarks Creek, Big Branch, UT to Big Branch, UT1,
UT1B, and UT3 (Figure 2).The streams are discussed in the sections below. Table 4 andTable 5 provide
detailed summaries of each reach. Existing streams and cross section locations are illustrated in Figure 6.
NCSAM field assessment forms with the rating calculator outputs and NCDWR stream identification
forms are in Appendix 3. Surveyed cross sections and geomorphic summaries are in Appendix 4.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 4 September 23,2021

Clarks Creek
Clarks Creek flows under NC-73 and through an r x:.
adjacent parcel before entering the Site limits. n `
Upstream of its confluence with UT1, the right k' y
floodplain of Clarks Creek is currently in pasture
with some evidence of cattle activity and grazing.
The left floodplain is currently in an early •
successional stage of reforestation. Bedform along
Clarks Creek is dominated by angular bedrock, -
boulder, cobble, and gravel material.The —A
hardened bed material has prevented the stream - _
from downcutting and provides a stable vertical Clarks Creek
profile with minor stream incision. Clarks Creek
exhibits some laterally instability, primarily due to
the lack of vegetation along the banks. Active bank erosion was noted at isolated locations along the
reach.
Downstream of its confluence with UT1, Clarks Creek turns and continues flowing south towards Big
Branch in a similar geomorphic condition (vertically stable and dominated by large, hardened bed
material,with isolated areas of bank erosion).The right floodplain is fenced from the adjacent cattle
pasture and the left floodplain is currently fallow, and vegetation within the riparian corridor is
dominated by invasive Chinese privet.A previously breached or failed dam can be seen along this
portion of the reach. Downstream of the confluence with Big Branch, Clarks Creek turns southwest and
flows toward the property boundary. sus,
Big Branch : �,
Big Branch flows west into the proposed project � . i '
boundary from a concrete box culvert under NC- k
73.The bed of the existing culvert is perched ;r
above the existing channel bed, creating a Y. -
blockage for aquatic species to move upstream at N '
low flow. '_` . -
Downstream of the culvert, Big Branch flows
through an unconfined valley with a narrow
vegetated corridor, moderate sinuosity, and '7-' - ;-
y,
moderate slope. Bedform is dominated by larger Big Branch
cobbles and gravels consistent with the geology
typically found in the Carolina Slate Belt. Supply of fine sediments to the reach is low, with minimal
observed sediment accumulation in the channel.The stream is laterally unstable and incised, with an
entrenchment ratio ranging from 1.2 to 2.1.Active bank erosion impacting channel function was
observed at multiple locations and along the majority of outer meander bends. Ditching to drain the
right floodplain was observed along Big Branch upstream of its confluence with Clarks Creek. While
cattle impacts along Big Branch are minimal, overall channel function has been heavily degraded by
adjacent agricultural land use and timbering activities.
UT to Big Branch
UT to Big Branch is a short, headwater tributary that originates within the project boundary and flows
east toward Big Branch. Similar to other reaches, vegetation beyond the riparian corridor was logged
and allowed to revegetate. Cattle do not currently have access to UT to Big Branch.The stream is incised
near its confluence with Big Branch. No work is proposed on UT to Big Branch except to tie the stream
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 5 September 23,2021

into the restored Big Branch;therefore, it is not proposed for credit generation and not discussed in the
sections below.
UT1 Reach 1 _ ._ $ � =
UT1 Reach 1 begins just downstream of a currently �, '. ` $e
failing culvert and headcut and flows southeast to �� � ` ,. :; vi
its confluence with UT1B. At the upstream extent, ti' T an
the channel is actively eroding and incising. • `' ��
Bedform along the reach is marginal, with some "err ;> 5
gravel and cobble size material and riffle pool ;a
•
sequences.The stream flows through an e m
unconfined alluvial valley with a moderate slope. ` ' ""► • 7
Cattle currently have access to the entirety of UT1
Reach 1 and impacts including cattle paths, ` + � p4
trampled banks, wallow areas, and erosion from UT1 Reach 1
hoof shear were observed along the reach. Supply
of fine sediments in the channel ranges from low
to moderate,with most sources coming from bank trampling due to cattle and timbering activities
upstream of the reach. Riparian corridor and floodplain vegetation are a mix of maintained pasture and
invasive species.A series of ditches have been dug along UT1 Reach 1 to drain the adjacent wetlands in
the floodplain. Floodplain connection is limited along the reach, with some sections that have access the
floodplain at high flows and other areas confined to an entrenched section of channel. Coarse bed
material is contributing to vertical stability, but the lack of adequate bank vegetation has created a
laterally unstable stream system. Currently, an existing dirt farm road ford crosses the channel just
upstream of its confluence with UT1B.
UT1 Reach 2 ;¢ :fir' :; .: .c
UT1 Reach 2 begins at the confluence of UT1 Reach 1 with , -
•
UT1B and flows south under an existing farm road before its
confluence with Clarks Creek.The channel condition upstream ;, Pr •
of the farm road is similar to UT1 Reach 1, with moderate ►k,-;A
bedform and vertical stability, but poor lateral stability. T '
Floodplain and riparian corridor vegetation are dominated by .r; ....
invasive species.The existing culverted farm road crossing is �• r
failing and in need of repair or replacement. Downstream of ,-
the farm road crossing, the channel has incised down to .. r . a. ;
bedrock, which is now providing grade control. Vegetation
alongthis section continues to be made upprimarilyof
invasive species and lateral stability is still lacking. Cattle have _ "�"� .-�'
access to UT1 Reach 2 upstream of the existing farm road
crossing but are fenced out downstream of the road. Supply of UT1 Reach 2
fine sediments is low, coming mostly from eroding banks and
upstream timbering activities.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 6 September 23,2021

UT1B originates off the project parcel and flows a s ,''south through an existing box culvert onto the Site 14'
i �r
toward its confluence with UT1 Reach 1. UT1B x1/. � �
flows through a moderately confined alluvial valley * t ,
with a moderate slope. Supply of fine sediments is k ,
low and mostly comes from on-site sources such
as actively eroding and cattle trampled banks.The ,�
floodplain vegetation along the reach consists of t'
maintained pasture with a narrow riparian
corridor primarily made up of invasive vegetation. -�� •�
Cattle have access to the entirety of UT1B and UT1B
impacts including wallow areas and cattle paths
were observed along the reach. Channel bedform
is consistent with other streams on Site with larger material creating some vertical stability. However, a
lack of adequate riparian vegetation combined with the current cattle access have created a laterally
unstable system with downstream meander migration and actively eroding meander bends. In areas
lacking hardened bed material, the stream has begun to incise and isolate itself from the active
floodplain. Similar to UT1 Reach 1, ditches can be seen draining the downstream floodplain areas of
UT1B.
UT3
UT3 Reach 1
UT3 is a spring fed, headwater stream which
originates on Site downstream from an existing
culverted farm path crossing.The upper part of
BSc i
the reach is severely incised and completely .'� -
disconnected from its floodplain and the substrate
is mainly composed of conglomerate saprolite or
bedrock. Fine sediments supplyis low at the
upstream extent but slightly increases further ,k
downstream due to runoff from adjacent fields
and active bank erosion.As UT3 flows towards the `"•
d f
property boundary, it oscillates between stable ' '
and unstable,with several observed headcuts and ' x =r
localized areas of bank erosion.There is a failed
farm pond dam approximately one third of the way down the reach where the stream is actively
headcutting and eroding through legacy pond bed sediments. Downstream of the failed dam, the reach
is moderately incised and eroding. Bedform diversity is high in stable sections of the reach but
deteriorates downstream of any active headcuts. Similarly, lateral stability is good for the majority of the
reach, outside of areas downstream of headcuts and/or in short lengths of incised stream.The riparian
buffer is mostly forested but dominated by invasive species such as Chinese privet,tree of heaven, and
multiflora rose.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 7 September 23,2021

Table 4: Project Resources Part 1—Streams
Parameter Clarks Creek Big Branch
Reach Length(If) 3,479 2,044
Valley Confinement(confined, Unconfined Unconfined
moderately confined,unconfined)
Drainage Area (acres) 16,337 1,464
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Class. C C
Stream Classification1 Existing Not Classified C4/1
Proposed Not Classified C4/1
Evolutionary Trend(Simon) V II
FEMA Zone Classification AE None
NCSAM Rating High High
Table 5: Project Resources Part 2—Streams
Parameter UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1B UT3
Reach Length(If) 2,886 718 1,571 3,611
Valley Confinement(confined, Moderately Moderately
Unconfined Confined
moderately confined,unconfined) confined confined
Drainage Area (acres) 365 725 348 96
Perennial,Intermittent,Ephemeral Perennial Perennial Perennial Perennial
NCDWR Water Quality Class. C C C C
1 Existing E4/1 G3c/1 B4c/1 F1
Stream Classification Proposed C4/1 C4/1 C4/1 B4
Evolutionary Trend(Simon) III IV IV III
FEMA Zone Classification None
NCSAM Rating Low Low Low Low
1. The Rosgen classification system(Rosgen,1994)is for natural streams and Simon Channel Evolution Model(Simon,1989)is for natural
streams that have been channelized.These channels have been heavily manipulated for agricultural purposes and may not fit the
classification category or channel evolution as described by these models.Results of the classification and model are provided for
illustrative purposes only.Reaches not slated for restoration or enhancement I were not classified(NC).
3.7 Project Resources-Wetlands
Wildlands delineated jurisdictional waters of the U.S. within and adjacent to the Site in August 2020.
Jurisdictional areas were delineated using the USACE Routine On-Site Determination Method.This
method is defined by the 1987 Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual and subsequent
Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement. The results of the delineation indicate that there
are 20 jurisdictional wetlands and one open water feature located within the assessment area (Figure 6).
The wetlands (Wetlands A—T) total 1.03 acres (ac) and range in size from 0.004 to 0.16 ac.
Approximately 0.80 ac were classified as headwater forest wetlands, and 0.24 ac were classified as
bottomland hardwood forest wetlands. Existing wetland data is summarized in Table 6.The preliminary
jurisdictional determination report was approved by the Corps on November 13, 2020.The notification
of jurisdictional determination can be found in Appendix 5.
Existing wetlands were evaluated using the North Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NCWAM).The
rapid assessment method evaluates field conditions relative to reference conditions to generate
function ratings for specific wetland types. Using the NCWAM dichotomous key and best professional
judgement, existing wetlands were classified based on the reference wetland type if the area was not
disturbed.All wetlands received an overall NCWAM rating of low, except for wetland K which scored a
medium. When compared to reference conditions, Site wetlands scored low for water quality and
habitat function and low to medium for hydrology. Wetland K scored a medium for hydrology, high for
water quality, and low for habitat function.The typically low scores in all three functions (hydrology,
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 8 September 23,2021

water quality, and habitat) are a result of cattle grazing, lack of native vegetative communities, and poor
connectivity to other natural areas. NCWAM field assessment forms and the rating calculator outputs
are included in Appendix 3.
Existing wetlands exhibit indicators of wetland hydrology, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydric soils.
Wetland hydrology indicators observed at the Site include pockets of inundation, saturation within the
upper 12 inches of the soil profile, iron deposits, oxidized rhizospheres,water-stained leaves, drift
deposits, and iron deposits. Soils within the wetlands exhibit one of the following hydric soil indicators:
depleted matrix, redox dark surface, or depleted dark surface. Dominant hydrophytic vegetation species
within the wetlands include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), American elm (Ulmus americana),
Sallow sedge (Carux lurida), cut grass (Leersia oryzoides), soft rush (Juncus effusus), swamp rose mallow
(Hibiscus moscheutos), and tall rye grass (Schedonorus arundinaceus).
Table 6: Project Resources—Wetlands
Wetland Mapped Soil Soil Hydric Source of NCWAM
Wetland Area(ac) Type Series Drainage Class Status Hydrology Rating
A 0.075 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
Badin-Tarrus Well-
B 0.129 Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater Low
Silt Loam well-drained
C 0.004 Tillery Silt Loam Moderately well- Yes Groundwater Low
drained
D 0.036 Tillery Silt Loam Moderately well- Yes Groundwater Low
drained
Badin-Tarrus Well-
E 0.102 Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater Low
Silt Loam well-drained
Badin-Tarrus Well-
F 0.103 Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater Low
Silt Loam well-drained
G 0.051 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
Badin-Tarrus Well-
H 0.162 Riparian Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater Low
Silt Loam well-drained
I 0.004 Tillery Silt Loam Moderately well- Yes Groundwater Low
drained
J 0.041 Tillery Silt Loam Moderately well- Yes Groundwater Low
drained
Badin-Tarrus Well-
K 0.022 Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater Medium
Silt Loam well-drained
L 0.008 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
M 0.039 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
N 0.076 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
0 0.024 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
P 0.004 Shellbluff Silt Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Loam
W Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 9 September 23,2021

Wetland Mapped Soil Soil Hydric Source of NCWAM
Wetland Area(ac) Type Series Drainage Class Status Hydrology Rating
Q 0.063 Tillery Silt Loam Moderately well- Yes Groundwater Low
drained
R 0.028 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
S 0.028 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
T 0.032 Badin-Tarrus Well-drained No Groundwater Low
Complex
Open Badin-Tarrus Well-
Water 1 0.741 Complex/Tillery drained/Moderately No/Yes Groundwater N/A
Silt Loam well-drained
3.8 Potential for Functional Uplift and Project Justification
The primary stressors at the Site are cattle access to streams, removal or narrowing of riparian buffers,
and runoff from agricultural fields.These stressors have led to degradation of the Site streams, which is
made apparent by stream bank erosion, poor aquatic habitat, and formation of headcuts and
subsequent disconnection of streams from their floodplains. Functional uplift at the Site can be achieved
through the following measures:
• Restoring degraded stream channels to reduce erosion and reconnect streams to riparian
wetlands to restore hydrologic connection;
• Planting riparian buffers to shade streams, help stabilize streams, and filter runoff and overbank
flows;
• Providing grade control in streams to eliminate headcuts;
• Cattle exclusion; and
• Protecting the Site with a conservation easement.
These project components are described in Section 5.0 in terms of goals, objectives, and outcomes for
the project and in greater detail in Section 6.0.
4.0 REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS
Table 7 is a summary of regulatory considerations for the Site.These considerations are expanded upon
in Sections 4.1-4.3.
Table 7: Regulatory Considerations
Parameters Applicable? Resolved? Supporting Docs?
Water of the United States-Section 404 Yes No PCN1
Water of the United States-Section 401 Yes No PCN1
Endangered Species Act Yes Yes Appendix 6
Historic Preservation Act Yes Yes Appendix 6
Coastal Zone Management Act No N/A N/A
FEMA Floodplain Compliance Yes N/A N/A
Essential Fisheries Habitat No N/A N/A
1. PJD confirmed by USACE on 11/13/2020. PCN to be provided to IRT with Final Mitigation Plan.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 10 September 23,2021

4.1 401/404
Wetlands A, B, C, D, H, and I are small wetlands located within the existing stream channel and will be
partially impacted by stream realignment. Open water feature 1 is an existing agricultural pond that will
be drained and converted to wetland.
Wetlands on the Site that are within the conservation easement and outside of the limits of disturbance
will be flagged with safety fence during construction to prevent unintended impacts.This will be
denoted in the final construction plans.
Table 8 estimates the anticipated impacts to wetland areas and open water features on this project.
Impacts generated from grading activities in the floodplain have not been determined at this phase.
These impacts will be minimized, where possible, and will be submitted in the Final Mitigation Plan.The
Pre-Construction Notification, including this data, will be submitted to the IRT with the Final Mitigation
Plan.
Table 8: Estimated Impacts to Project Wetlands
Jurisdictional Permanent(P) Impact
Classification Acreage
Feature Type of Activity Impact Area(acres)
A Headwater Forest 0.075 Stream realignment 0.001
g Headwater Forest 0.129 Stream realignment 0.013
C Headwater Forest 0.004 Stream realignment 0.001
D Headwater Forest 0.036 Stream realignment 0.003
H Headwater Forest 0.162 Stream realignment 0.007
I Headwater Forest 0.004 Stream realignment 0.004
Open Water 1 Pond 0.741 Pond removal 0.740
4.2 Biological and Cultural Resources
A Categorical Exclusion for the Site was submitted to DMS on August 21, 2020 and approved on August
25, 2020.This document included investigation into the presence of threatened and endangered species
on Site protected under The Endangered Species Act of 1973 as well as any historical resources
protected under The National Historic Preservation Act of 1966.The biological conclusion for the Site,
per the Categorical Exclusion research and response by US Fish and Wildlife Service, is that the project
will have no effect on proposed and listed species and designated critical habitat. All correspondence
with USFWS and a list of Threatened and Endangered Species in Montgomery County, NC is included in
Appendix 6.The conclusion for cultural resources per the 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. For additional information and regulatory communications please refer to the Categorical
Exclusion document in Appendix 6.
4.3 FEMA Floodplain Compliance and Hydrologic Trespass
The Site is represented on the Montgomery County Flood Maps 3710659400J and 3710659300J. Clarks
Creek is mapped in a Zone AE Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) and the downstream extents of Big
Branch and UT1 Reach 2 are included in Clarks Creek's mapped floodplain (Figure 7). UT1 Reach 1, UT1B,
UT3, and UT to Big Branch do not have designated SFHAs. The enhancement II activities proposed for
Clarks Creek include bank stabilization, removal of invasive species, and planting of the riparian corridor.
Wildlands will coordinate with the Montgomery County floodplain administrator to obtain the
appropriate floodplain development permit for the project and to determine whether or not a no-rise or
LOMR/CLOMR is needed.
The proposed stream designs associated with the Site have little to no risk of potential hydrologic
trespass for the following reasons:
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 11 September 23,2021

• UT3 originates on-site;
• Clarks Creek is proposed for enhancement only and bed elevations will not be adjusted;
• UT1 restoration begins approximately 1,000 LF downstream of the property boundary;
• Big Branch and UT1B are not deeply incised at the upstream extents, so the restored profiles will
tie-in with minimal backwater effects.
5.0 MITIGATION SITE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The major goals of the proposed stream mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality
enhancements to the Yadkin River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level.
Project goals are desired project outcomes and are verifiable through measurement and/or visual
assessment. Objectives are activities that will result in the accomplishment of goals.The project will be
monitored after construction to evaluate performance as described in Sections 7 and 8 of this report.
Specific enhancements to water quality and ecological processes are outlined in Table 9.
Table 9: Mitigation Goals and Objectives
Goal Objective CU-Wide RBRP Stressors/Sources Addressed
Exclude livestock Install fencing to exclude livestock from Reduce sediment from agriculture/bank
from stream stream channels, riparian areas, proposed erosion. Protection of natural resources
channels. wetland areas and/or remove livestock from within TLW. Reduction of nutrients to 303(d)
adjacent fields. receiving waters.
Restore and Convert active cattle pasture and previously
maintained agricultural areas to forested
enhance native Sediment from agriculture/bank erosion.
riparian buffers along all Site streams and
floodplain and wetlands.Treat invasive vegetation along Poor riparian buffer vegetation. Protection of
wetland natural resources within TLW.
stream corridors. Protect and enhance
vegetation. existing forested riparian buffers.
Reconstruct stream channels slated for Sediment from agriculture.
Improve the restoration with stable dimensions and Moderate to severe bank erosion.
stability of stream appropriate depth relative to the existing Channelization and sedimentation.
channels.
floodplain.Add bank revetments and Protection of natural resources within TLW.
instream structures to protect restored/ Reduction of sediment to 303(d) receiving
enhanced streams. waters.
Install habitat features such as constructed
Improve instream steps,cover logs, and brush toes on Protection and enhancement of natural
and wetland restored reaches.Add woody materials/ resources within TLW. Reduction of nutrients
habitat. LWD to channel beds.Construct pools of and sediment to 303(d) receiving waters.
varying depth. Remove farm pond and re-
establish forested riparian wetland habitat.
Restore wetland Restore wetlands through re-establishment Protection and enhancement of natural
function and of hydrology. Remove the drainage effects resources within TLW. Reduction of nutrients
hydrology. of agricultural ditching and maintenance. and sediment to 303(d) receiving waters.
Reduce sediment Sediment from agriculture. Poor riparian
Restore riparian stream corridor and pocket
and nutrient input wetland areas to slow and filter runoff from buffer vegetation. Protection of natural
from adjacent adjacent agricultural fields. resources within TLW. Reduction of sediment
agricultural fields and nutrients to 303(d) receiving waters.
Permanently Sediment from agriculture.
protect the project Establish a conservation easement on the Poor riparian buffer vegetation. Protection of
site from harmful Site. Exclude livestock and remove an natural resources within TLW. Reduction of
uses.
existing impoundment from the Site. nutrients and sediment to 303(d) receiving
waters.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 12 September 23,2021

6.0 DESIGN APPROACH AND MITIGATION WORK PLAN
6.1 Stream Design Approach Overview
The design approach for the Site was developed to maximize the goals and objectives described in
Section 5, which were formulated based on the potential for uplift described in Section 3.8.The design is
also intended to provide the expected outcomes in Section 5, though these are not tied to performance
criteria. Stream restoration, enhancement II, and preservation approaches are proposed at the Site.
Restoration activities include reconstructing the channel with a more stable dimension, pattern, and
profile and reconnecting streams to their floodplains. Instream structures will be constructed to help
maintain stable channel morphology and improve aquatic habitat. Generally, enhancement II activities
will primarily consist of fencing out livestock, repairing localized bank erosion, stabilizing headcuts,
planting a native riparian buffer, and treating invasive species.The exception is an enhancement II
section of UT3 that will receive a greater level of treatment(described in Section 6.6). Preservation
activities will include removing invasive species and fencing out cattle. Riparian buffers will be restored
by converting pastureland to forested canopy, removing invasive species, and planting native
vegetation.The entire project area will be protected in perpetuity by a conservation easement.Two
expanded buffer areas proposed along the right floodplain of Clarks Creek will be incorporated into the
conservation easement.These extended buffer areas are adjacent to non-project streams and are not
proposed for credit.The first area is located between NC-73 and the start of enhancement II on Clarks
Creek.The second area begins at the downstream extent of enhancement II on Clarks Creek and ends at
the property line.
The design approach for this Site utilized a combination of analog and analytical approaches for stream
restoration and relies on prior experience and observations. Reference reaches were identified to serve
as the basis for design parameters in combination with past project experience in the Piedmont, site
constraints, and best professional judgement. Channels were sized based on design discharge hydrologic
analysis,which uses a combination of empirical and analytical data as described within this report.
Designs were then verified and/or modified based on sediment transport analysis.
6.2 Reference Streams
Nine reference reaches were identified for this Site and used to support the stream design (Figure 8).
These reference reaches were chosen because of their similarities to the Site streams including drainage
area, valley slope, morphology, and bed material. Reference reach information is provided in Table 10.
Geomorphic parameters for these reference reaches are summarized in Appendix 4. Three additional
reference reaches were used along with those in Table 10 to create the reference reach regional curve
for the discharge analysis discussion below in Section 6.3.
Table 10:Stream Reference Data Used in Development of Design Parameters
Design Stream Big Branch UT1 UT1B UT3
Reach 1 Reach 1 Reach 1
Reference Stream Stream Type C4 C4 C4 C4 B4
Foust Upstream C4 x x x x
Long Branch C/E4 x
Collins Creek E4 x
Spencer Creek 2 E4 x x x
UT to Varnals Creek C4/E4 x x x
UT to Sandy Run B4c x
Spencer Creek 3 E4b x
Pilot Mountain Trib B4 x
UT to Richland Creek C4/E4 x x x
W Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 13 September 23,2021

6.3 Design Discharge Analysis
Stream restoration reaches on the Site will be hydraulically connected to their existing floodplains to
allow for energy dissipation and prevent erosion. In order to achieve this, a design discharge must be
selected that allows for frequent overbank events. The following methods were used to develop design
discharges for the restoration reaches:
• Published regional curve data from the NC Rural Piedmont Regional Curve (Harman et al., 1999);
• Regional flood frequency analysis performed by Wildlands using U.S. Geological Survey(USGS)
gage sites;
• Site specific reference reach data;
• Existing bankfull indicators from surveyed cross sections.
Results for the design discharge analysis are shown in
Table 11 and illustrated in Figure 9.The selected design discharge for each reach falls between the 1.5-
year flood event from the Wildlands Regional USGS Flood Frequency analysis and the site-specific
reference reach curve.
Table 11:Summary of Design Discharge Analysis
Big UT1 UT3
UT1B
Branch Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 1
DA(acres) 1,464 365 725 348 20
DA(sq. mi.) 2.29 0.57 1.13 0.54 0.03
NC Piedmont Regional Curve (cfs) 162 59 97 57 7
Wildlands Regional 1.2-year event 51 16 28 15 1
Flood Frequency
Analysis(cfs) 1.5-year event 143 51 85 49 6
Site Specific Reference Reach Curve 144 52 86 50 6
Max Q from Manning's Eq.from XS survey(cfs) 157 59 55 41 6
Final Design Q(cfs) 144 52 85 49 6
6.4 Design Channel Morphological Parameters
Reference reach data was the primary source of information used to develop the morphological
parameters for each of the restoration reaches. Ranges of pattern parameters were developed within
the reference range with some exceptions based on best professional judgement and knowledge from
previous projects. Table 12-14 summarize the key morphological parameters for Big Branch, UT1,
UT1B, and UT3. Complete design morphological parameters are included in Appendix 4.
Table 12:Summary of Morphological Parameters for Big Branch
Existing References Proposed
Parameter Foust Collins
Big Branch Upstream Long Branch Creek Big Branch
Contributing Drainage Area 1,464 896 954 1,075 1,464
(acres)
Channel/Reach Classification G4c/1 C4 C/E4 E4 C4/1
Design Discharge Width (ft) 15.8 18.5- 19.4 14.8- 18.6 11.9-20.1 24
Design Discharge Depth (ft) 1.8 1.3- 1.4 1.3-2.1 1.6-2.7 1.4
Design Discharge Area (ft2) 28.5 23.9-24.1 25-34.6 32.9 34
Design Discharge Velocity(ft/s) 3.9 2.9-3.7 3.6-4.0 3.9 4.2
Design Discharge(cfs) 136 95.2 101- 124 150 144
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 14 September 23, 2021

Existing References Proposed
Parameter Foust Collins
Big Branch Upstream Long Branch Creek Big Branch
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.0070 0.0090 0.0040 0.0030 0.0083
Sinuosity 1.1 1.1 1.3 - 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 8.8 13.9- 14.2 7.9- 13.8 4.4- 12.1 16.9
Bank Height Ratio 2.3 1.0 1.2- 1.5 1.0- 1.1 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.2 2.6-3.4 >3.4 2.0-3.0 >2.2
Reachwide d50(mm) 45 61 41.6 - -
Table 13:Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT1
Existing References Proposed
Parameter UT1 UT1 Spencer UT to UT to UT1 UT1
Reach 1 Reach 2 UT1B Creek 2 Varnals Richland UT1B
Reach 1 Reach 2
Creek
Contributing
Drainage Area 365 725 348 614 262 621 365 725 348
(acres)
Channel/Reach E4/1 G3c/1 B4c/1 E4 C4/E4 C4/E4 C4/1 C4/1 C4/1
Classification
Design Discharge 10.3 11.6 11.7 10.7- 11.2 9.3- 10.5 13.3- 15.2 14.5 20 15.2
Width(ft)
Design Discharge
Depth(ft) 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.6- 1.8 1.1- 1.2 1.1- 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0
Design Discharge
Area(ft') 13.3 11.9 10.7 17.8- 19.7 10.3- 12.3 16.5- 17.5 13.8 23.3 14.7
Design Discharge 4.4 4.6 3.8 4.9-5.4 4.4-5.2 4.2-4.5 3.8 3.6 3.4
Velocity(ft/s)
Design Discharge 52 85 49 97 54 69-79 52 85 49
(cfs)
Water Surface Slope 0.0130 0.0160 0.0130 0.0050 0.0170 0.0140 0.0118 0.0080 0.0092
(ft/ft)
Sinuosity 1.2 1.2 1.2 2.3 1.2 1.1 1.2 1.2 1.2
Width/Depth Ratio 8.0 11.2 12.9 5.8-7.1 8.1-9.3 10.1- 13.9 15.3 17.2 15.7
Bank Height Ratio 1.0 4.6 2.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio >2.2 1.2 1.6 5.5- 10 5.7- 10 >2.5 >2.2 >2.2 >2.2
Reachwide d50(mm) 33 68 14 8.8 15 1 - - -
Table 14:Summary of Morphological Parameters for UT3
Existing References Proposed
Parameter UT to Sandy Spencer Pilot
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 1
Run Creek 3 Mountain Trib
Contributing Drainage Area 20 96 237 173 20
(acres)
Channel/Reach Classification F1 B4c E4b B4 B4
Design Discharge Width(ft) 6.4 7.3-7.8 6.3-9.3 8.6 5.7
Design Discharge Depth(ft) 0.3 0.7-0.8 0.8- 1.0 0.7 0.4
Design Discharge Area(ft') 2.0 5.7-6.2 6.6-8.7 6.0 2.3
Design Discharge Velocity(ft/s) 1.8 3.4 5.0 5.3 3.7
W Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 15 September 23,2021

Existing References Proposed
Parameter UT to Sandy Spencer Pilot
UT3 Reach 1 UT3 Reach 1
Run Creek 3 Mountain Trib
Design Discharge(cfs) 10 20 35 32 10
Water Surface Slope(ft/ft) 0.029 0.015 0.019 0.0378 0.0327
Sinuosity 1.0 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.1
Width/Depth Ratio 20.6 6.6-9.8 7.9-9.3 12.5 14.6
Bank Height Ratio 2.4 1.7-2.6 1..0 1.0 1.0
Entrenchment Ratio 1.3 1.6-2.1 1.7-4.3 1.5 >1.4
Reachwide d50(mm) - 19 11 9 -
6.5 Sediment Transport Analysis
To gain a better understanding of the quantity of sediment supplied to the project streams and how it is
transported through the system, Wildlands performed a qualitative assessment of the sediment supply
and sources in the project watershed based on visual inspection and review of historic aerial photos.
Wildlands also performed a competence analysis to analyze the ability of the proposed streams to
transport certain sizes of sediment and to support material sizing for constructed riffles.
6.5.1 Sediment Supply
The qualitative watershed assessment indicates that the watershed is stable and unlikely to change
significantly in the near future. However, occasional clearcutting is expected to occur. Sediment load to
the project streams is expected to be low and stable given the forested and rural nature of the
watershed and consistent land use.Visual assessment of streams does not indicate significant bar
formation and there are no other signs of a high sediment supply coming from the watershed.The focus
of the sediment transport analysis is therefore based on an evaluation of stream competence.
6.5.2 Competence Analysis
Competence analyses were performed during design for each of the restoration reaches by comparing
shear stress associated with the design bankfull discharge, proposed channel dimensions, and proposed
channel slopes with the size distribution of the existing bed load.The analysis utilized standard
equations based on a methodology using the Shields (1936) curve and Andrews (1984) equation
described by Rosgen (2001). Results show that the design channels are capable of moving the maximum
size particle during bankfull flow events. In order to provide stable grade control and maintain channel
stability, riffle material will be sized so that the largest particle does not move.
Table 15: Results of Competence Analysis
UT3
Big Branch UT1 UT1B Reach 1
Reach 1 Reach 2
Dbkf(ft) 1.4 0.9 1.1 1.0 0.4
Schan (ft/ft) 0.0083 0.0133 0.0102 0.0092 0.034
Bankfull Shear Stress,t(lb/so ft) 0.72 0.73 0.70 0.54 0.72
Largest particle from bar sample(mm) 53 30 77 47 60
Movable particle size(mm) 55.0 56.1 54.0 41.1 55.5
6.6 Stream Design Implementation
Restoration, enhancement II, and preservation approaches will be implemented throughout the Site.
Further details on proposed design approaches are discussed below and illustrated in Figure 10.The
preliminary design plans can be found in Appendix 11.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 16 September 23,2021

Big Branch
Big Branch will be restored as a C4/1 stream using a priority 1 restoration approach in which the channel
elevations will be raised so that the top of bank will be at the elevation of the existing floodplain.The
reach will begin at the existing box culvert at NC-73 where rock pipe outlet protection will be installed to
dissipate energy during higher flows and help prevent erosion. Per NCIRT guidance in the post-contract
site meeting minutes found in Appendix 6, the elevation of the riffle immediately downstream of the
culvert will be raised slightly to eliminate the perched condition of the pipe and allow for aquatic
organism passage upstream through the culvert during low flows.The first 63 LF of Big Branch is outside
of the proposed conservation easement and within the Duke Energy right of way.This short section will
be restored in order to fix the perched culvert but is not proposed for credit.
Downstream of the right of way, Big Branch will gently meander through a 250 ft wide, unconfined
valley before flowing into the open floodplain of Clarks Creek. For the last 600 LF, the right floodplain of
Big Branch becomes broader and flatter and the stream will meander alongside wetland 3, which is
proposed for re-establishment (see Section 6.7). Bankfull elevations will maintain floodplain connections
and hydrate the riparian wetland. Downstream of the proposed wetland re-establishment area, several
steep riffles will drop Big Branch down to its confluence with Clarks Creek.
Instream structures along Big Branch will consist of native material,jazz, and angled log riffles in the
upper portion of the reach. Chunky riffles will be implemented in the steep sections where the slope of
Big Branch increases to tie into Clarks Creek. Having varying riffle types will add diversity and variation to
the channel. All meander bends will be constructed with brush toe revetments to prevent erosion and
provide pool habitat.J-hooks will be strategically placed in several locations to provide grade control
and help prevent erosion by redirecting flow around tighter meander bends.
UT1
UT1 Reach 1 will be restored as a C4 stream using a priority 1 restoration approach.The reach will begin
upstream of the existing failed culvert, which will be removed, and meander through a moderately
confined valley before entering a wide and unconfined valley. Reach 1 will then flow adjacent to
proposed wetland 2, which includes an old farm pond that will be drained and converted to riparian
floodplain wetland (see Section 6.7 below for more information on wetlands approaches). Downstream
of proposed wetland 2, the valley steepens and UT1 Reach 1 will switch from a riffle-pool
geomorphology to a step-pool channel (B stream type) as it approaches its confluence with UT1B.
UT1 Reach 2 will begin at the confluence of UT1 and UT1B and be restored as a C4 stream. In the first
200 LF, UT1 Reach 2 transitions from a priority 1 to a priority 2 approach as it passes through proposed
crossing 2. In the priority 2 section, a new floodplain will be established at a lower elevation to reduce
channel entrenchment. Downstream of the crossing, UT1 Reach 2 will quickly come back up to grade
and meander as a priority 1 stream before beginning a series of step-pool formations as it drops down
to Clarks Creek.
Instream structures along UT1 will consist of native material, chunky, and angled log constructed riffles.
Having varying riffle types will add diversity and variation to the channel. A combination of boulder and
log steps will be used in the step-pool sections to drop grade and provide adequate grade control. Select
meander bends will be constructed with brush toe revetments to reduce erosion and provide pool
habitat. Log vanes will be strategically placed to help prevent erosion by redirecting flow around tighter
meander bends. Several log sills will be installed to provide grade control at the end of steep riffles.
UT1 B
UT1B will be restored as a C4 stream using a priority 1 restoration approach. The reach will begin at the
existing box culvert where rock pipe outlet protection will be installed downstream to dissipate energy
during higher flows and help prevent erosion. NCIRT guidance in the post-contract site meeting minutes
found in Appendix 6 notes that the crossing on UT1B will be moved to the upper extent of UT1B.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 17 September 23,2021

However,the landowner does not want the culvert in this location. Instead, UT1B will gently meander
for approximately 400 LF before flowing through the proposed crossing 1. Downstream of the crossing,
UT1B will meander for an additional 400 LF before the valley steepens and the reach transitions to a
step-pool geomorphology. A short series of boulder and log steps will help UT1B drop grade for 160 LF
before the valley flattens out and UT1B gently meanders towards its confluence with UT1.
Instream structures along UT1B will consist of native material, chunky, and angled log constructed
riffles. Boulder and log steps will be constructed in the step-pool sections to allow for large drops and
grade control. Log sills will provide grade control on steeper riffles and rock sills will help set the crest
elevation of riffles immediately downstream of culverts to prevent perching and allow for aquatic
organism passage. Select meander bends will have brush toe revetments to reduce erosion, encourage
pool maintenance, and provide pool habitat. Log vanes will be strategically placed to help prevent
erosion by redirecting flow around tighter meander bends.
UT3
Based on guidance from the IRT after the post-contract site meeting, UT3 will consist of three different
reaches with varying approaches (See email correspondence in Appendix 6). UT3 Reach 1 will be
restored as a B4 stream with a step-pool morphology using a priority 1 approach. Restoration of the
reach will begin just upstream of the existing culvert, which is proposed for removal. The existing
channel is severely incised, so the channel will be raised several feet in order to connect the reach to its
original floodplain. Hydrology is not expected to be lost give that UT3 is a spring fed system and the
spring is located upstream of the tie-in point. Since the valley is confined, sinuosity is low (<1.1), and the
proposed alignment meanders within the existing channel. Floodprone areas will be designed, where
possible, to allow energy to dissipate during higher flows. Proposed boulder cascades, boulder steps,
and log steps will allow for large grade drops in steeper sections, while also providing grade control.
UT3 Reach 2 is proposed for enhancement II and will begin at the downstream extent of Reach 1.
Several eroding banks will be stabilized by grading them back at a 3:1 slope and native vegetation will be
planted. Log sills will be used to stabilize headcuts and prevent them from moving further upstream. A
short 220 LF section of the reach will be realigned through the failed dam and new valley will be graded.
UT3 Reach 3 is proposed for preservation and no instream channel work is proposed. Localized
treatment of invasive species and planting of native vegetation will occur in the floodplain.
Clarks Creek
Clarks Creek is planned for enhancement II treatment. This will include treating invasives along the
entire length of both sides of the creek, replanting, and excluding cattle. There will also be minor bank
grading and the installation of a log vane to stabilize small areas of eroding banks.
Wetland Design Approach Overview
The proposed wetland restoration at the Site includes the re-establishment of previously manipulated
riparian wetland areas and the rehabilitation of existing jurisdictional wetland features.Areas proposed
for wetland re-establishment contain evidence of relic hydric soils which indicate these areas were
previously wetlands prior to agricultural and hydrologic manipulation. Wetland rehabilitation areas are
existing jurisdictional wetlands that are currently lacking some function due to current hydrologic or
vegetation alterations.
6.6.1 Jurisdictional Investigation
As outlined in Section 3.7 and in Table 6 of this report, Wildlands investigated potential waters of the
United States within the project area.These areas were delineated using the USACE routine On-Site
Determination method presented in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and
subsequent Eastern Mountain and Piedmont Regional Supplement.The preliminary jurisdictional
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 18 September 23, 2021

determination report was approved by the Corps on November 13, 2020 and is included in Appendix 5.
NCWAM scores are shown in Table 6, above, and the forms can be found in Appendix 3.
6.6.2 Hydric Soils Investigation
A licensed soil scientist (LSS) was contracted to confirm the presence and extents of hydric soils at the
Site within areas proposed for wetland restoration.The LSS visited the Site on two separate occasions
(August 1, 2019 and October 20, 2020) and performed 40 soil borings throughout potential wetland
restoration areas.The soils investigation observed predominately Roanoke and Wehadkee soil series in
the proposed wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation areas, as opposed to the Tillery soils series
and Badin-Tarrus complex found in the NRCS web soil survey. More specifically, Roanoke soils were
observed in proposed wetland 2 and Wehadkee soils were observed in proposed wetlands 1 and 3. The
soil borings showed that hydric soils met the F3 (depleted matrix) and F19 (Piedmont floodplain soils)
indicators. Depth to hydric soils indicators were less than 10 inches below the soil surface within areas
proposed for wetland restoration. A complete copy of the hydric soil investigation report can be found
in Appendix 4.
6.6.3 Hydrologic Monitoring and Evaluation
Eight groundwater gages were installed to evaluate the existing hydrologic conditions of the Site and
help support the wetland design approach discussed below in Section 6.8(Figure 6). Gages were
strategically placed to allow evaluation of the water table across the proposed wetland areas.
Groundwater gages one through seven were placed in areas proposed for wetland re-establishment.
Groundwater gage eight was placed in existing wetland Q, which is proposed for rehabilitation.
The defined growing season based on the Montgomery County WETS table for 50% probability of soil
temperatures greater than 28 degrees Fahrenheit is March 17 through November 20, which represents
a 248-day growing season. According to Table 1 in the Notification of Issuance of Guidance for
Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for the Wilmington District(October 24,
2016), the wetland saturation threshold ranges 9%to 12%for Roanoke soils and 12%to 16%for
Wehadkee soils. Based on the LSS report,the current guidance, and the anticipated growing season, it is
estimated that approximately 22 to 40 consecutive days of saturation within 12 inches of the soil surface
is required to develop hydrologic conditions for adequate wetland processes to occur. Wildlands
evaluated data from the installed groundwater gages based on the above parameters for the 2020
growing season data collected.
Groundwater gages collected data at the Site between March 7, 2020 and January 5, 2021.Table 16
shows an evaluation of saturation periods from the existing groundwater gages. Full hydrologic data
from the existing groundwater gages can be found in Appendix 4.
Table 16: Existing Groundwater Monitoring Gage Data and Analysis Results
Consecutive Days in Consecutive Percent
Growing Season Wells Met Growing Season Wells Met Evaluated
Gage Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Dates Wetland Approach
Criterion Under Normal Criterion Under Normal
Rainfall Conditions(Days) Rainfall Conditions(%)
1 57 22.9% Re-establishment)
2 24 9.6% Re-establishment
3 25 10.0% Re-establishment
4 11 4.4% 3/7/20 to Re-establishment
5 14 5.6% 9/10/20 Re-establishment
6 16 6.4% Re-establishment
7 25 10.0% Re-establishment
8 19 7.6% Rehabilitation2
1. Groundwater gage 1 is located in between two existing wetland areas proposed for rehabilitation
. Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 19 September 23,2021

Consecutive Days in Consecutive Percent
Growing Season Wells Met Growing Season Wells Met Evaluated
Gage Groundwater Depth Groundwater Depth Wetland Approach
Criterion Under Normal Criterion Under Normal Dates
Rainfall Conditions(Days) Rainfall Conditions(%)
2. Groundwater gage 8 is located near the boundary of wetland re-establishment and rehabilitation
Given the extended saturation periods observed during the 2020 growing season, historic rainfall data
established by the Montgomery County WETS table were downloaded and analyzed (Appendix 4).
Rainfall patterns for 2020 show that April, May, September, and November were close to or exceeded
the 70% rainfall exceedance threshold during the growing season. Since the 2020 growing season was
unusually wet, the level of hydrology observed from the installed groundwater gages is not expected in
subsequent years.
Based on the hydrologic evaluation and hydric soils investigation discussed above, two different
performance standards are proposed at the Site and outlined below in Table 17.
Table 17:Wetland Performance Standards
Consecutive Days of
Approach Wetland Saturation Saturation within 12"of Soil
Threshold
Surface
1 and 3 12% 30
Re-establishment 2 12% 25
Rehabilitation A, B, D, E, F,G, H,and Q 11% 27
Table 16Overall,the gage data collected shows that groundwater within proposed wetland restoration
areas is generally shallow and that adequate hydrology to support wetland processes is possible with
Site manipulations. Furthermore, the presence of active and relic shallow hydric soil indicators identified
by the LSS suggests that the Site has the capability of supporting and maintaining a wetland hydrologic
regime.These findings are supported by the jurisdictional delineation of pocketed wetland areas
throughout the existing riparian floodplain despite altered hydrologic conditions.
6.7 Wetland Design Implementation
The major factors limiting wetland processes at the Site are cattle access, agricultural ditching, historic
manipulation of hydrology, and management of the riparian buffer. Moderate stream incision along
portions of several reaches also contributes to poor hydrologic function of the wetlands.The proposed
wetland design approaches will address these factors by excluding cattle, filling in agricultural ditches,
removing an existing farm pond, planting a native riparian buffer and removing invasive species.
Proposed stream restoration measures, which involve realigning channels closer to wetlands and raising
stream bed profiles, will hydrologically reconnect streams to the adjacent floodplain wetlands.
Wetlands 1, 2, and 3 are located along UT1 Reach 1 and Big Branch and are proposed for restoration
through re-establishment (Figure 10). Re-establishment will begin no less than a full bankfull width from
the edge of the proposed stream top of bank to compensate for the natural draw down that occurs
between wetlands and streams. All wetlands will be disked and roughed to mechanically remove
invasive species, such as broomsedge (Andropgon virginicus).
Wetland 1 is located between existing wetlands D and E and has hydric indictors at or just below the soil
surface and groundwater gages typically met the wetland saturation criterion during the 2020 growing
season (Appendix 4). Meandering the channel near the wetland and raising the stream bed will improve
the hydrologic regime of the wetland. Ditch like features that run along the toe of the adjacent hillslope
in wetland E as well as in the middle of Wetland 1 will be filled to the elevation of surrounding area.The
wetlands will also be disked and roughened to mechanically remove invasive species.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 20 September 23,2021

Hydric soils were observed in Wetland 2 at the soil surface and as deep as nine inches below the soil
surface. Existing gages in the wetland (gages 3, 4, and 5)typically did not meet the threshold saturation
criterion during the 2020 growing season,with recorded consecutive inundation periods as low as 11-
days. In addition to disking and roughening the area,the wetland area will be graded no deeper than
eight inches in order to help restore the hydrologic regime. Cross sections through the wetland showing
the approximate proposed grading can be found on sheets 2.1 to 2.5 within the plans.This approach,
along with realigning UT1 closer to the wetland and raising the stream bed elevation up to one and a
half feet will help reconnect the wetland and stream system.
The existing farm pond within the wetland 2 boundary will be converted to a riparian wetland as a
method of re-establishment. The pond is rarely dry, with a steady groundwater source most likely
supplied by a spring seep. Evaluation of the pond shows that it has severe water quality issues and is not
a valuable jurisdictional feature. Cattle have been observed in the pond on several occasions and the
berm around the edge indicates it has been manipulated in the past to hold back water. Wetlands along
the pond fringe suggest that without the manipulation,the pond would most likely be a wetland
feature. Based on this evaluation, Wildlands believes the uplift for the pond justifies re-establishment.
Water will be released from the pond to help rehydrate the relic wetland and the surrounding berm
regraded to match the existing valley topography. A groundwater seep upstream of proposed wetland 2
will be routed into the wetland and allowed to naturally infiltrate the area.
Initial drawdown of the pond water will be achieved by pumping the water out over the dam. The
discharge line will have a dewatering filet bag to capture sediment and debris. To completely drain the
lower elevations of the pond, excavating a notch in the dam embankment may be necessary.The dam
will be notched so that the outflow does not flow directly to a live stream channel. If necessary to keep
undesirable species from entering downstream waters, a net will be constructed over the dam notch.
Wetland 3 has observed hydric indicators in the top nine inches of the soil, with several soil borings
showing hydric indicators at the soil surface. Existing gages in the wetland (gages 6 and 7) show
consecutive inundation periods of 16 and 25-days, respectively, suggesting the proposed wetland area is
struggling to meet the threshold saturation criterion. Proposed activities in the wetland include disking
and roughening the area and grading down no more than eight inches in order to meet the bottom
elevation of wetland Q, proposed for rehabilitation. Several agricultural ditches that transect the
wetland will be filled to the elevation of the surrounding wetland area. Restoration along Big Branch will
involve raising the bed of the channel to prioritize the overbank flooding regime and enhance floodplain
connection.
Wetlands A, B, D, E, F, G, H, and Q are existing wetlands on the Site that are proposed for rehabilitation
based on hydrologic uplift from the restoration of adjacent stream channels.These wetlands are not
fully functioning due to cattle access and/or hydrologic and vegetation alterations. Minor grading will
occur in wetland Q, which transects Wetland 3, but no other grading activities will occur in these
wetlands.These wetlands will benefit from cattle exclusion by fencing, removal of invasive species,
planting of native vegetation, and increased hydrologic conditions. Restoration of adjacent stream
channels will increase streambed elevations, raising the water table and restoring stream and floodplain
connection.
6.8 Vegetation and Planting Plan
The current natural community type that exists on the site is a Piedmont Alluvial Forest community,
identified by Wildlands Engineering staff using the Guide to the Natural Communities of NC, 4th
Approximation, Schafale, 2012., as a reference. The objective of the planting plan is to establish, over
time, a minimum 50-foot thriving riparian buffer composed of native tree species and targeting a
healthy Piedmont alluvial forest community type.The restored buffer will improve riparian habitat, help
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 21 September 23,2021

the restored stream remain stable, shade the streams, and provide a source for large woody debris and
organic material to the streams.
Non-forested areas within the conservation easement will be planted with early and late successional
native vegetation (a mixture of trees and shrubs).The specific species composition to be planted was
selected based on the community type, occurrence of species in the riparian buffers adjacent to the Site,
and best professional judgement on species established and anticipated Site conditions in the early year
following project implementation. Selected species include River Birch (Betula nigra), Sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis),American Elm (Ulmus americana), Sugarberry(Celtis Laevigata), Swamp
Chestnut Oak (Quercus michauxii), Pawpaw(Asimina tribola), and Strawberry Bush (Euonymus
americana). In addition to planting riparian buffers, streambanks will be planted with a combination of
live stakes and herbaceous plugs. Permanent herbaceous seed will be spread on streambanks,
floodplain areas, and disturbed areas within the project easement.The complete planting plan is found
in the preliminary design plans (Appendix 11).The target date to complete planting the site is March 15,
2022.The growing season, as described in Section 6.7.3 is March 17 to November 20.
Invasive species within the conservation easement will be treated using a combination of different
techniques. Where feasible, invasive species will be mechanically removed during construction. On
enhancement II and preservation reaches, invasive species will be controlled using a variety of methods
based on species, size, extent, and professional judgement.The extent of invasive species coverage will
be monitored, mapped, and controlled as necessary throughout the required monitoring period. Please
refer to Appendix 7 for the invasive species plan. Additional monitoring and maintenance issues
regarding vegetation are in Sections 8 and 9 and Appendix 8.
To help ensure tree growth and survival, soil amendments may be added to areas of the floodplain
throughout the Site where material is removed. Soil tests will be performed in areas of cut and fertilizer
and lime will be applied based on results. Additionally, topsoil will be stockpiled, and reapplied before
permanent seeding and planting activities take place.
6.9 Fencing Plan
Wildlands current understanding is that the landowner will maintain cattle on this Site after the project
is constructed. In this case, fencing will be installed where livestock have access to the streams in order
to protect Site resources, including wetlands, riparian areas, and streams. Woven wire fencing will be
installed along the easement at a one-foot offset and five strand high tensile fencing will be installed at
crossings and where the easement crosses the proposed stream.A short section along Clarks Creek that
floods often will have high tensile fencing installed instead of woven wire.Two existing cattle waterers
and one well located outside of the proposed conservation easement will remain.The water lines for
the waterers will be rerouted through the internal crossings along UT1B and UT1 Reach 2. The proposed
fencing plan can be found in the preliminary design plans located in Appendix 11. If the landowner
removes all livestock from the site,fencing will not be necessary and will not be constructed.
6.10 Project Risk and Uncertainties
In general,the project has low risk.The rural nature of the watershed and lack of potential for future
land development suggest that there is very little risk to changes in land use in the project watersheds.
Forested areas in the watershed could be cut for timber and/or turned into pastureland. However, given
the size of Clarks Creek's watershed (25 square miles), most of the activities that might take place in the
upper portion of the watershed will have little to no impact on the Site streams.
Foreseeable problems that may arise on the Site include easement encroachments, damage from large
floods, beaver activity, and the spreading of invasive species. The easement boundary will be fenced
where cattle currently have access. High visibility signs will be installed along the easement boundary to
reduce chances of encroachment where fencing is not installed. If necessary, Wildlands will install horse
tape between signs to show the easement boundary. Grade control structures and bank revetments will
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 22 September 23,2021

be installed to reduce erosion potential during high flows. Beaver activity will be addressed on an as-
needed basis. Wildlands will contract with USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Services (APHIS) to
remove beaver from the Site and dismantle the dams. Invasive species have been observed on the site
(Section 3.4). Wildlands' invasive species plan requires ongoing treatment of invasive species on Site
throughout the monitoring period.There is also a slight chance that a portion of the farm the Site is
located on becomes developed in the future. There is little development pressure in the area, so this
risk is low. Even if development does occur, the Site will be protected by a wooded conservation
easement and stormwater could not be directly piped to the Site streams, so its effect on the project
would be small.
7.0 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
The performance criteria for the Site will follow approved performance criteria presented in the DMS
Stream and Wetland Mitigation Plan Template and Guidance (June 2017) and the October 2016 IRT
Mitigation Monitoring Guidance. Annual monitoring and semi-annual site visits will be conducted to
assess the condition of the completed project. Specific performance standard components are proposed
for stream morphology, stream hydrology, wetland hydrology, and floodplain and wetland vegetation.
The stream restoration reaches of the project will be assigned specific performance criteria components
for hydrology,vegetation, and geomorphology.The enhancement II reaches will be assigned specific
performance criteria components for vegetation only. Wetland restoration will be assigned specific
performance criteria components for hydrology. Performance criteria will be evaluated throughout the
seven years of post-construction monitoring. Performance standards are summarized in Table 18.
Table 18:Summary of Performance Standards
Parameter Monitoring Feature Performance Standard
Dimension Cross-Section Survey BHR<1.2; ER>2.2 for C/E channels; ER>1.4 for B channels
Pattern and Profile Visual Assessment Should indicate stream stability
Substrate Pebble Counts Coarser material in riffles;finer particles in pools
Photo • Cross-Section Photos No excessive erosion or degradation of banks
Documentation • Photo Points No mid-channel bars,Stable grade control
Hydrology Gage/Transducer Four bankfull events during the 7-year period; in separate years
MY3 success criteria: 320 planted stems per acre
MY5 success criteria: 260 planted stems per acre,average of 7
Vegetation1'2 Vegetation Plots feet in height in each plot.
MY7 success criteria: 210 planted stems per acre,average of 10
feet in height in each plot.
Wetland Re-establishment: Wetlands 1, 2, and 3 - Saturation
criterion of 12%of the 248-day growing season, representing 30
Wetlands3 Groundwater Well consecutive days of inundation
Wetland Rehabilitation: Saturation criterion of 11% of the 248-
day growing season, representing 27 consecutive days of
inundation
Invasive Species Visual Assessment Invasives no more than 5% by area in easement
Visual Assessment CCPV No signs of encroachment,stream instability, increased invasive
species
1. 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 and must be a species from the approved planting list.
2. Any single species can only account for up to 50%of the required number of stems within any vegetation plot.Stems in excess of 50%
will be shown on the monitoring table but will not be used to demonstrate success.
3. Refer to 6.7.3 for an in-depth discussion of the wetland saturation thresholds for Site soils.
. Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 23 September 23,2021

8.0 MONITORING PLAN
The Site monitoring plan has been developed to ensure that the required performance standards are
met, and project goals and objectives are achieved. Project monitoring requirements are shown in Table
20. Project monitoring components are listed in more detail in Table 20.Approximate locations of the
proposed monitoring components are illustrated in Figure 11.
Table 19: Monitoring Plan
Goal Objective Performance Standard Monitoring Metric
Install and improve livestock Fence conservation
Exclude livestock fencing as needed to exclude easement to exclude
livestock from stream channels, livestock or remove livestock
from stream Visual assessment
riparian areas, proposed from adjacent land. Install
channels.
wetland areas and/or remove fenced and gated culvert
livestock from adjacent fields. crossings as needed.
MY3 success criteria: 320
planted stems per acre,
Convert active cattle pasture MY5 success criteria: 260
and previously maintained planted stems per acre, One hundred square
Restore and agricultural areas to forested average of 7 feet in height in
enhance native riparian buffers along all Site each plot. meter vegetation plots
floodplain and streams and wetlands.Treat MY7 success criteria: 210 will be placed on 2%of
the planted area of the
wetland invasive vegetation along planted stems per acre, project and monitored
vegetation. stream corridors. Protect and average of 10 feet in height annually.
enhance existing forested in each plot.
riparian buffers. Note: shrub and subcanopy
species will be omitted from
average height calculations
Reconstruct stream channels
slated for restoration with Entrenchment ratio over 2.2
for C/E or 1.4 for B
stable dimensions and Cross-section
Improve the restoration reaches and bank
stability of stream appropriate depth relative to height ratio below 1.2 with monitoring and visual
channels. the existing floodplain.Add visual assessments showing inspections. Monitoring
bank revetments and instream progression towards of bankfull events.
structures to protect restored/
enhanced streams. stability.
Install habitat features such as
constructed steps,cover logs,
and brush toes on restored
Improve instream reaches.Add woody materials/ There is no required
and wetland LWD to channel beds. Construct performance standard for N/A
habitat. pools of varying depth. Remove this metric.
farm pond and re-establish
forested riparian wetland
habitat.
Free groundwater surface
within 12 inches of the
Restore wetlands through re- Groundwater gages will
Restore wetland establishment of hydrology. ground surface for a be placed in wetland
function and Remove the drainage effects of minimum of 12%(for re- re-establishment and
hydrology. agricultural ditching and establishment) or 11%(for rehabilitation areas and
maintenance. rehabilitation)of the growing monitored annually.
season for Montgomery
County.
W Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 24 September 23,2021

Goal Objective Performance Standard Monitoring Metric
Reduce sediment Restore riparian stream corridor
and nutrient input and pocket wetland areas to There is no required
from adjacent slow and filter runoff from
performance standard for N/A
agricultural fields adjacent agricultural fields. this metric.
Permanently
protect the project Establish a conservation Prevent easement
site from harmful easement on the Site. encroachment. Visual Assessment
uses.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 25 September 23,2021

Table 20: Monitoring Plan
Quantity/Length by Reach
Parameter Monitoring Feature Clarks Big UT1 UT3 Frequency Notes
Creek Branch Reach 1 Reach 2 UT16 Reach 1 Reach 2 Reach 3
Riffle Cross-sections 2 3 1 2 1 Year 1,2,3,5,
Dimension and 7 1
Pool Cross-sections 2 3 0 1 1
Pattern Pattern N/A
2
Profile Longitudinal Profile N/A
Substrate Reach wide(RW) 1 1 1 1 1 Year 1,2,3,5, 3
Pebble Count and 7
Crest Gage(CG)
Hydrology and/or Transducer 1 1 1 1 Semi-Annual 4
(SG)
Year 1,2,3,5,
Vegetation CVS Level 2 24 Fixed,5 Random and 7 5,6
Wetlands Groundwater Well 9 7
Visual Assessment Yes Semi-Annual
Exotic and nuisance
Semi-Annual 8
vegetation
Project Boundary Semi-Annual 9
Reference Photos Photographs 35 Annual
1. Cross-sections will be permanently marked with rebar to establish location.Surveys will include points measured at all breaks in slope,including top of bank,bankfull,edge of water,and thalweg.
2. Pattern and profile will be assessed visually during semi-annual site visits.Longitudinal profile will be collected during as-built baseline monitoring survey only,unless observations indicate widespread lack
of vertical stability(greater than 10%of reach is affected)and profile survey is warranted in additional years to monitor adjustments or survey repair work.
3. Riffle 100-count substrate sampling will be collected during the baseline monitoring only.Substrate assessments in subsequent monitoring years will consist of reachwide substrate monitoring.
4. Crest gages will be inspected quarterly or semi-annually,evidence of bankfull events will be documented with a photo when possible.
5. Vegetation monitoring will follow CVS protocols.
6. The number and location of vegetation plots was determined using the area of planted acreage proposed for crediting.
7. Groundwater wells will be inspected and downloaded quarterly or semi-annually.
8. Locations of exotic and nuisance vegetation will be mapped
9. Locations of vegetation damage,boundary encroachments,etc.will be mapped.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 26 September 23,2021

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 holder and long-term steward for
the property and will conduct periodic inspection of the Site to ensure that restrictions required in the
conservation easement are upheld. Funding will be supplied by the responsible party on a yearly basis
until such time an endowment is established. The NCDEQ Stewardship Program is developing an
endowment system within the non-reverting, interest-bearing Conservation Lands Conservation Fund
Account.The use of funds from the Endowment Account will be governed by North Carolina General
Statue GS 113A-232(d)(3). Interest gained by the endowment fund may be used for the purpose of
stewardship, monitoring, stewardship administration, and land transaction costs, if applicable.
The 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 underlying fee to maintain.
The Site Protection Instrument can be found in Appendix 1.
Table 21: Long-term Management Plan
Long-Term Management Activity Long-Term Manager Responsibility Landowner Responsibility
The long-term manager will be
responsible for conducting annual
inspections and for undertaking
actions that are reasonably calculated The landowner shall contact the
The Site will be protected in its to swiftly correct the conditions long-term manager if clarification
entirety and managed under the constituting a breach.The USACE, and is needed regarding the
terms outlined in the recorded their authorized agents,shall have the restrictions associated with the
conservation easement.
right to enter and inspect the Site and recorded conservation easement.
to take actions necessary to verify
compliance with the conservation
easement.
10.0 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN
Upon completion of Site construction, Wildlands will implement the post-construction monitoring
defined in Sections 8 and 9. Project maintenance will be performed during the monitoring years to
address minor issues as necessary(Appendix 8). If, during the course of annual monitoring, it is
determined the site's ability to achieve site performance standards are jeopardized, DMS will notify the
USACE of the need to develop a Plan of Corrective Action.The Plan of Corrective Action may be
prepared using in-house technical staff or may require engineering and consulting services. Once the
Corrective Action Plan is prepared and finalized DMS will:
• Notify the USACE as required by the Nationwide 27 permit general conditions.
• Revise performance standards, maintenance requirements, and monitoring requirements as
necessary and/or required by the USACE.
• Obtain other permits as necessary.
• Implement the Corrective Action Plan.
• Provide the USACE a Record Drawing of Corrective Actions.This document shall depict the
extent and nature of the work performed.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 27 September 23,2021

11.0 DETERMINATION OF CREDITS
The final stream credits associated with the Site are listed in Table 22.The credit ratios proposed for the
Site are based on discussions with the Interagency Review Team (IRT):
1. Stream restoration is proposed at a credit ratio of 1:1 to reflect the moderate to severe channel
incision and erosion that will require repair through channel realignment, profile adjustments,
and structure placement.
2. Enhancement II is proposed at different ratios throughout the Site to reflect different stressors
and levels of proposed treatment. UT3 Reach 2 is proposed at a 3:1 credit ratio to reflect the
moderate incision and areas of severe erosion that will require repair. Clarks Creek is proposed
at a 4:1 credit ratio to acknowledge that the stream requires only spot stabilization and buffer
planting and is not currently accessed by cattle.
3. Stream preservation is proposed at a credit ratio of 10:1.
4. Wetland re-establishment, which includes the converted existing pond area, is proposed at a 1:1
credit ratio for areas with relic hydric soils that have been historically manipulated.
5. Wetland rehabilitation is proposed at 1.5:1 to acknowledge the impacts that cattle, invasive
species, and ditching have had on wetland hydrology, vegetation, and overall function.
6. No credit is sought for stream restoration activities in internal easement crossings or utility
right-of-ways.
Buffers proposed throughout the Site meet the minimum required 50-foot standard width for Piedmont
streams, and in most cases, exceed it.The expanded buffer areas previously discussed in Section 6.1 are
not proposed for credit.
The credit release schedule can be found in Appendix 9.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 28 September 23,2021

Table 22: Project Asset and Components Table
Original As-Built Original
Original Original
Mitigation Plan Footage or Mitigation
Project Segment Footage/ Acreage Mitigation Restoration Ratio Credits Comments
Acreage Category Level (X:1)
Clarks Creek 3,479 Warm ElI 4 869.750
Big Branch Not for 64 Warm R 1 0.000 DOT ROW
Credit
Big Branch 2,133 Warm R 1 2133.000
UT1 Reach 1 2,821 Warm R 1 2821.000
UT1 Reach 2 164 Warm R 1 164.000
UT1 Reach 2 Not for 100 Warm R 1 0.000 Culvert Crossing
Credit
UT1 Reach 2 423 Warm R 1 423.000
UT1B 373 Warm R 1 373.000
UT1B- Not for Credit 62 Warm R 1 0.000 Culvert Crossing
UT1B 868 Warm R 1 868.000
UT3- Not for Credit 33 Warm R 1 0.000 Non-Jurisdictional
UT3 Reach 1 748 Warm R 1 748.000
UT3 Reach 2 2,432 Warm ElI 3 810.667
UT3 Reach 3 331 Warm P 10 33.100
Wetland 1 0.442 Riparian R 1 0.422
Wetland 21 2.163 Riparian R 1 2.163
Wetland 3 1.781 Riparian R 1 1.781
Wetland A 0.075 Riparian RH 1.5 0.05
Wetland B 0.116 Riparian RH 1.5 0.077
Wetland D 0.033 Riparian RH 1.5 0.022
Wetland E 0.102 Riparian RH 1.5 0.068
Wetland F 0.103 Riparian RH 1.5 0.069
Wetland G 0.051 Riparian RH 1.5 0.034
Wetland H 0.158 Riparian RH 1.5 0.105
Wetland Q 0.063 Riparian RH 1.5 0.042
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 29 September 23,2021

Project Credits
Stream Riparian Non-Rip Coastal
Restoration Level
Warm Cool Cold Wetland Wetland Marsh
Restoration' 7,530.000
Re-establishment 4.366
Rehabilitation 0.467
Enhancement
Enhancement I
Enhancement II 1,680.417
Creation
Preservation 33.100
Totals 9,243.517 4.833
1. Wetland 2 boundary includes conversion of the existing farm pond to wetland.
2. Crossing lengths have been removed from restoration footage.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 30 September 23,2021

12.0 REFERENCES
Harman, W.H., et al. 1999. Bankfull Hydraulic Geometry Relationships for North Carolina
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection Division of Water Resources
Management. 1996. Rapid Stream Assessment Technique (RSAT)Field Methods. Montgomery County,
Maryland.
Natural Resources Conservation Service(NRCS). Web Soil Survey of Montgomery County.
http://websoilsurvey.nres.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), 2009. Upper Yadkin River Basin Restoration
Priorities.
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/Yadkin River Basin/2009%20
Upper%20Yadkin%2ORBRP Final%20Final%2C%2026feb%2709.pdf
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ), 2011. Surface Water Classifications.
http://deq.nc.gov/about/divisions/water-resources/planning/classification-standards/classifications
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2015. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. Raleigh, NC.
http://ncwildlife.org/Portals/0/Conserving/documents/2015WildlifeActionPlan/NC-WAP-2015-All-
Documents.pdf
Rosgen, D. L. 1994.A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22:169-199.
Rosgen, D.L. 2001. A stream channel stability assessment methodology. Proceedings of the Federal
Interagency Sediment Conference, Reno, NV, March 2001.
Simon, A. 1989. A model of channel response in disturbed alluvial channels. Earth Surface Processes and
Landforms 14(1):11-26.
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2016. Federal Public Notice: Notification of Issuance of
Guidance for Compensatory Stream and Wetland Mitigation Conducted for Wilmington District.
October 24, 2016.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS), 2014. Endangered Species,Threatened Species, Federal
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site DRAFT Mitigation Plan
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 31 September 23,2021

03040104010010i :r • • .® ' i r
. /' iril _ ... : . . .;New.4.r. . . . .- ....... I
' • • Eon' i 1, ..N...
\--, li
C�-r� ' •t: • • • l 03040104040020
��J of v •, ' •.. • • • .Uwharrie National For Uwharrie National Forest —`
1 l �
` i NC DMS Easement
03040.1' _
/// •
Randle House 1 • • ""03040104020010•
AV, r' 1 1• . . • . • . . . . . .j C DMS Easement- `
it .• .
%,,,v� %Rj 5, 03040104020020
`�/ Q I 1 ;' . ;I Project Location H --. 1
V1y) •N.••4i: )*I.. Y%ice / t-Jordan Field Airport
t.
. r.I\ / ? I
Norwood \ v'P• ! I \
C4 u.„w•Lake Tillery r
1( ti ! r Mount Gilead Downtown Historic District
CI
' `� •� c. 'z ♦ - J 03040104040030 1
G111411t I
• f /
ak
l` , Three Rivers Land Trust Easement /
\--i
03040105060080 03040104010030 1 N Yadkin/Middle Pee Dee
\� River Aquatic'1Fl�abitat 0
Fork Beaver Ponds ` . ..•tip `
52 ` `R
i y
• t
spgN`r ` I 03040104020040
7 _ Catawba I ands Conservancy
Ir 03040105081060`.�4sory ,pg ._� Easeme+t-The Fork ' I \
•
• t, '/ MONTGOMERY ` �,
IllirAutk
r .' 1:\ i /
`` .-,: RICH MOND
114
Project Location j _ _I Hydrologic Unit Code (14-Digit) NC Natural Heritage Program Managed Areas
Five Mile Radius ; ; ; ; Water Supply Watershed 303d Listed Streams
L.._.! County Targeted Local Watersheds Water Features
= Municipalities r/ Local Watershed Plans © Airports
M Yadkin River Basin (03040104) NC Historic Preservation Areas •
1 Significant Natural Heritage Areas
030_40,104061030R L I I _ ' 03040104070020
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
kt'WI LD LAND S 0 0.75 1.5 Miles , Yadkin River Basin 03040104
ENGINEERING
I I 1 I 1 N Montgomery County, NC

yr41-14:-,..._ ' ,w ,
Project Location • _ �. r +• . a•km. _e. - _ " v _ _ --' -.. _ .. - Yg N.
011111135
- - -
,� Proposed Conservation Easement * - ti_��. I f • � fir ' "IOW: , - • - - -:r-.Y _ ' ' :r•,.
Existing Wetlands •fir t i ` *` �"{
Existing Pond '
Existing Utility Easement • los•
;�`• -•. ' '
Project Streams h, i;,
..
Non-Project Streams 1 - - • ' -
=== ,� -�Existing Farm Road , 1'
-- Existing Utility Line \. �' ��/� `s.t-I ‘,\
i
•) • ' ' MI,P-•-,--- ,,,,„
• ..
`.+ it i .
` *% ♦ ..
�v * �_ a .s ; C
.111.11
M is '
3y Existing Culvert'
A o•_ _.ir / \ o Crossing *. 2\
1_ r ' t '.' v
r'' %tAJ - \' • II R
•+.. i • Pe, .k.4 .:l
lit' V
„ 4 _fir• * •♦ , - ♦-- - eta\\
ativisitarot
ry F i. r .�.
•
t ♦ •
i� a ; %r die, r 04 ' .a-.t ..-. r r;•
• \
yy/��yy '4; =_s N.
;r, ! `- =
. 4 ► • ,.Y ,_4, - ,C: * . - ems:' �?! 1C�i `4 - - _.lR } ..
'sT! i � r' `. .; - •i am 'T. ', y .iL -L._• .,..
, ' ',44;:i!'-'-' " ' :. .!N.
Ilktil,( . . . , ,., ,,,.Aik A fir: Le!+ _ y ;r.. ,
*a
1111:1111\40;,.
.i. - � ,,in7�•;ti ,■_ ,M i `- •L ` ...x. •�1 r - �.``- y :;r +�,', (i :�s. fit. ,,uµ►4{+.yt.
' t ilk h 'VIZ. . ■ •"�_ • -♦�l -� • �`a"�1.,. .?.� ',.• . '.,�•rl��g ,' .��• '�t -' • - ` • • C-.��i`..- 'r,, •:{ _' ��.kr
si,.... :
__.
. . .
... _ ,. .,,,,,_,
.,, _.
3 a 1• -nal Photography
Figure 2 Site Map
%illy* \1V I L D L A N D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
0 450 900 FeetENG€NEERING Yadkin\R�
I I I
Montgomery County, NC

•� ._
.fr•� n
M Watersheds f 4 1 AS ti v_oGkY c.
Subwatersheds f
6.
Project Streams - . '•';,kr 4.. --ti 4 'y. •fir n'
Non-Project Streams ,,,,t4 +.- ' '$ � <, 5
t.%'i t -� r 7 6
Topographic Contours (4) ' , t! . 1
14l`1 A ' o w��°" •
y
,:� i {
•� "� '+• Roc MY C'
", • '. • !-; \ ill
.F. A.- • •,,, Clarks Creek (16,337 ac)
_if ,s,„,
`t4
I I i k,i''' ,2,,:r4(1'''''''c,, I
i• ,1
1., Big Branch (1 ,464 AC)
II. r i
_ ♦L �4K l
Clarks Creek (16,337 AC)
\4%., ,,, ---,,,...
m
UT1 B (348 AC)
UT1 (725 AC)
4
m 4
Big Branch (1 ,464 AC)
r ,r-- ;l' f?, ti = UT3 (96 AC) •
1I.
_ •- • a - -.. r -
{
'
04,
. '
l 41, ll. .l Y' :..�::'ST.. lr, t -.. :;
t i
YY--
•••2019AerialPeotography _
:a �a d- _ __ iC /
Figure 3 Watershed Map
illkii1110,1rW I L D L A N D S 0 1,000 2,000 Feet Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
E N G I N E E R I N G I I I I I N Yadkin River Basin 03040104
Montgomery County, NC

7.--„ ,—.....,---
//." ,:_---f --------,-/
Troposed Conservation Easement 1 l 1 • •
i___ _,
--.....
•
, .
.„,
r�am NC 73
<_,. .n
:..... .
♦' • 1 I) '•
�M
\ ' '''''',.. -,-.•-••••_.,...„.. .,.:,....... \S ••
\ \ S7
J ii NAP"
•.. 'frisk, 'S --444‘______4,•,) , ,
.., .._.,- , ...•.. '4 i
,.. , — ...,.;...-.„5-:::'____ ........
u•-. N. . • ./ 11 c'
r''''''.\-:..
N. _ -�„„ i
f I ......- ..... ) siCe0C
-...„.;72r11 .*- ‘0 Crl\ ----."---- .--.._,, ' 1 \ --------\
2....„.
•
• '-TI"Iglir---;..--\___ n\-.----N/1
rIN -.,‘ (
„,..,„\ ..(.-//>F:
_____ ..._______,......44......i.k.,i,(------r""N_,,,."0. 5 ,x, f
/ ../ 2 C34 •
C)0
rA.-.-.'—� .�.� �J p ire ♦` •; r
it?
---f....,,,,-----.: • ,.. /
-......... •• .— •-•••••,,, 3;01l) **"' ;
/ -\\
0 /0
*:"/..? (: L-------.---.------:.\\ ,
II tr‘
?A 461-61.9 ,,___-
----.N\\.-------- \\) .________„____ _
5Q—r 0
Mount Gilead West, NC USGS US Topo 7.5 - Minute Topographic Quadrangle � ""�� 1CfN,,„�Y++
Figure 4 USGS Topographic Map
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
0 WI LD LAN ll S 0 350 700 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
ENGINEERING I I I I I
Montgomery County, NC

1011 \ 11.."1 '‘.-
Project Location ;. - - '
',__, Proposed Conservation Easement _ *. r '' �.'
• - ANC-T3 _ �— � ..
BdC Badin Tarrus Complex,8 15%Slopes r �� -.. UT to le -�
BdD- Badin-Tarrus Complex, 15-25%Slopes '1 BIG BRANCH � ail ,
BeB2- Badin Tarrus Complex,2-8%Slopes, Moderately Eroded - r f ` •'
BeC2- Badin-Tarrus Complex,8-15%Slopes, Moderately Eroded n .:• ' x
< ',
CnA-Chenneby Silt Loam, 0 to 2%Slopes, Frequently Flooded Z �`". '�` { =
�' �1- Ci of!�`:� •
GoE-Goldston-Badin Complex, 15-45%Slopes �. *• C� Q OkA ` "•' ' " « ". `
y,
OkA Oakboro Silt Loam,0-2%Slopes, Frequently Flooded � �. --� �'� '' �� m V '# •;
11
ShA-Shellbluff Silt Loam, 0 to 2%Slopes, Occasionally Flooded •
' q - * 1- CD
m -
Pr
TeB Tillery Silt Loam,0 6%Slopes, Rarely Flooded '
'ir
Existing Pond ``eC `� F" �t1 .x, { L''
Project Streams `• �� ` ���.�'w , t • , ` '. .f
Non-Project Streams •
. • .E „'". - + '-/ f• ' R "' -• 4 ,: i.
. - r - F 'T - -
., z` OkA (TeB.;� r.' 'T.. BdD ti` t
- '. .- .• .Xo. ��_ -�� TeB ,�r �,_.__., _.` w _ o'• - ,
�. `' t litii ' Al �: / TeB
* -•bj f... ,.. •••411It• A l....41...
��. .• _ 7 � `may i. . 1 r� `i .-�� si.
ii.- `�� 4... _..,,,,,,..._
�,..�I ;BeC2 `� - --■._—_.__
r •
, — - • BeC2 '" / . •! ? V_,-v°q: BeB2
I BeC2 -p : 1,i. i w►:'•
.. ...... .i.iix mk. ,...„
f . . , N. ,....t.,,, . . „....., .:Nt,40 • ‘1.V'' _ '
.w `"...i' in . e . ,41 4,1,4;,,,N,Li, , ..,-- .., .. ., . , , ,.,„\o_vifoLip,.4,.,:..0.„4,€....„,,,
BeB2 ` H
A a .I `.• .\..
N 4.•, 4 ° --- '-*KA '' /- --`-.. '-.K.kri.
4" r'.iile1(.4,01ile --,„,,A. / . •?„..,... ,
''.;; ....7....0:' • sr... , . . •••11, .3:'• \
Ng&- ,go, t . r "ter t _ ■
Il
•
•
. .__, :
Figure 5 Soils Map
killit, WI L E DN LANi D S \ Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
G N E R I N G 0 450 900 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
I I I I I Montgomery County, NC

•
= Project Property , 1 ..
_ ; ? '�liiiitift,4,
+
1,__i Proposed Conservation Easement x m lie gm i" . NC-'73 ��r "� `�
_ -_ - •, UT to ;,- "fir- • �-�,__ '`
Existing Pond ; Nis-x
BIG BRANCH -4
///, Existing Wetlands , - r I F ,.,
�f? "„, a
C Existing Utility Easement - u:;
Project Streams ,r =
s •- Non-Project Streams "' I V
Existing Conditions Cross-Sections _44144/ta "nab _ fir_ It, :•
lik r
Existing Farm Road t. ,, i CO y-
Existing Utility Line s
Ditch :.` ;', �rI N- t ` }
b Existing Culvert / M \
• Existing Ford AK . �\v•6. u
.4-4--,41 k‘•:in,i.
Li.tt
± Existing Groundwater Gauge (GWG) + _ "'• - - • F ` ``�'S '!' u+
•
W,.at>"e,.-<-'-....•.- N et ,, L„:,'...o•--t=-'--i-7--1:..,N4,,i,..,.t4--.0-
V
Reach Break rr (.
,P'r:s:%t":--1.t-4:,.5..-1
i `tire, _
•.` + .- ..�.., �- �/ I Reach Q "`e dal ,
•
' -.. . . - 414. i''
+1�k4
1 '._ :4 VFI(015;2 a 7 ' G ]� 1) i►Failed Dam `
(u .-- ` �� • ;
4, \. it ` • N .
If % 4 r. ! `4.'
1 _ � -�
Reach 1 ` ' - '• \�1 , _ � '%• .i _ �•r -yl;i4,
. -„ 64. 1--- . e- `N .111 r` . • )111414:' ' .
.1.!, --•.-....„.,..,:,,,,_•., ) • ---, ,-.• '''''' ._ ..%01110,.. 1/44, -:.•
lit '.:' . . _ . ' 4 ii _7------------ • •
,
a c '1 y
`•
r fri ♦ .;4.d
% -it=7 411 g 'Ni••\ -- . ..,0 --•;:lt,k:. - 144, • 44:- : .• '‘'....%..4.-V't 4'; , . •
y
fiti
•
111 i * .w .4.,
' Failed Dam �:.. • -� / � -t '"
lot
i:111111:%444, • ... • -
.0. , - zip, 'T-
-_,!,,Lit.,,, .. 111 %%I< lik ,....
:11114.0
* � y - .' •,r-, ).� . t , .''•�: ' 1 'A- ial Photography
Figure 6 Existing Conditions Map
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
WI LD LAN D S 0 450 900 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
ikeof ENGINEERING I I I I I
Montgomery County, NC

i' =r , .
..c ,R 7 '• •.• N.-. . _
Project Location _......`` \ 1 1I. '� ' s r'•':"•- ?„
ii � __. Proposed Conservation Easement I. , ..-._�..kk111� =_
Existing WetlandsLlis{ f ` - ".. UT to •' 17:. •
g , : . - *• . BIG BRANCH
Existing Pond `` . , froie,.i 't -.
V •
0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard +:-' ti '�` ►. -� - - -
Zone AE + �� '►
Zone AE (Floodway) 41L1�'•yam' t' M ''+ \ _ Z •
FIRM Panels �- C ;
FIRM Cross Section
% "'i-i.4sl4ifit4.,.e...._t
Project Streams Y = - • ", ' X.'
•
Non-Project Streams •` .\'411
`- ` / 4 i
K7 ' ':- rt
' k.•'rT- o _4- y
4.
r f,_
_+4 %- . • ,� •)-. .i Y * • \ T �_,ter ti+ t r't. _. `-
-711
4,4
a mom_ _ •-fi 1T
•
PANEL
-_ 3710659400J kM1 ! .. 7..�.•� - �4 C,
_tip _ . -
•
:� _ PANEL
•_ � o. " .•.` . k - 3710659300J • •� �.;,.,,
.6titi
i' '� ��' , . •r . G1/2/2008
•
4. 2. ' %, - ''' ligi-,:iirir-,!t - -;-.----4. - , .7.91c% . - -..-, \ — - ,% - -.0:,- :::: , \Ili. . 7.--, 8 r •• -41-,t4i ' 4
* 'f. 3orli + ;a ;fir • '� ,� t'.= y` •r =
4 � ' r • l� } -• s_ .c .. 4 fir_ 4.
_ ,% fix ; n r - _ _� y;.apl•ji:' h A ^ti
• # •: 4` ±' t �, L s{r .. r 2019 Aerial Pho graphy
4- -i_-. _ •s • ,- _.._L'�.. _ ■►•
_ _ ~.'-1 �v.'-1� .-.• - • ate .Z' l'rs.Al 41;._s .-
Figure 7 FEMA Map
i , W I L D LAN D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 450 900 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
I I I I I I I I 1
Montgomery County, NC

A Reference Reach r,:,„- , `?• f:
1 � rUS `_ VI RGINIA
/� Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
- r F Lynchburg
Mouunta'
Lake
Dan Rive.
Bristol 1 .. - '-1eJ,:C- - Danville
rt _ John H
Cherokee Pilot Mountain Tributary H.
Natnn_A
Forest
f — �0
%
rl
i S - Long Branch
--. ''r• - 0 •53'6 fr r .-.t.•i
0 UT to Varnals Creek eensb..r••
G Nigh Paint 0
Lenoir
,--7'1-11J Foust Upstream A
rticret+dnJ /Lake Morganton wt Ilesville PIE DMO N Ft Raleigh
Forst ,fames Brookford f7S4fi /
Salisbury Collins Creek
Moore Spencer Creek?"R =
«1_jr
Lake 9 ' fr UT to Richland Creek]RTH
Lure UT to Sandy Branch CAROLINA
U..11.-r 1•
Shelby Nab:r,For-- , Cohan?
` Charlotte Sdtsa
- — — — _ 0 ' Spencer Creek Reach 3
T I 0 rt Bragg
Military
Reservation
Spartanburg Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Fayetteville
F:- I irr•IiLarrr
:nville
PArk l_umbee Sdtsa C,
,46
dtaa F-
\ Lumberton °"r15
•A
C \
r, \
Greenwood Florence
Lake Murray
it Columbia -
Figure 8 Reference Reach Vicinity Map
ktWILDLANDS 0 15 30 Miles Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING I I I I I Yadkin River Basin 03040104
N Montgomery County, NC

North Carolina Piedmont Regional Curve: Bankfull Discharge
1000
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
—
-
-
—
—
—
—
— f' -- —
—
—
100
N
a)
y= 79.944xo.7338
U
N R2= 0.9635
oI I
10 -- y= 89.039x°'223
R2= 0.9069
1 ,
0.1 1 10
Drainage Area (square miles)
♦ Rural Piedmont Data Rural Upper 95% Limit
—— Rural Lower 95% Limit Regional Piedmont Calculator 1.2-yr Predictions
X Select Reference Reaches for Curve ■ Surveyed Project Reaches (Manning's Eqn.)
Final Design Discharges Power(Rural Piedmont Data)
Power(Select Reference Reaches for Curve)
Figure 9 Discharge Analysis Graph
Oar,.W I L D L A N D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING Yadkin River Basin 03040104
Montgomery County, NC

•
1 4
Project Location • �� we+, r M `" • - �►, . . .
1.__i Proposed Conservation Easement • ; _ \� — �nsw - yr; a. k
Existing Utility Easement �� `;I ' P. UT to
�' ••_- BI BRAN H
Mk Relocated Utility Easement s` �� , '' :1
,% Internal Crossing - �' '•' • �ti. -� �� I.
kit r.r..
WI Wetland Re-establishment • --C.• • 1 z -
liSa Wetland Rehabilitation • ; :f!:
Stream Restoration - �'' +� '?'' ,'":;is. '
Stream Enhancement II "` •x �� -f,f.,,,. 'sµ Q ti`^^n•
Stream Preservation •s, Fy„L�#�''
Internal Crossing 1 - 4 .' l' .',1
Stream Not for Credit 60' wide - • tii ' •- : '
•Non-Project Streams ,, r.=.a�':• . .. -
Ditches To Be Filled • ', % \; '+
` Proposed Wetland 3
Y+,
•
Reach Break 0,.�,_. 1. ;
rl Proposed Culverts "Ibibi ++ice .` ~-' , _ = — ,
l. Nip
:o'+ Proposed Wetland 1 :: ,r'- - �-E'''' _
°It t .__-_ y+ l:
♦ 44k B +l Internal Crossing 2 -
_�, IP. , • #:''.' - '` • ProposedWetland2 100' Wide - y
a q' • 17a
•
• s .-_ 1 i ,
•
-��e�04e p - Utility line to be relocated
co -through Crossing 2 �.fj
I
' 4' - Existing Pond To Be Converted {�.-
To Riparian Wetland •` . TN� ►, �,P
V lip
r Remove Existing Culvert ;11 �. a �;�' `{ �1 a ;
i3.L • ,. r� �Jx �: i �'' '^ • ; Ott 4. A ~
r: _
--!Itor. itfr4 1- 16 ,/, . t'. "A - •__, -A." ' - . - • •4.,•; . .-., . "• ,• - Ilk-a
,r Remove Existing Culvert' !`• '�• •�.'•-'- .t+• . `•.► :'ti t,+M7•
,.II \"r r . -••41r.=` .t- _„ _ • < ',- i20• eria otogra.19AlPhby
• 4 `"- • 114#' .%_.,._ - ,4„_ _V.-' tit • ~[i+ ,^. 4 1 • 1..."• - .. _ - 1 T.
Figure 10 Concept Map
%I vilir W I L D LAN D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 450 900 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
I I I
Montgomery County, NC

70,
... -may �•� ' �' �`•., .'*�.... _ _
,• `! i� y � + iYI
; ,* ._,4 rr."*,- *� .•.,.tic • R � :�_ :1rX39' _f'}-' _J�-' 7
- - -
4.
• z . , .• t.-,.. ,fix • . * .46_ .7 4..i• BIG BRANCH 4
•boa- - •..
n '4 ,• 304eA•~� „ •` 1 �_^�; }x .. • : T�.::,-,'Tii, x
• . ."'ft r+?.3a t, .sue ,; .i°r:'r ►Y • t y ` }►` w •,.may + :►•.�:z €?friiii
•
¢Z' I - �"` A �. • ♦ „ 'Oa, • i ..ice• "'_ 4 - .�`I• , ' ', ,` • ,,' q,' Ry4�wit
+�.. 191ff rR +w a CO
CO
+� . .f_ • !V \� ` .: ''.*4.,. ."
.,. . err - '"`•'.C; .'� C�
t.
IC-
, 0 , _x . _ . , ..4. f., , I" . c .y.L,..A,. , \ :14 . . ' -1"•,:2• 4'
:t
G .am x--..- Reach 2 Proposed Wetland 3
- �
•
OR
r• z ��- O /% ( ..."W- .
fi.• Proposed Wetland 11 . - yr =/. i 3� O
1 O r a. O •
ri .1c_ 4- y 1
4
Project Location `• ' "� aAcx O �. *`/ tt O ___ p tt O
�. ,,+.:�' _ Proposed Wetland 2
__i Proposed Conservation Easement �} ��•. �i�x - �*}-t: +y��i p y
rExisting Utility EasementkA-`1 %� ': • - 1* i '� _ tt
Relocated Utility Easement '; x • v1 n. � r �� Y
® Wetland Re-establishment {. . . 4 + �► r ~, kit. A Y.�tip. C'•p \'�
j •® Wetland Rehabilitation - ''' -' ;, *- � e
rf//. Internal CZo
ssing :� f ' S 147i \, 7� a s ' . >r
Stream n .s• ; it,0 '•••'** t _ , '• ti •
Stream Enhancement II . +r.;.�. r �� �i...'}•-,.,. .� %,..+Aitry-- "tr .x■ �, �''E4'
�\ Y
Stream Preservation . rw • '"
Stream - Not for Credit Q9 _ .
#,Ar- ' 3 44e . 411\
Non Project Streams ti ./' 0,_.N.. i' Q
41111
Cross Sections � .. f•,i a ` _ T i' r ,I, f1�' .. .
•
Fixed Vegetation Plot �� � �"'``'� • -�`. ,, W_ •
Yi• ` cam- - •lirt3/4.04:ietki - % `. ... }.4. :.;. 41 1
0 Random Vegetation Plot , x r k_ 4 j. - - r- ;r ,fl'•• -
. • • ' '` r Reach '
Photo Point • --''"• M ti•&, ►�"'• , 'fit �._ - y
•
•
± Groundwater Gauge (GWG) •• •ir.,: . :'• - ::, Ls` •yr_ ,T.. - ;
Crest Gauge • vL' � 1�: �i• .-y - • •i• •".. - �w� 'v•'`• '''.`�i �r 'f t' ..,.Lc-7` �. e- .• :",..r ,--', .l..• . .31: f"y
•
.- . -`� ''`, .. +: � i;';• 1Tn "• fi - ' .-' � T►`''� i ". eK� -;'A „Jti,�,. ,; � ,•1,. ..:.�
+ Flow Gauge ,,.k• • t� ", . �•- „ . . ,P s yry I ' it �f -'► . ,' =`c,f. .1.!;..�::. :d i.i
•+"; y •_ . 41 "P,- - k_ ps r •�..=i „� :, r'ti X.- .' 7�i; -L ] r 1,'-. ai -��3"- 'o; '::`,sir'.,::-.:-!' y t. -
• ® Reach Break _ rye `, x. a•-� ;_ ' '' r r;
�+t• -L, i*.y. _ - - L••.-'arc•�l-_ 1� fr r .�
Figure 11 Proposed Monitoring Components Map
W I L D L A N D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site it'
ENGINEERING
0 450 900 Feet Yadkin River Basin 03040104
I I I I I
Montgomery County, NC

Appendix 1

Appendix 1 Site Protection Instrument
The land required for construction, management, and stewardship of this mitigation project includes
portions of the parcels listed in Table 1. Parcels are optioned for easement purchase by Wildlands
Engineering, Inc. (Wildlands). Upon transfer of lands to Wildlands, a conservation easement will be
recorded on the parcels and includes streams and wetlands being restored and preserved along with
their corresponding riparian buffers.
Table 1:Site Protection Instrument
Memorandum of Option
Current Under Option Conservation Easement Acreage to
Landowner PIN County to Purchase be
Deed Book(DB)and Page
by Wildlands? Protected
Number(PG)
Cross Creek 659400503458 Montgomery Yes BK 748 PG 397 21.44
Ranch Family LP
Cross Creek 659400211254 Montgomery Yes BK 748 PG 397 42.23
Ranch Family LP
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.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 1
DMS ID No.100138 Page 1

Appendix 2

• ..111. •-........... ._
...
.. _. .
• 4 • i• '&-••••:1` ' . .1..,''..:\' i:'-,. • .
.-4g•; ... ,'.:
-,i.: • . . '.. •.-; •.-•.•V ':,.....,.:1 I. -'.
..-=• --''."..,.• ...'•• ••-;•' ''
•
: -
. ,--,..* • • • • -.0 ., ••••iii -.••,....,..ibr:' ... )44. . . . _ ..,
i'l'IT ••• • i ef. '-,-- '
-1., • 7F • ' • .• •.. -. v..14,- :L''
. • ..... • ',• At— 1 ••.:. .• y
';.-•••,T.: ••• , -•• •••, •-•_16 •• • „,„„14... 4„. ;,.... •.0. .
i ••?••••••:-.:1.7:A. • --. •-• . .... .i. ...,. •.., . -• ----: • ' _ -- ,.-
-e- -. -...
'. ,......,.A ...
,. f
•
.. •. . 4-1'. •. --..„
- •. . - .,
'• .4- . .,/. •
' - L ...... T. .• 7 .re. '
. - .• . .. -
..•
1
.. •.., . . ..•
. ,. .
:.• 1, - ' L g.'7
, . _...• ,.., •,-: ,"-•••;•.• A-A '.•-jr. ---•r'[.,, -
, .
' ••••• _.- . . • • . „. .. .
--'-'4•,-...:--- -7-`-4'•••• • It,' . ... •
! • 1.: -;',.••. .-''1•'''''• , . !
'• • I '- 'f- • .!- .
--V-'. '...' '..-•:-.' !' -- -- • .4.'
. .
..,• .- ,.•. .f. •,.Ift ..•ir •... iir . - . .. '_ . '.. .A.1 •-•-, r • .
.. .
4!,..1:,.. . ,.. - ..1 •• o
-P, , . .....
• .-..... .-:. .' , .r! • . ,,r.'t,..:,.e. . . % _:. .
. ••• • . , •,•• ..r k' r.O•
•
• .i t
.r • ...k • . '.r • .• •
•
.• • . • . ,•
.. •
.. . . . .. ,,. - ••• . .,.p.!far f•lit*It•
... —•_ -
: , •.. .
, • •:.. - •• . ..• ,•
' -,. ,•
. ...,,.: •..!,,,,,.; • •• 4.: - • r •• f,..-._ .• • '. ., ,
.. . `--- •• - 4°. , • .
1 r
... • I .' ''.".1 .-W.': ..-
. •-• •it;-'.1 ....,.
.' . .. .,., •-
r.., 4. • • . . 4 ,. • .r.1 ..........••'. ' 4.' I, -•
-- ' .. . . , ._ . .... . . • , . . •V. .Jr 'tl,
.., .• ... -
4. t • ill A • . L 4.
..0''!°.•'' • .', ..4,.' • •
• '•:\?•i•T It'rl. • : . ..-' . •
fr 1... ;......4 •
. il f ,.••• • - - ....
••, . .\ 1k.dr!
,,h, . .. ..
• •• . r -..•• ... .2., ffs,---;--- - . ...--•:- • •• - 2'r• :-".. i ./.:j'.' .1 . - , 1 •
4 . •f ' 1.a 11.... . •• -.. — ,.
•.. .
..,
.......,y....:r . ..., .•': t .
• •• 1..'r H".-r--. I I
. .
- ."-\•" - e ier ,..,Ill... m 0 irm).
-\„/ .: ',' ., , -•.
l' i
i
0
.
.; .
c:,... '‘,.., y .
..%e;PI \
.....'" . oF..t.• .1 1. ‘.___..-
-•
- -•• -•'. . •; -• •,:''''.14°'. • ' .
• .•...„_ _ ., I .
• ••'', . f.•-•.- " ••••• '
• ...... • . 4 • 4-1 I
•-."'-'p ..,-. . •••• -... . . 4
..
•••••
'• . - .40'- . .,.-
- -•••• • . , . _„.. „
.,..
.• , . • .
- .,010e- 'l':;-'7"•- ' : .•,
l'NN.f.. ..
. . ::# - -• 4/.• ' . ,-'. .,
, •
. .,..., ......:..r:,,..::........, ::.'40 ..I. •
it:. • y .... :
... ,. .. „. .
_..r)L.. 1 ,.. ....• ...: ,., ..
7 1 .• .' ....,i.- '.• • ....
b. • •••• •
„411*
A.
, .
. . .
••
/ . .
. ...,,
...... ,.... , •- - . ,,,,,,w
\ ../ • ...,
._. .
ashl*-.: - - . it. •,.."-
' 7 ,- .. . _ _ -' t • •.-'- .
. 1'i . . , -'-• . . 7
, .. •
• "
. .
. . i: ..
limo 111. ,ts-,..,,._:... . . . ...._ • . ,
. . . No..
.V. ' -'• .-
• . . _ it . .,
• A
r .1." .4... :.I... ..... .7--
1 ,..:.1;v - •
•r.'. .. . ‘
. •,..-;r r'4.5,.:.e',611f.r 'iiri,60,,i4 '' j , . . P., .
• I!" 4'1' .":
.p - • A .
. ,
I I.
. •
dielt,. •
.. .
. . ...„
, •• •:
eiV°1 .
•
• . .• .
. o, i •• . •• .
. it. •
IN„,....;..• i, .
- -
O. ••• t.' •
r
,4,, . :
•
. .
'
I NO Li 4RY#:5729696.5
i N •
YEAR: 1955
CE DR
1 =500'

: • � — 4- —4. . . , Iv .
¥ i . yN
. 1 i- . , ,
. /• . , \/_.
• \ 4 . ` - ' m . .
"! . ` . : ..
.• • . _ •. •
• , s - ` y
\ , /\
: . •
\ * � . -
% . /. - : i z w '& '
~ - - / .
/ • \ :� _ �- % m
-•, . . •
"• k 4 \ `
\ `
_ -. / . a �! . \, ' .
: ` � 4 .
AO ,..,.
■ w
a y -i tom: @ ` , ' f
' .
dl
3.
/ . , ot,
INQUIRY#:929696s A N Subject boundary not shown because it
exceeds image extent«image isnot
YEAR: 1m1 georeferenced.
1 =mE 'EDR Big Branch not shown on image

r
„ S 0
p * , 0 y . J. ry,, _ e
* .. '' - N' •am..•
y. : .' a . ' R wL ,. :L r�-
AO I
• A ,per• ~ '
•
• i y'r �s; Y ' e � ..'.? �' vfI � e, . . ky
r 0'. t R r
t.
04.
. 1 . _ _ . . ......0„. .„,
r •
. , -II.
i f ' :R' iar.
6 Oa
. .
it
' Or 419/111 si _.
r�,
s
•
fS I '• r�y
•
sivi4i,
•
INQt14RY#:5729696.5 Subject boundary not shown because it
i N ,. _. , ..
;::... exceeds image extent or image is not
YEAR:_1964 georeferenced.
I =500' EDR Big Branch not shown on image

at+` , '¢. , •'`._ ,"ram _e - ,4"."
.4441 a I;
" '� ` fin! .. Y �' ` c N ;
* ow
',r ---#444140, ,i.,,--- Astir
•
e (4 ?? { ci-x " I if • y
•
,..,,..,.. ,-,.. ..‘• tpX„,,,
t - ' e
I ► ,t
NitI
,..4 io,_ ,..t.,:4,..,,.L Ai_ ' ., . ttl irl. illit
a- xt . ;ttfaoisiti,
-• Ik �IM�- a A ° w --y..• '�.t+•�� f t ,1 �� 1"1 I, - . `� "'f i
trip
.407,,,, • -- ..,
-.)ts . ' .707,....„1,‘,,,,1 .,1, 1*. .1...i,' 41b. ,,,,,1.!I:4'.:`,..41,7'4,,-‘ ;,ir:,.:::7,,-...'
t . ,,kilt"
lik' '' 4 •lit ,-.0,. ,
„.,,,c,-,-,„ f, , ... „..
, ,. . ‘: i ,,,...,
pc % , .„141„ . ti,
soi, v .,..„„- ,,, .:, .. .
,. ..a•<eNT•W . • '4.
sr
1 ik ...•
, „.. • �. ti "ter . -
. . . + i tom, .. ' •
, .
,•,
, , ,
. , ,,, ,„,„..,„ ..
‘.
‘ iit f t .4'
' Ili " -Apr *4'r
lit
'44-,fir• `� t* y ti
VC i
ott,z4
• ' ♦ ' i , i +
•
\ t} I`ram4�j *�; ty,Y �y•# ?� a r R
t 744 tO 4 t , \\A /I • —- '...A
.`j 4.+ TnJ' +r• r ,ram• •• -� A- \
1 §,,,
1.' tittilir. -...4`',
AS*,vi .-. •.#1,4.. ',.. , 1, .e.• . . "ktikliwar. Nic „11.....:x.k.fr< ‘ 4. 2.,
• i•'R#� �. 1 • e . ,
INQUIRY#:5729696.5 .t : � s a Subject boundary not shown because it
N �*•
` f ��,` = exceeds image extent or image is not
YEAR 1993 yf•'' �� _°�` ''h+ georeferenced.
I =500' FOR . : a .` Big Branch not shown on image

R . e 4: wit, ,:',i...
r i -2 f,4.10 4 4 . . r '4 N- •.1.7:
le. s5 h jj
i .
f. ti �: 4 - ri.
ea
:t f
tr. �.� LI
-art .a.lle g:'
1 _• a �e• r � y.} ,{��
�• i
` r - ■ 41, W _ -� .t. ate- • �f•.
I . " I' . 1 04 a .4,4,
.."., ...,0
,,
i. t,.... . „ •
.. 4.. . . 4, . 1
. .
-.t. .. .4 .. . ...
46 .
c,, ...it4,41t,T.„,....,......)„, • z... ....
•
1, _t .3'^ , 4. '',,V,... Alift;L
AR r
"% • " d
• • ,f P .L YF?
. Sr.cjt.�. .r ' •may-•y, -v- ' '# r �. � ,x �`•
•
•frt'','' • •', . •L,:' ;:,Vic;'-- .r * :� , -
v - .44 ' • +'fey 2r. 4Irr Y +
f.Kti a-� .. - _ - - `�gf. i _ S
40.
.e My I`�i.L r ♦.
• t _ ri. .. '
A.
. ',CPC i . .%,;. I
N....
. i ii•itol• . • .... .
. „.
•,. . .
• , • 0. ••• • ' . .
1NQU RY#:5729696.5 i
,tiiit
! Subject boundary not shown because it
j. ,,; exceeds image extent or image is not
YEAR: 2006 ,georeferenced.
}
+ =500' FOR ` iY- *- • Big Branch not shown on image

-\ d - 1, el - 10X_ Ar'-' o'''ILO -'2
c 4E4- lto t Y -, 4.):14.4."...•
,(1.1$1,..:::',,E4.:$, ii , , . .4 .
,-.4 -if.•• ,P.,1.-tc• -.• • . :.• ,. -...05,4).axgriv..4'..',.,'... •:'4 it;144'
, � _ . Mk ,,4�,�t
i, 1 �Y`y: ,'e
,Afil,v, o r 4`z, 'A
lb
:tu y_1r!..c5-41 L xa Mti
v.
#iiiit.
.' 4.:‘,',... (...:...$•• il r'''..,.... , ', A 4 i - .e.! 4/ ;4 ,I . .. , ..•... ., .
t?1 /
4kJ Ems , • ,; !� -.�� ,� �• •� � }t.411' Y ...i.)..e•7:4,,,ty - IF , _,-- •-Pc I',d:"1... ' ge „ %%Zs.
„„:4,„,.,ii.k. A. .„,, ...., , i,,. . . .1 - ‘•••,-;• . ' - • • •••' r •'' ' ....A, .....-;.
- „,i.f... , n44,,,,,ti. , ,41 , ‘.... i 4 lit -- ',- • • ." il' ' . — : •slit,: • • ' 4,41 •':.4.
tr.
:.''...- ' . • .. - „,.•, ik - • —(" - ..*It -:. . . -e I
..f .....,4,
. . ...,,... ..... ,
ti.....,,,w.....)„.
. .t,,,, )
, 4 4. ...iik. , , I . d, i,
rt, 11•11*. --.-,
- : • Kiri. i.1'),
.1.11-F,A•i,40.•.-I 1/ 0-
f �4 M . ` 'l-0 it4..4.‘... .
■ t-- .,.e l Ot'.- i..,..;/. -.,4.. 1rd ' •• ' .'. ., ' . •4", . Y . • • ,iic;44• It'. , .
illitiita
iT'v
,tt i
s4•
i,
, .14;, .* �., ti. �'*. Sri 4'` 'i.; f !e.
,, t .. .-- gi • ...'4":1'. 1 j 'l'. )'
4.
talk
• 4 7. . .. , 0, i. _.. . :j :ill
f
.- . ' ..k I!IC' 0: . -,,t_ ,,k : ,ici..; . _..,,t,,
'] 1, •.
..
N if• :, `f • 11
41: ili, 4, 1.4 t ., b I.'w ,,,,.,... lw: ' /..... .''4:-10.41: .',4'#.1::17:::-1.
(,,. . '., '....-''''''r'l' ::.('''., 1....rA P'''• WM t, ' '' :te
•
4 y'• •;;{ -'',: .0 :'y>.;1;.-- •1j;':1'.,;,i: •r' '*• °' + ry
;,
r• P 1�:;S4. C f .Y r `;^n:;; .d i.: - H' ; y f '],r �f I�tF
f 4 §'. �?•i. aY. (7+i" i ,`'r `�k','" r tr' ► �i f al.y, l ` }7 1 • .M}• .,l},' .# I.." iL'••li ti' r,? }ti:-.:. ;ter. i l�'4 ' 'ti f • • ! • 31 f 4,r:ti T,. }r .` eYF•
h. 114
' } i Subject bounds not shown because it
INQUIRY#:5729696.5 '-'fir: 4 • r• .;, . • 1 boundary
X exceeds image extent or image is not
YEAR: 2012 _ , ,+,zed• Big Brancher not
,
+ =500' CEOR `' Big not shown on image

k4 -' .. „, . . .- . ‘. • -)P 6 , .
-� '� /It r lkfi•i�y
• . •
•
. ik Si . . ,, lit ) ,
14 ,
n
, .. .114..141N, ,
_. . . ,,„
..., ..i.
. ,. ,„, . ,z;s1A
_ ,
' F .-,• !L.- ' 4!!!II>f.4
S .,, A
• � `t' . ,i
f•- - •rLie _0,.•...:� • .A •.lam. -7 ' ar -
lk
— . )N. '- .... . .'' ' ' •a ' c,-..- - .. -..]
•r ; [._s(A4 ,,: 'f1,1*.° ',.*,0A1144A,i..-11...31,1W''‘Ir•1.. .., • • •. : 1_• ' .
,•v. •• -17„ a-r,h z gP . . ,‘ ,
Ail r L .
• i.
s fa.,,..
a.i 3 • - L s` yi'z 1
. ..... - .6. , - i -; 4 :LA.%..),„,..7„. „,,,, 1 ... •. . F.'''. Sr. )114111: :' ••1. *
' li 0 pit re..."4141 ,iii. ..,. 3.,, '_M 1•:c., ..*
t.
'`
ilt
t ' _
,. . .tykittrik,',.^14 Ali V. 44 sr ..
- tie% .
- a At _ A a :444( 4. ."1%••` s
Th• =ii^ r .. �aiyylr
tt•c4jftc $
- i y
eta • ■ • *' • ., x
, tiVIr" V
i S-,S'4'.' •. ,ti 1 ..'Cr , ;+ f` rr;'i {jrJ •;j14' , 11 „L?. ■ 41
i
n i
1NQU1RY#:5729696.5 d.•,,•r� �� '' + q' „ - - Subject boundary not shown because it
' ` exceeds image extent or image is not
YEAR: 2016 N , !;- ;. 4- • ` .georeferenced.
=500' � EOR • - '' Big Branch not shown on image
-r

Appendix 3

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USAGE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: C.Walker/Wildlands Engineering
5.County: Montgomery 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Clarks Creek
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.224191,-80.022463
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): Clarks Creek 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 3500
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): J. Is assessment reach a swamp stream.
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rL 7,Mountains(M) Piedmont(P) fInner Coastal Plain(I) 7,Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape(skip for a
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) r"Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) E.7,Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? re::Yes No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( r I r III r III r HIV re V)
r Essential Fish Habitat I Primary Nursery Area ! High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish 303(d)List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
✓ Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
✓ Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes -"No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
r.-A Water throughout assessment reach.
r 7,6 No flow,water in pools only.
r_IC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
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 A
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
L"...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
rA 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 Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability-assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability,not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure,active channel down-cutting(head-cut),active widening,and artificial hardening(such as concrete,gabion,rip-rap).
A <10%of channel unstable
E....6 10 to 25%of channel unstable
▪ >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.7,A r."A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B r 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])
7,C flC 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.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
✓ B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
✓ C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓ D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓ E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in 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)
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 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
ElA Drought conditions and no rainfall or rainfall not exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
B Drought conditions and rainfall exceeding 1 inch within the last 48 hours
C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
Eyes ENo 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.EYes n 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)
I., A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w E F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) H E G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o in E H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation Y t o r I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) m E J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
I D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2 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.Eyes 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 11c)
[+ B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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 mm)
n Cobble(64—256 mm)
Gravel(2—64 mm)
n Sand(.062—2 mm)
n Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
n Detritus
Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.EYes MNo 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.MYes 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. No Water ',Other:

12b. 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.
✓ 1' Adult frogs
r I-Aquatic reptiles
▪ F Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
▪ F Beetles(including water pennies)
▪ F Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
▪ I-Asian clam(Corbicula)
E F Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
(- F Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
▪ Dipterans(true flies)
(- r Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
▪ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
▪ I- Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
▪ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ r Other fish
✓ P Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
▪ 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
A rd,A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
▪B N B Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
C C Severe alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area(examples 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
EA EA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
EB :B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
C C Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
15. Wetland Presence-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB). Do not consider wetlands outside of the streamside area or within the
normal wetted perimeter of assessment reach.
LB RB
EY EY Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
N r�N
C J L J
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.
I-✓ A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
✓ 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)
F D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
P E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓ F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
C Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading-assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
N 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
EA EA >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B J B E B M B From 50 to<100-feet wide
EC EC EC MC From 30 to<50-feet wide
E D E D E D E D From 10 to<30-feet wide
E E fl E E E E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
r,A Mature forest
E▪B FB Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
EC EC Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
ED Maintained shrubs
":▪E n E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EA EA EA EA MA EA Row crops
BBBBB EB Maintained turf
EC EC EC EC EC EC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
ED ED ED ED ED :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
EA EA Medium to high stem density
B EB Low stem density
EC EC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer—streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
EA EA The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
E B E B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
EC The total length of buffer breaks is>50 percent.
24. Vegetative Composition—First 100 feet of streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Evaluate the dominant vegetation within 100 feet of each bank or to the edge of the watershed(whichever comes first)as it contributes
to assessment reach habitat.
LB RB
�A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species,with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
r.7,B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions,but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
::C 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.EYes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. E,No Water nOther
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
�A <46 �B 46to<67 niC 67to<79 ED 79to<230 �E 230
Notes/Sketch:
24.'lots of privet'

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pa4 Assessor Name/OrganizationPJalker/Wildlands Engineer
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1)Hydrology HIGH
(2)Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4)Microtopography LOW
(3)Stream Stability HIGH
(4)Channel Stability HIGH
(4)Sediment Transport HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology HIGH
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Indicators of Stressors NO
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3)Baseflow HIGH
(3)Substrate HIGH
(3)Stream Stability HIGH
(3)In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USAGE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: CW/CL
5.County: Montgomery 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Big Branch
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.230316,-80.020229
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): Big Branch R1 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 1000
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 4.3 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 21.9 assessment reach a swamp stream. r I""I
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r Intermittent flow LJ al Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: ',Mountains(M) :• Piedmont(P) (Inner Coastal Plain(I) ',Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape(skip for a `•gib
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) r"Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) „•Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( II Ill HIV r•..,V)
r Essential Fish Habitat I Primary Nursery Area ! High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish 303(d)List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
✓ Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
✓ Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes "No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
r•�A Water throughout assessment reach.
No flow,water in pools only.
r_IC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
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).
r•"„B Not A
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
Lr-7.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
7I 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).
7,7.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
E....6 10 to 25%of channel unstable
•�C >25%of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction-streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB).
LB RB
7.A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
ri."B r•'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])
7,C flC 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.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
✓ B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
r C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓ D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓ 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)
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 or 4 streams, D2 drought or higher is considered a
drought.
n.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
EC 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.EYes E 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)
I A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w E F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) H T E G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o in E H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation Y t o r I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) m E J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
I D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2 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.Eyes No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream?(skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
P A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
1 B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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
r, Boulder(256—4096 mm)
n Cobble(64—256 mm)
r r Gravel(2—64 mm)
n Sand(.062—2 mm)
n Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
n Detritus
Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.EYes 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.EYes 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.EYes E.-,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
E I-Aquatic reptiles
• I-Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
• I- Beetles(including water pennies)
✓ F Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
✓ r Asian clam(Corbicula)
• I-Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
r r- Dipterans(true flies)
r F- Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
✓ r Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
✓ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ r Other fish
✓ r Salamanders/tadpoles
✓ r Snails
✓ F Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ r Tipulid larvae
✓ 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
• rd,A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
EV:iB NB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
• 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
EA EA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
Er]B E:B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• 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?
rdN EN
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)
✓ B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area(beaver dam,bottom-release dam)
I D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
✓ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓ F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
C Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading-assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
EV:iA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded(example:scattered trees)
C Stream shading is gone or largely absent
19. Buffer Width-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider"vegetated buffer"and"wooded buffer"separately for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)starting at the top
of bank out to the first break.

Vegetated Wooded
LB RB LB RB
A A A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
EB EB EB CB From 50 to<100-feet wide
C nC C m C From 30 to<50-feet wide
niD D nD From 10 to<30-feet wide
E E E E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
MA Mature forest
E▪B MB Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
D Maintained shrubs
▪E rd E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
MA MA flA flA flA flA Row crops
r,B B r,B nB riB Maintained turf
C 'CC flC nC flC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
nD D r,D nD nD nD 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
EA EA Medium to high stem density
B B Low stem density
nC 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
EA EA The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
M B M B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
nC 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
"jA 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.
EB EB 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 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.EYes ENo Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. r,No Water nOther
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r,A <46 nB 46to<67 nC 67to<79 ri,D 79to<230 r:E 230
Notes/Sketch:
4."bank erosion" 7.J"a little fowling" 17."cut down/incised over time!' 24."Privet'

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization Lanza/Wildlands Engineeri
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow HIGH
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation HIGH
(4) Floodplain Access HIGH
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer HIGH
(4)Microtopography NA
(3)Stream Stability MEDIUM
(4)Channel Stability LOW
(4)Sediment Transport HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality HIGH
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation HIGH
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Indicators of Stressors NO
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3)Baseflow HIGH
(3)Substrate HIGH
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall HIGH

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USACE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2.Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: C.Walker/Wildlands Engineering
5.County: Montgomery 6.Nearest named water body
7.River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Clarks Creek
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.23373,-80.026049
STREAM INFORMATION:(depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT1 R1 10.Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 2500
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 2.5 ri Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 10.3 13.Is assessment reach a swamp stream? C Yes (' No
14.Feature type: a Perennial flow (' Intermittent flow ('Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15.NC SAM Zone: C Mountains(M) a Piedmont(P) (' Inner Coastal Plain(I) r Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16.Estimated geomorphic L j
valley shape(skip for C 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 mi2) ('Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) a Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) (`Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? r Yes C No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
El Section 10 water fI Classified Trout Waters fI Water Supply Watershed ( I ('II C III C IV C V)
El Essential Fish Habitat fI Primary Nursery Area fI High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
El Publicly owned property n NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect n Nutrient Sensitive Waters
ElAnadromous fish n 303(d)List fI CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
Ei Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
El Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? C Yes a 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
( 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 NotA
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
(i 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
(I A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile(examples:channel down-cutting,existing damming,
over widening,active aggradation,dredging,and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B Not A
5. Signs of Active Instability-assessment reach metric
Consider only current instability,not past events from which the stream has currently recovered. Examples of instability include
active bank failure,active channel down-cutting(head-cut),active widening,and artificial hardening(such as concrete,gabion,rip-rap).
C A <10%of channel unstable
C B 10 to 25%of channel unstable
C >25%of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction-streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB).
LB RB
( A r A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
". B 4 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])
CC C C Extensive evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction(little to no floodplain/intertidal zone access

[examples:causeways with floodplain and channel constriction,bulkheads,retaining walls,fill,stream incision,
disruption of flood flows through streamside area]or too much floodplain/intertidal zone access[examples:
impoundments,intensive mosquito ditching])or floodplain/intertidal zone unnaturally absent or assessment reach is a
man-made feature on an interstream divide
7. Water Quality Stressors—assessment reach/intertidal zone metric
Check all that apply.
n IA Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
✓l B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
[IC Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓I D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
El E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in the"Notes/Sketch"
section.
FI F Livestock with access to stream or intertidal zone
FIG Excessive algae in stream or intertidal zone
I—I H Degraded marsh vegetation in the intertidal zone(removal,burning,regular mowing,destruction,etc.)
El I Other: (explain in"Notes/Sketch"section)
El 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.
C' 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
r C No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
r 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.r 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)
[IA Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w rl F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) F flG Submerged aquatic vegetation
rl B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o EI H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation r 0 El I Sand bottom
ITC Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) r EIJ 5%vertical bank along the marsh
�I D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots U El K Little or no habitat
in banks extend to the normal wetted perimeter
fI 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 is No Is assessment reach in a natural sand-bed stream?(skip for Coastal Plain streams)
11 b. Bedform evaluated. Check the appropriate box(es).
CIA Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
17.01 B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
ITC Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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
(' (i r i^ (' Bedrock/saprolite
✓ r r r r Boulder(256—4096 mm)
✓ r r r r Cobble(64—256 mm)
✓ r r a r Gravel(2—64 mm)
a r r r r Sand(.062—2 mm)
✓ r. r r r Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
C' Detritus
C� r r r r Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.r Yes Si 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.r 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.r 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.
EI El Adult frogs
n El Aquatic reptiles
EI El Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)

EI El Beetles(including water pennies)
Fl Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
rlAsian clam(Corbicula)
m Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
rl Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
✓ rl Dipterans(true flies)
Fl Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ El Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
✓ El Midges/mosquito larvae
El Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
✓ El Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ El Other fish
Fl Salamanders/tadpoles
✓ El Snails
✓ El Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
rlTipulid larvae
flWorms/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
C A 4 A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
B r 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
A C'A Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
B B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
▪ C (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
�i Y ay Are wetlands present in the streamside area?
r N C 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.
✓IA Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
FIB Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓IC Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area(beaver dam,bottom-release dam)
Fl D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
FIE Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
El F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
rIA Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
✓l B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
✓lC Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
✓l D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
✓l E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
Fl 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)
r 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 r A C A r A >_100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
r B C B C B B From 50 to<100-feet wide
r C C C C C r C From 30 to<50-feet wide
C D C D r D C D From 10 to<30-feet wide
C E (' E ('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 c A Mature forest
B (i B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
C (' 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: 11
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
CA r A A C A r A CA Row crops
r B r B C B C B C B r B Maintained turf
r C r C r C cc CC r C Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
G_, D r D irirD OD (VD 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
C A r A Medium to high stem density
(6 B (? 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
A 4 A The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
B r B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
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 (i 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 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.r Yes r No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. r No Water (6 Other: NA
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:
10."NA"

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/OrganizationPJalker/Wildlands Engineer
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2)Baseflow HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4)Microtopography NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(4)Channel Stability LOW
(4)Sediment Transport HIGH
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance HIGH
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat HIGH
(3)Baseflow HIGH
(3)Substrate HIGH
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USAGE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: C.Walker/Wildlands Engineering
5.County: Montgomery 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Clarks Creek
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.232493,-80.024689
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT1 R2 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 600
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 6 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 19.1 assessment reach a swamp stream. L� L�
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r Intermittent flow L_J al Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rL 7,Mountains(M) Piedmont(P) f Inner Coastal Plain(I) 7„7.Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape(skip for a `•gib
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) r"Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) 7,Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? re::Yes No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( I III III HIV re]V)
r Essential Fish Habitat I Primary Nursery Area ! High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish 303(d)List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
✓ Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
✓ Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes -"No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
r.-A Water throughout assessment reach.
r 7,6 No flow,water in pools only.
r_IC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
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 A
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
L"...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
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).
7,7.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).
<10%of channel unstable
E....6 10 to 25%of channel unstable
.�C >25%of channel unstable
6. Streamside Area Interaction-streamside area metric
Consider for the Left Bank(LB)and the Right Bank(RB).
LB RB
',A 7„7.A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
r•-"B r•-"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])
7,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.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
I B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
▪ C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓ D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓ E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in 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— 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.
2.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
EC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
Yes No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes,skip to Metric 13(Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types—assessment reach metric
10a. ',Yes No Degraded in-stream habitat over majority of the assessment reach(examples of stressors include excessive
sedimentation,mining,excavation,in-stream hardening[for example,rip-rap],recent dredging,and snagging)
(evaluate for size 4 Coastal Plain streams only,then skip to Metric 12)
10b. Check all that occur(occurs if>5%coverage of assessment reach)(skip for Size 4 Coastal Plain streams)
A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) cal G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o in - H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation Y t o ,— I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) m f J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
iv D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2 — 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. 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).
I., A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
r B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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. Bedrock/saprolite
Boulder(256—4096 mm)
n Cobble(64—256 mm)
Gravel(2—64 mm)
n Sand(.062—2 mm)
n Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
n Detritus
n Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.EYes ENo 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.EYes El 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 7.No Water r 7.Other:

12b.EYes E.-,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 I-Aquatic reptiles
r I-Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
r— Beetles(including water pennies)
r r- Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
r I-Asian clam(Corbicula)
✓ 170 Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
- Dipterans(true flies)
r r- Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
✓ I- Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
✓ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ r Other fish
✓ r Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
✓ r Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ r Tipulid larvae
✓ 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
• rd,A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
EV:iB NB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
• 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
EA EA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
Er]B E:B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• 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?
rdN EN
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)
✓ B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓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)
✓ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓ F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
C Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading-assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
EV:iA 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
EA E,A EA E,A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B E B E B E B From 50 to<100-feet wide
EC EC EC EC From 30 to<50-feet wide
ED ED ED ED From 10 to<30-feet wide
E E E E E E E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
A Mature forest
E▪B r.I.B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
EC EC Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
ED Maintained shrubs
":▪E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EA EA r,A EA MA EA Row crops
• B B B B B Maintained turf
• niC C niC C niC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
ED nip ED ED D ED 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
EA EA Medium to high stem density
E.B EB Low stem density
E.0 EC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
• EA The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
E B E B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
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
�A A Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species,with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
r.7,B MB 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 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.EYes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. r.,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
�A <46 B 46 to<67 C 67 to<79 ri,D 79 to<230 E 230
Notes/Sketch:
4."Down cut,eroded banks" 12b."scuds" 24"priv"

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/OrganizationPJalker/Wildlands Engineer
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM
(2) Flood Flow LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4)Microtopography NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(4)Channel Stability LOW
(4)Sediment Transport LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology MEDIUM
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat HIGH
(2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow MEDIUM
(3)Substrate LOW
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat HIGH
(2)Stream-side Habitat HIGH
(3)Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USAGE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: C.Walker/Wildlands eng
5.County: Montgomery 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Clarks Creek
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.23373,-80.026049
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT1 b 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 1400
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): 15.2 3. Is assessment reach a swamp stream.
14. Feature type: Perennial flow r Intermittent flow Tidal Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rL 7,Mountains(M) r._Pied mont(P) f Inner Coastal Plain(I) 7.Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape(skip for ra `•gib
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) r"Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) 7,Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( r�I r III r III r HIV re V)
r Essential Fish Habitat I Primary Nursery Area ! High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish 303(d)List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes "No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
NA Water throughout assessment reach.
r 7,6 No flow,water in pools only.
r_IC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
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 A
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
:;"..:A A majority of the assessment reach has altered pattern(examples:straightening,modification above or below culvert).
B Not A.
4. Feature Longitudinal Profile-assessment reach metric
�.'A Majority of assessment reach has a substantially altered stream profile(examples:channel down-cutting,existing damming,
over widening,active aggradation,dredging,and excavation where appropriate channel profile has not reformed from any of
these disturbances).
B 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).
nA <10%of channel unstable
E....6 10 to 25%of channel unstable
NC >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 r,",A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
r•"B r•"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])
7,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.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
I B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
▪ C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓ D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓ E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in 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— 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.
2.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
EC 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)
i A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) cal G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o in - H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation Y t o ,— I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) m f J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2 — 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. 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).
I., A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
r B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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. Bedrock/saprolite
r Boulder(256—4096 mm)
n Cobble(64—256 mm)
Gravel(2—64 mm)
n Sand(.062—2 mm)
n Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
n Detritus
n Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.EYes 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.EYes El 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 7.No Water r 7.Other:

12b.EYes E.-,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)
r— Beetles(including water pennies)
r r- Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
r r- Asian clam(Corbicula)
• r Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
- Dipterans(true flies)
r r- Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
✓ r Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
✓ r Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
✓ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
✓ r Other fish
✓ 17 Salamanders/tadpoles
r r Snails
✓ r Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ r Tipulid larvae
✓ 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
• rd,A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
EV:iB NB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
• 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
EA EA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep
Er]B E:B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• 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?
rdN EN
16. Baseflow Contributors-assessment reach metric(skip for size 4 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all contributors within the assessment reach or within view of and draining to the assessment reach.
✓A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
✓ B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓C Obstruction 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)
✓ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓ F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
C Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading-assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
nA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
EV:iB 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
EA E,A EA E,A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B E B E B E B From 50 to<100-feet wide
EC C C EC From 30 to<50-feet wide
E D nip E D nip From 10 to<30-feet wide
E E E E NE NE <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
A Mature forest
E▪B r.I.B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
EC EC Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
ED Maintained shrubs
":▪E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EA EA r,A EA MA EA Row crops
BBBBB EB Maintained turf
• niC C niC C niC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
D ND ND ND ND ND 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
EA EA Medium to high stem density
E.B NB Low stem density
E.0 EC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
• EA The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
EB EB The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
• EC 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 Vegetation is close to undisturbed in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of native
species,with non-native invasive species absent or sparse.
B B Vegetation indicates disturbance in terms of species diversity or proportions,but is still largely composed of native
species. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clear-cutting or clearing or
communities with non-native invasive species present,but not dominant,over a large portion of the expected strata or
communities missing understory but retaining canopy trees.
C 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.EYes 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 E D 79 to<230 E 230
Notes/Sketch:

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pb3 Assessor Name/Organization C.Walker/Wildlands eng
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) NO
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Perennial
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1)Hydrology LOW
(2)Baseflow MEDIUM
(2)Flood Flow LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW
(4) Floodplain Access MEDIUM
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer LOW
(4)Microtopography NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(4)Channel Stability LOW
(4)Sediment Transport LOW
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(1)Water Quality LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation LOW
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA
(1)Habitat LOW
(2) In-stream Habitat LOW
(3)Baseflow MEDIUM
(3)Substrate LOW
(3)Stream Stability LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat MEDIUM
(2)Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW
(3)Thermoregulation MEDIUM
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA
Overall LOW

NC SAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
USAGE AID#: NCDWR#:
INSTRUCTIONS: Attach a sketch of the assessment area and photographs. Attach a copy of the USGS 7.5-minute topographic
quadrangle, and circle the location of the stream reach under evaluation. If multiple stream reaches will be evaluated on the same
property, identify and number all reaches on the attached map, and include a separate form for each reach. See the NC SAM User
Manual for detailed descriptions and explanations of requested information. Record in the"Notes/Sketch"section if 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): Cross Creek Mitigation Site 2. Date of evaluation: 4/22/2020
3.Applicant/owner name: Wildlands Engineering 4.Assessor name/organization: C.Walker/Wildlands Engineering
5.County: Montgomery 6. Nearest named water body
7. River Basin: Yadkin on USGS 7.5-minute quad: Clarks Creek
8.Site coordinates(decimal degrees,at lower end of assessment reach): 35.227883,-80.02984
STREAM INFORMATION: (depth and width can be approximations)
9.Site number(show on attached map): UT3 10. Length of assessment reach evaluated(feet): 3400
11.Channel depth from bed(in riffle,if present)to top of bank(feet): 7 r Unable to assess channel depth.
12.Channel width at top of bank(feet): 5 assessment reach a swamp stream.
14. Feature type: M Perennial flow .'Intermittent flow L_J al Marsh Stream
STREAM RATING INFORMATION:
15. NC SAM Zone: rL 7,Mountains(M) r._Pied mont(P) f Inner Coastal Plain(I) r,7.Outer Coastal Plain(0)
16. Estimated geomorphic L
valley shape(skip for a `•gib
Tidal Marsh Stream): (more sinuous stream,flatter valley slope) (less sinuous stream,steeper valley slope)
17.Watershed size:(skip Size 1 (<0.1 mi2) 727,Size 2 (0.1 to<0.5 mi2) r,7.Size 3(0.5 to<5 mi2) r,7.Size 4(>-5 mil)
for Tidal Marsh Stream)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
18.Were regulatory considerations evaluated? Yes r No If Yes,check all that appy to the assessment area.
Section 10 water I Classified Trout Waters Water Supply Watershed ( r�I r III r III r HIV re V)
r Essential Fish Habitat I Primary Nursery Area ! High Quality Waters/Outstanding Resource Waters
r Publicly owned property NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect Nutrient Sensitive Waters
r Anadromous fish 303(d)List CAMA Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)
r Documented presence of a federal and/or state listed protected species within the assessment area.
List species:
r Designated Critical Habitat(list species):
19.Are additional stream information/supplementary measurements included in"Notes/Sketch"section or attached? Yes No
1. Channel Water-assessment reach metric(skip for Size 1 streams and Tidal Marsh Streams)
NA Water throughout assessment reach.
No flow,water in pools only.
r_IC No water in assessment reach.
2. Evidence of Flow Restriction-assessment reach metric
E."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 NotA
3. Feature Pattern-assessment reach metric
NA 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).
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).
<10%of channel unstable
E....6 10 to 25%of channel unstable
NC >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 r,",A Little or no evidence of conditions that adversely affect reference interaction
B r 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 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.
A Discolored water in stream or intertidal zone(milky white,blue,unnatural water discoloration,oil sheen,stream foam)
I B Excessive sedimentation(burying of stream features or intertidal zone)
▪ C Noticeable evidence of pollutant discharges entering the assessment reach and causing a water quality problem
✓ D Odor(not including natural sulfide odors)
✓ E Current published or collected data indicating degraded water quality in the assessment reach. Cite source in 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— 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.
2.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
EC No drought conditions
9 Large or Dangerous Stream—assessment reach metric
Yes :..1No Is stream is too large or dangerous to assess? If Yes,skip to Metric 13(Streamside Area Ground Surface Condition).
10. Natural In-stream Habitat Types—assessment reach metric
10a. ',Yes 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)
i A Multiple aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses w F 5%oysters or other natural hard bottoms
(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats) cal G Submerged aquatic vegetation
B Multiple sticks and/or leaf packs and/or emergent o in - H Low-tide refugia(pools)
vegetation Y t o ,— I Sand bottom
C Multiple snags and logs(including lap trees) m f J 5%vertical bank along the marsh
D 5%undercut banks and/or root mats and/or roots 0 2 — 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. 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).
I., A Riffle-run section(evaluate 11c)
r B Pool-glide section(evaluate 11d)
r C Natural bedform absent(skip to Metric 12,Aquatic Life)
11 c. 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. ' Bedrock/saprolite
✓ Boulder(256—4096 mm)
n Cobble(64—256 mm)
✓ Gravel(2—64 mm)
n Sand(.062—2 mm)
n Silt/clay(<0.062 mm)
n Detritus
n Artificial(rip-rap,concrete,etc.)
11d.EYes ENo 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.EYes '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 7,No Water r 7.Other:

12b.EYes E.-,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
E I-Aquatic reptiles
• I-Aquatic macrophytes and aquatic mosses(include liverworts,lichens,and algal mats)
• I- Beetles(including water pennies)
✓ r Caddisfly larvae(Trichoptera[T])
r r Asian clam(Corbicula)
✓ I Crustacean(isopod/amphipod/crayfish/shrimp)
r r Damselfly and dragonfly larvae
✓ r Dipterans(true flies)
✓ r Mayfly larvae(Ephemeroptera[E])
r r- Megaloptera(alderfly,fishily,dobsonfly larvae)
r r- Midges/mosquito larvae
✓ r Mosquito fish(Gambusia)or mud minnows(Umbra pygmaea)
✓ r Mussels/Clams(not Corbicula)
▪ r Other fish
• r Salamanders/tadpoles
I r Snails
r r Stonefly larvae(Plecoptera[P])
✓ r Tipulid larvae
✓ 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
• rd,A Little or no alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
EV:iB NB Moderate alteration to water storage capacity over a majority of the streamside area
• rd,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
EA EA Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water>_6 inches deep• B Majority of streamside area with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
• E: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?
• EN
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.
I✓A Streams and/or springs(jurisdictional discharges)
✓ B Ponds(include wet detention basins;do not include sediment basins or dry detention basins)
✓C Obstruction that passes some flow during low-flow periods within assessment area(beaver dam,bottom-release dam)
I D Evidence of bank seepage or sweating(iron oxidizing bacteria in water indicates seepage)
✓ E Stream bed or bank soil reduced(dig through deposited sediment if present)
✓ F None of the above
17. Baseflow Detractors-assessment area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all that apply.
A Evidence of substantial water withdrawals from the assessment reach(includes areas excavated for pump installation)
B Obstruction not passing flow during low flow periods affecting the assessment reach(ex: watertight dam,sediment deposit)
C Urban stream(>-24%impervious surface for watershed)
D Evidence that the stream-side area has been modified resulting in accelerated drainage into the assessment reach
E Assessment reach relocated to valley edge
F None of the above
18. Shading-assessment reach metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider aspect. Consider"leaf-on"condition.
EV:iA Stream shading is appropriate for stream category(may include gaps associated with natural processes)
B Degraded(example:scattered trees)
nC 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
EA E,A >-100-feet wide or extends to the edge of the watershed
E B J B E B E B From 50 to<100-feet wide
EC EC EC C From 30 to<50-feet wide
• flD D rD From 10 to<30-feet wide
E E fl E E E E <10-feet wide or no trees
20. Buffer Structure-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB)for Metric 19("Vegetated"Buffer Width).
LB RB
7,A Mature forest
B B Non-mature woody vegetation or modified vegetation structure
MC Herbaceous vegetation with or without a strip of trees<10 feet wide
ED Maintained shrubs
E E Little or no vegetation
21. Buffer Stressors-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Check all appropriate boxes for left bank(LB)and right bank(RB). Indicate if listed stressor abuts stream(Abuts),does not abut but
is within 30 feet of stream(<30 feet),or is between 30 to 50 feet of stream(30-50 feet).
If none of the following stressors occurs on either bank,check here and skip to Metric 22:
Abuts <30 feet 30-50 feet
LB RB LB RB LB RB
EA EA rA EA MA EA Row crops
B rB B rB r,B rB Maintained turf
• rC C C C rC Pasture(no livestock)/commercial horticulture
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
EA MA Medium to high stem density
EB EB Low stem density
EC EC No wooded riparian buffer or predominantly herbaceous species or bare ground
23. Continuity of Vegetated Buffer-streamside area metric(skip for Tidal Marsh Streams)
Consider whether vegetated buffer is continuous along stream(parallel). Breaks are areas lacking vegetation>10-feet wide.
LB RB
• EA The total length of buffer breaks is<25 percent.
E B E B The total length of buffer breaks is between 25 and 50 percent.
C rC 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
L IA "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 M 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.
EC 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.EYes No Was a conductivity measurement recorded?
If No,select one of the following reasons. r,No Water Other:
25b. Check the box corresponding to the conductivity measurement(units of microsiemens per centimeter).
r,A <46 B 46 to<67 C 67 to<79 r,D 79 to<230 E 230
Notes/Sketch:
2."perched pipe/culvert at start of reach" "photos start upstream" 6."extremely incised" 7.next to F"in upper portions of reach" 9."ir

NC SAM Stream Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 2.1
Stream Site Name Cross Creek Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 4/22/2020
Stream Category Pb2 Assessor Name/Organization Nalker/Wildlands Engineer
Notes of Field Assessment Form(Y/N) YES
Presence of regulatory considerations(Y/N) NO
Additional stream information/supplementary measurements included(Y/N) YES
NC SAM feature type(perennial,intermittent,Tidal Marsh Stream) Intermittent
USACE/ NCDWR
Function Class Rating Summary All Streams Intermittent
(1) Hydrology LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM HIGH
(2) Flood Flow LOW LOW
(3)Streamside Area Attenuation LOW LOW
(4) Floodplain Access LOW LOW
(4)Wooded Riparian Buffer MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Microtopography NA NA
(3)Stream Stability LOW LOW
(4)Channel Stability LOW LOW
(4)Sediment Transport MEDIUM MEDIUM
(4)Stream Geomorphology LOW LOW
(2)Stream/Intertidal Zone Interaction NA NA
(2) Longitudinal Tidal Flow NA NA
(2)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(1)Water Quality LOW LOW
(2) Baseflow MEDIUM HIGH
(2)Streamside Area Vegetation MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Upland Pollutant Filtration LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2)Indicators of Stressors YES YES
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance LOW NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Filtration NA NA
(1)Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) In-stream Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Baseflow MEDIUM HIGH
(3)Substrate MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Stream Stability LOW LOW
(3)In-stream Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2)Stream-side Habitat MEDIUM MEDIUM
(3)Stream-side Habitat LOW LOW
(3)Thermoregulation HIGH HIGH
(2)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(3)Flow Restriction NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh Stream Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Channel Stability NA NA
(4)Tidal Marsh Stream Geomorphology NA NA
(3)Tidal Marsh In-stream Habitat NA NA
(2) Intertidal Zone Habitat NA NA
Overall LOW LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands A-F
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.234985/-80.030150
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
®F ®F ®F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
®C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
EYes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
O 1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E EE < 10acres
®F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1to4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_c ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands A-F Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands G and H
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.234504/-80.028599
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
C ®C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
®F ®F ®F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
®A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
EYes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
®E ®E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E EE < 10acres
®F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_. ®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands G and H Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands I and J
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.23468/-80.029026
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
®F ®F ®F >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
®B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
EYes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ❑J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ®K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E EE < 10acres
®F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
®Yes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_c ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e ®A ®A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
®B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands I and J Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetland K
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.235765/-80.027051
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ® Yes ❑ No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F OF OF >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
®C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
EYes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to<30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E EE < 10acres
®F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_. ®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e I A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland K Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating MEDIUM

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands L-N
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/Carlynn Walker
(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.2351 98/-80.026477
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F OF OF >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ®G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
• Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
• Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
• ®K ®K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
®F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
• Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_c ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands L-N Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/Carlynn
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization Walker(WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands 0 and P
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.234438/-80.022476
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? EYes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
❑A ❑A Not severely altered
®B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
❑B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
®C ®C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
®B ®B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
❑D ❑D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
❑C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
®B ®B ®B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F OF OF >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
®D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ®> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
▪Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F ®F From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
O 1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ®A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
®C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
❑F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1to4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
o ®A ®A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_. ®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e I A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands 0 and P Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetland Q
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.230268/-80.022068
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ® Yes ❑ No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ❑A Not severely altered
❑B ®B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ❑A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ®B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
❑C ❑C ❑C >_20%coverage of pasture
®D ®D ®D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F OF OF >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
❑Yes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
❑D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
❑<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes ❑No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
❑Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ®A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to<30 feet
❑G ❑G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
®B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
❑C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
❑J ❑J ❑J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
®K ®K ®K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
®F ®F Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
❑B 1 to 4
®C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
❑B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o❑A ❑A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
®C ®C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_c ❑B ❑B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e ®A ®A Dense herb layer
❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
❑B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
®C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
❑A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
®D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetland Q Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Bottomland Hardwood Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition MEDIUM
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Soluble Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition LOW
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT FORM
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Date of Evaluation 7/9/2020
Applicant/Owner Name Wildlands Engineering Inc. (WEI) Wetland Site Name Wetlands R, S, &T
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization I. Eckardt/C.Walker(WEI)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Clarks Creek
River Basin Yadkin-PeeDee USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03040104
County Montgomery NCDWR Region Fayetteville
❑ Yes ® No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.23314/-80.033407
Evidence of stressors affecting the assessment area(may not be within the assessment area)
Please circle and/or make note on the last page if evidence of stressors is apparent. Consider departure from reference, if appropriate, in
recent past(for instance,within 10 years). Noteworthy stressors include, but are not limited to the following.
• Hydrological modifications(examples: ditches, dams, beaver dams, dikes, berms, ponds, etc.)
• Surface and sub-surface discharges into the wetland(examples:discharges containing obvious pollutants,presence of nearby septic
tanks, underground storage tanks(USTs), hog lagoons, etc.)
• Signs of vegetation stress(examples: vegetation mortality, insect damage, disease,storm damage,salt intrusion, etc.)
• Habitat/plant community alteration (examples: mowing,clear-cutting, exotics, etc.)
Is the assessment area intensively managed? ❑ Yes ® No
Regulatory Considerations-Were regulatory considerations evaluated? ®Yes No If Yes, check all that apply to the assessment area.
❑ Anadromous fish
❑ Federally protected species or State endangered or threatened species
❑ NCDWR riparian buffer rule in effect
❑ Abuts a Primary Nursery Area(PNA)
❑ Publicly owned property
❑ N.C. Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern(AEC)(including buffer)
❑ Abuts a stream with a NCDWQ classification of SA or supplemental classifications of HOW, ORW, or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland,if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
• Brownwater
❑ Tidal (if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate], exotic species, grazing, less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
2. Surface and Sub-Surface Storage Capacity and Duration—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface storage capacity and duration(Surf)and sub-surface storage capacity and duration(Sub).
Consider both increase and decrease in hydrology. A ditch <_ 1 foot deep is considered to affect surface water only, while a ditch > 1 foot
deep is expected to affect both surface and sub-surface water. Consider tidal flooding regime, if applicable.
Surf Sub
❑A ®A Water storage capacity and duration are not altered.
®B ❑B Water storage capacity or duration are altered, but not substantially(typically, not sufficient to change vegetation).
❑C ❑C Water storage capacity or duration are substantially altered(typically, alteration sufficient to result in vegetation change)
(examples: draining,flooding,soil compaction,filling, excessive sedimentation, underground utility lines).
3. Water Storage/Surface Relief—assessment area/wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box in each column. Select the appropriate storage for the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT).
AA WT
3a. ❑A ❑A Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water> 1 deep
❑B ❑B Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 6 inches to 1 foot deep
❑C ❑C Majority of wetland with depressions able to pond water 3 to 6 inches deep
®D ®D Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. ❑A Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
❑B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
®C Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is less than 1 foot

4. Soil Texture/Structure—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Check a box from each of the three soil property groups below. Dig soil profile in the dominant assessment area landscape feature.
Make soil observations within the top 12 inches. Use most recent National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils guidance for regional
indicators.
4a. ❑A Sandy soil
®B Loamy or clayey soils exhibiting redoximorphic features(concentrations, depletions, or rhizospheres)
❑C Loamy or clayey soils not exhibiting redoximorphic features
❑D Loamy or clayey gleyed soil
❑E Histosol or histic epipedon
4b. ®A Soil ribbon< 1 inch
❑B Soil ribbon>_ 1 inch
4c. ®A No peat or muck presence
❑B A peat or muck presence
5. Discharge into Wetland—opportunity metric
Check a box in each column. Consider surface pollutants or discharges(Surf)and sub-surface pollutants or discharges(Sub). Examples
of sub-surface discharges include presence of nearby septic tank, underground storage tank(UST), etc.
Surf Sub
®A ®A Little or no evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the assessment area
❑B ❑B Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges entering the wetland and stressing, but not overwhelming the
treatment capacity of the assessment area
❑C ❑C Noticeable evidence of pollutants or discharges(pathogen, particulate, or soluble)entering the assessment area and
potentially overwhelming the treatment capacity of the wetland(water discoloration, dead vegetation, excessive
sedimentation, odor)
6. Land Use—opportunity metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Check all that apply(at least one box in each column). Evaluation involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. Consider sources draining
to assessment area within entire upstream watershed(WS),within 5 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(5M),
and within 2 miles and within the watershed draining to the assessment area(2M).
WS 5M 2M
❑A ❑A ❑A > 10%impervious surfaces
❑B ❑B ❑B Confined animal operations(or other local,concentrated source of pollutants
®C ®C ®C >_20%coverage of pasture
❑D ❑D ❑D >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
❑E ❑E ❑E >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F OF OF >_20%coverage of clear-cut land
❑G ❑G ❑G Little or no opportunity to improve water quality. Lack of opportunity may result from little or no disturbance in
the watershed or hydrologic alterations that prevent drainage and/or overbank flow from affecting the
assessment area.
7. Wetland Acting as Vegetated Buffer—assessment area/wetland complex condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
7a. Is assessment area within 50 feet of a tributary or other open water?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 7b. If No,skip to Metric 8.
Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the water body. Make buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland.
Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.
7b. How much of the first 50 feet from the bank is wetland? (Wetland buffer need only be present on one side of the .water body. Make
buffer judgment based on the average width of wetland. Record a note if a portion of the buffer has been removed or disturbed.)
❑A >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
❑C From 15 to<30 feet
®D From 5 to< 15 feet
❑E <5 feet or buffer bypassed by ditches
7c. Tributary width. If the tributary is anastomosed, combine widths of channels/braids for a total width.
®<_ 15-feet wide ❑> 15-feet wide ❑ Other open water(no tributary present)
7d. Do roots of assessment area vegetation extend into the bank of the tributary/open water?
❑Yes No
7e. Is stream or other open water sheltered or exposed?
®Sheltered—adjacent open water with width <2500 feet and no regular boat traffic.
❑Exposed—adjacent open water with width >_2500 feet or regular boat traffic.
8. Wetland Width at the Assessment Area—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric(evaluate WT for all marshes and
Estuarine Woody Wetland only; evaluate WC for Bottomland Hardwood Forest, Headwater Forest, and Riverine Swamp Forest
only)
Check a box in each column for riverine wetlands only. Select the average width for the wetland type at the assessment area(WT)and
the wetland complex at the assessment area(WC). See User Manual for WT and WC boundaries.
WT WC
❑A ❑A >_ 100 feet
❑B ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
❑C ❑C From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
❑F OF From 15 to<30 feet
®G ®G From 5 to< 15 feet
❑H ❑H <5 feet

9. Inundation Duration—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands)
Answer for assessment area dominant landform.
❑A Evidence of short-duration inundation (<7 consecutive days)
❑B Evidence of saturation,without evidence of inundation
®C Evidence of long-duration inundation or very long-duration inundation(7 to 30 consecutive days or more)
10. Indicators of Deposition—assessment area condition metric(skip for non-riparian wetlands and all marshes)
Consider recent deposition only(no plant growth since deposition).
®A Sediment deposition is not excessive, but at approximately natural levels.
❑B Sediment deposition is excessive, but not overwhelming the wetland.
❑C Sediment deposition is excessive and is overwhelming the wetland.
11. Wetland Size—wetland type/wetland complex condition metric
Check a box in each column. Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric evaluates three aspects of the wetland area: the
size of the wetland type (WT), the size of the wetland complex (WC), and the size of the forested wetland (FW) (if applicable, see User
Manual). See the User Manual for boundaries of these evaluation areas. If assessment area is clear-cut, select"K"for the FW column.
WT WC FW(if applicable)
❑A ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF OF From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
O 1 01 01 From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
®J ®J ®J From 0.01 to<0.1 acre
❑K ❑K ❑K <0.01 acre or assessment area is clear-cut
12. Wetland Intactness—wetland type condition metric(evaluate for Pocosins only)
❑A Pocosin is the full extent(>_90%)of its natural landscape size.
❑B Pocosin type is<90%of the full extent of its natural landscape size.
13. Connectivity to Other Natural Areas—landscape condition metric
13a. Check appropriate box(es) (a box may be checked in each column). Involves a GIS effort with field adjustment. This metric
evaluates whether the wetland is well connected (Well) and/or loosely connected (Loosely)to the landscape patch, the contiguous
naturally vegetated area and open water(if appropriate). Boundaries are formed by four-lane roads, regularly maintained utility line
corridors the width of a four-lane road or wider, urban landscapes, maintained fields(pasture and agriculture), or open water> 300
feet wide.
Well Loosely
❑A ®A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C ❑C From 50 to< 100 acres
®D ❑D From 10 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E < 10 acres
❑F OF Wetland type has a poor or no connection to other natural habitats
13b. Evaluate for marshes only.
❑Yes No Wetland type has a surface hydrology connection to open waters/stream or tidal wetlands.
14. Edge Effect—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes and Estuarine Woody Wetland)
May involve a GIS effort with field adjustment. Estimate distance from wetland type boundary to artificial edges. Artificial edges include
non-forested areas>_40 feet wide such as fields, development, roads, regularly maintained utility line corridors, and clear-cuts. Consider
the eight main points of the compass. Artificial edge occurs within 150 feet in how many directions? If the assessment area is clear cut,
select option "C."
❑A 0
®B 1to4
❑C 5to8
15. Vegetative Composition—assessment area condition metric(skip for all marshes and Pine Flat)
❑A Vegetation is close to reference condition in species present and their proportions. Lower strata composed of appropriate
species,with exotic plants absent or sparse within the assessment area.
®B Vegetation is different from reference condition in species diversity or proportions, but still largely composed of native species
characteristic of the wetland type. This may include communities of weedy native species that develop after clearcutting or clearing.
It also includes communities with exotics present, but not dominant, over a large portion of the expected strata.
❑C Vegetation severely altered from reference in composition, or expected species are unnaturally absent (planted stands of non-
characteristic species or at least one stratum inappropriately composed of a single species), or exotic species are dominant in at
least one stratum.
16. Vegetative Diversity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for Non-tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
❑A Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
❑B Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
❑C Vegetation is dominated by exotic species(>50%cover of exotics).

17. Vegetative Structure—assessment area/wetland type condition metric
17a. Is vegetation present?
EYes No If Yes, continue to 17b. If No,skip to Metric 18.
17b. Evaluate percent coverage of assessment area vegetation for all marshes only. Skip to 17c for non-marsh wetlands.
❑A >_25%coverage of vegetation
❑B <25%coverage of vegetation
17c. Check a box in each column for each stratum. Evaluate this portion of the metric for non-marsh wetlands. Consider
structure in airspace above the assessment area(AA)and the wetland type(WT)separately.
AA WT
o®A ®A Canopy closed, or nearly closed,with natural gaps associated with natural processes
m ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
U ❑C ❑C Canopy sparse or absent
o ❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
®B ®B Moderate density mid-story/sapling layer
❑C ❑C Mid-story/sapling layer sparse or absent
- ❑A ❑A Dense shrub layer
_. ®B ®B Moderate density shrub layer
u) ❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
_e I A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ❑B ❑B Moderate density herb layer
®C ®C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
19. Diameter Class Distribution—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Majority of canopy trees have stems>6 inches in diameter at breast height(DBH); many large trees(> 12 inches DBH)are
present.
®B Majority of canopy trees have stems between 6 and 12 inches DBH,few are> 12 inch DBH.
❑C Majority of canopy trees are<6 inches DBH or no trees.
20. Large Woody Debris—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
Include both natural debris and man-placed natural debris.
❑A Large logs(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches in diameter, or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B NotA
21. Vegetation/Open Water Dispersion—wetland type/open water condition metric(evaluate for Non-Tidal Freshwater Marsh only)
Select the figure that best describes the amount of interspersion between vegetation and open water in the growing season. Patterned
areas indicate vegetated areas,while solid white areas indicate open water.
❑A ❑B ❑C ❑D
(C\ y � �.\`1 i ` 1 (( ( 1 rli .
22. Hydrologic Connectivity—assessment area condition metric(evaluate for riparian wetlands and Salt/Brackish Marsh only)
Examples of activities that may severely alter hydrologic connectivity include intensive ditching,fill,sedimentation,channelization,diversion,
man-made berms, beaver dams, and stream incision. Documentation required if evaluated as B, C, or D.
®A Overbank and overland flow are not severely altered in the assessment area.
❑B Overbank flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑C Overland flow is severely altered in the assessment area.
❑D Both overbank and overland flow are severely altered in the assessment area.
Notes

NC WAM Wetland Rating Sheet
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
Wetland Site Name Wetlands R, S, &T Date of Assessment 7/9/2020
I. Eckardt/C.Walker
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization (WEI)
Notes on Field Assessment Form(Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) NO
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is located within 50 feet of a natural tributary or other open water (Y/N) YES
Assessment area is substantially altered by beaver (Y/N) NO
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition MEDIUM
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition HIGH
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Particulate Change Condition HIGH
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity HIGH
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition MEDIUM
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition HIGH
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) YES
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11 _-------
Date: 4.Ja R J lei Project/Site: �- a Latitude: 35.224.840
rn,r.5 h„., 5:+c
Evaluator: I Ecd,.,0 dt/C-. W.r.k i.C4 County: /'•},,,-+a c•r - Longitude: -60,0.11$6 0
Total Points: Stream Determination{atsivu@ Other Cli.►k S ire*k
Stream rs et feast intermitter:I '5
rf 2 19 or`perennral if a 30' Ephemeral Intermittent Aerennlal eg Quad Name:
A.Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1.3.r7 ) Absent Weak - Moderate Sing
r 1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg _ 0 CD 2 3
3.In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence _ 2 -Or-
4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 Q 3
6.Depositional bars or benches 0 1 _ 2
7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2
___1;43------
8. Headcuts 1 2 3
9.Grade control 0 0.5 1 1.
10.Natural valley 0 0.5 _ �] 1.5
11.Second or greater order channel No=0
CZ
*artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions In manual
B.Hydrology (Subtotal= l a }
12.Presence of Basetlow 0 1 2 .
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria _ 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter 1 0.5 0 '
15,Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 Ut 1.5 i
16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0.5 1 1'5
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes=3 t
C. Biology (Subtotal= 13.2 S ) ,
18.Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0
S
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed �'33 2 _ 1 r �0
20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 -' 1 2 ( 'J
21.Aquatic Mollusks CD 1 2 -
22.Fish 0 0.5 1
411114 _.
23.Crayfish 0 F (0.§.) 1 1
_24.Amphibians 0.5 1 .
25.Algae n 1 1.5
26,Wetland plants in streambed .J4.04.I wrs.l--- LFACW=0.75' OBL=1.5 Other=0
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. ��++
Notes: S�r� J cd S I. s --i.rJ r'..a- .+-1 (5.) 5'E»c Tt.rj Ls ') a-..I . .t-IP 1, r) i�' 1 J
Sketch:
,

NC DVS' Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
J `'ass C+tail l Latitude: 35.a36;`�U
Date: q ' Pro ectlSite: ,� +„,_r,_, 5:4e
'I
Evaluator: "rGt 6.7j4" Longitude: - 80,O 3�+40
ty: 1p ,,,y
Total Points: Stream Determination(clrcie a Other UT 1
Stream rs at least setarm tfent y{ 7
if 19 ar perennial ii�30' Ephemeral Intermittent Pere_ e g Quad Name:
z -
7
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal= ,-14....), ) Absent Weak _ Moderate Strong
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 3
2.Sinuosity of channel along thaiweg 0 �
1 il2. 3
3.In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 4J
ripple-pool sequence
4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
T 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2
6.Depositional bars or benches 0 _.. C , 2 3
7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 , 2 3
F 8. Headcuts 0) 1 2 3
9.Grade control 0 0.5 _ 1 7.5
10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 L 1.5
11.Second or greater order channel No=0 L es=3
d artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= g )
12.Presence of Baseflow s 0 1 (2) . 3
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 0 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter _ �1 r 0.5 0 _
_ 15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 �u•51 _ 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles _ 0 0.5 ( 11.--''` 1.5
17.Sail-based evidence of high water table? No=0
C. Biology (Subtotal= it,5 )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed 2 F 1 0
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 t�1) 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks - 1 2 3
22.Fish 0 0.5 1 Cl J
23.Crayfish - (0] 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians - 0 (1 1.5
25.Algae _ 0 0.5 • c 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0,75; OBL=1. Other=0
-....--
*Perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. `
}� E.�1•eL r !tom r wti WGr t� 1p uSa�l]W �"�r)v� r.�t r
Notes: bst.,e. w• ., r�� , .
06S4',w OA& SwdxMw...4rr l 0. • ,..,h •e. 4e -4, 1.. 4r..ic 1 tsr i
a r+. E1eI i a.nj s .JLr.l Lie) sy...II 'Af , I.;z..,3s +,..1 pLk+ preee.+ w1, ri441•5
Sketch: . 1

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.I I
Date: _ 3 ,4 . Project/Site: . • Latitude: ;C.;1/4 11,1110
Evaluator. County: Longitude: ..80.cL +10
Total Points: Stream Determination(circle one) Other
t
Stream is el least lraermatant t * Ephemeral Intermittent Perennial , e.g Quad Name:
it a 19 Or• renal&if 130' -
A. Geomorphofo_gyjSubtotal= ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank - 0 I Z 3 -
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 2 - 3 -
3 In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, 0 1 2 3
ripple-pool sequence - _
4,Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 2 3
r 5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 2 3
6.Depositional bars or benches 0 1 2 ', 3
7.Recent alluvial deposits 0. 1 2 3
8- Headcuts 0 1 2 3.
9.Grade control 0 0.5 1 1;
5 -
Natural valley 0 0.5 1 -~i-� 1-.5
11.Second or greater order channel No=0 , Yes=3
artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal =• • ) 1
12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1) 2 3
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter 1.5 1 - 0.5 0
15.Sediment an plants or debris 1] 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 0 1 , 1.5
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes 3
C. Biology (Subtotal= - - ) r
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 - 2P 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 0 1 2-) 3-
22.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5)
23.Crayfish - �0. 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 i 1 1-5
_25.Algae 0 ( 0.5 1 -1 1.5
26_Wetland plants in strearnbed 1 FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=Q J
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. ••--------
k,►u .
Notes: • .• .• b.r _,
,)v V�, ` - • . .r`..4; ., •• �Lr\I rfr,,n
Sketch: ; ✓}1

NC DIVA Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: f ' ! eCtis Project/Site: .1-'0/..1 errs li4 .A....4 1. Latitude: J.rL3 `.Z
Evaluator. T. County: l'1;.-t-;l..1s,y Longitude: - 'G. Q 35015
Total Points:
Straem is at least informrttent 33.5 Stream Determination(circle one) Other t,1 T -j
+tZ f9 or perennial rrz 30' Ephemeral intermittent.Perenniarf u 9 Quad Name:
A. Geomorpholoq Subtotal = Absent Weak _ Moderate Strong
1" Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 1 2 3
3.1n-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool, f
2 ;'31 ripple-pool sequence 0 1
4.Particle size of stream substrate 0 1 s 2 3
I5.Activerrelict flaodptain 0 1 2 3
6.Depositional bars or benches 0 ji 2 3
7.Recent alluvial deposits 01 � 1 2 3
8. Headcufs 0 1 2 31
9.Grade control 0 0.5 C1-/ 1.5
10.Natural valley 0 D 5 1 i 1 5)
11.Second or greater order channel , No=0l -
-
Yes=3
e artificial ditches are not rated;see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal= -7•-•S )
12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 CV 3
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 1 2 3 -
14.Leaf litter 1_5 1 0,5 0
15 Sediment on plants or debris 0 ' 0. 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles 0 +0,5 1 1.5
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? Na=0 I Y)
C. Biology (Subtotal= 1.5 ) _
18.Fibrous roots in streambed 2 1 0
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed C3 2 1 0
20.Macrobenthos(nose diversity and abundance) 0 1 _U. 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 I 3
22.Fish 0 0.5 1 1.5
23.Crayfish A.
0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians 0 0 5 �1] 1.5
25.Algae 0 } 1 ...___1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5*er=0) OD ac
'perennial streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual,
Notes: ,.,,« l 4, -1 3 .. -Cf;er: 1 + l 14. I. a ' 1 • In•-." J
`. r.i , .. a 1_„ of I lo" r.r.
� n r
.rr� ��• cra[f w c...Ivr•.4. Wt.i lucre law j rale.t r, 4'fe j 6 f.w �l�nr`
Sketch: P l

NC DWQ Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: Y r 2 g/ l 9 Project/Site: % asp Ce"" +...L Latitude: 35, ; .t 8g0
Evaluator. w .I„,,,rf.6» !F _r.:‘1. I.4* County: ;'1,.„..4„,..ar 1 Longitude: -gt].01g'1DG
Total Points:
Stream is at least rntennitter:l Stream Determination{clr Other 3 Ysr�na i"
if 19 or rannralrft 30' Ephemeral Intermittent,Perenntd e.g.Quad Name:
A. GeomorphologySubtotal= . ... Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1`Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 _ 1 2
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 1 i 1� • 3
3.In-channel structure:ex.riffle-pool,step-pool,
ripple-pool sequence 6 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 ,23 3
7.Recent alluvial deposits 0 1 2+ 3
8. Readouts CO) 1 2 3
9.Grade control 0 0.5 1
10.Natural valley 0 0.5 1 5.'
11.Second or greater order channel No=0 Yes=3
I artificial ditches are not rated:see discussions In manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = I
12.Presence of Baseflow 0 1 [J 3
13.Iron oxidizing bacteria 6 _ 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter 41.5 ....1 _ 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
16.Organic debris lines or piles F 0 _ 0.5 G..) 1.5
17.Soil-based evidence of high water table? No=0 Yes?3
C. Biology (Subtotal= 1.S )
18.Fibrous roots in streambed Ei3
2 1 0
19.Rooted upland plants in streambed 2 1 0
v
20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) 0 CD 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3
22.Fish 0 0.5 1 c_D
23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians X 0.5 1 1.5
25.Algae 0 0.5 1.5
rv28.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL=1.5 Other=0 r1,,.e
'perennial streams may also be Identiled using other methods.See p.35 el manual.
Notes: :�Je: -1 �. ,}S•F f,.:s Aral 3 �1Irg
Sketch:

NC DW►'Q Stream Identification Form Version 4.11
Date: �/ Profectlslte; C'eai Vtr.I- R4".1^ Latitude: 35. 0 in,+,s,.a sr+'is - ,
Evaluator. ` M-�. . , _ til.',i L.- County: Pl.,,{.1. c-• Longitude: -go.of epic
Total Points: Stream Det n lnation jclrcie one) Other ?'T '.• a., gr.-.4:
Stream is at+east intereVtent a Ephemeral'Intermittent Perennial e g Quad Name:
,r a 19 orperennra++f2 30' -•- -----
A, Geomorphology (Subtotal= 1 t ) Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1'Continuity of channel bed and bank 0 1 2 frl
2.Sinuosity of channel along thalweg 0 2 3
3.In-channel structure:ex.nffie-paot,step-pool. 0 , 2 3
ripple-pool sequence
4.Particle size of stream substrate _ 0 2 3
5.Active/relict floodplain 0 1 Cr 3
B.Depositional bars or benches 0 Cr 2 3
Ti)
7.Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
8. Headcuts 0 1 2 3
9.Grade control 0 • 05�� 1 1.5
10.Natural valley 0 ?0.5 1 1.5
11.Second or greater order channel +;Na=b Yes=3
-4 artificial ditches are not rated:see discussions in manual
B. Hydrology (Subtotal = = 5 )
12.Presence of Basefiow 0 1 3
13.iron oxidizing bacteria 0) 1 2 3
14.Leaf litter 1,.. ..) 1 0.5 0
15.Sediment on plants or debris 0 _ 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 i Yes
C. Biology (Subtotal=, c•.: y
18.Fibrous roots in streambed ream c� 2 1 0
_19.Rooted upland plants in stbed c3) 2 1 _ 0
20.Macrobenthos(note diversity and abundance) t _ 1 2 3
21.Aquatic Mollusks 1 2 3 ~
22.Fish _ 0.5 1 1.5
.23.Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
24.Amphibians + sc.+. wndi r 0 _ O.a) 1 1.5
25.Algae (0) 0.5 + 1 1.5
26.Wetland plants in streambed FACW=0.75; OBL= 1.5 lei r,S,4.
'perenneai streams may also be identified using other methods.See p.35 of manual. �7 r] I
Notes: n,-4, ..‘,1,el Ar.•r. a .+r,q 4t.�1 r.��.�^ �4.3 Ck. �ct� Q. . 6+Gl. C�_ pr 3k H =l
cep. G,,....}y,.�r� 3 n sl sr.Sr.44r.ea y��t ..Sl's.,el rc.wt1. �, 4 %IF- le of 'P.m-
Sketch: 4. .r0,�6...,4 rr...r.,�'.,

Appendix 4

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 1
XS 1(UT1 Reach 1-Riffle)
98
97
96
9 95
0
94
v
w
93
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width(ft)
Elevation(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions ; .:it, z'-
13.3 x-section area(ft.sq.) 50.0 W flood prone area(ft) n:, .• - ,_
10.3 width(ft) 4.9 entrenchment ratio 4 t es - '
1.3 mean depth(ft) 2.4 low bank height(ft) h t¢ :: "
` _.
2.4 max depth(ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio v • „
12.5 wetted perimeter(ft) - •
1.1 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance
8.0 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness _
0.18 Darcy-Weisbach fric. '•' •
•
Bankfull Flow 4.4 resistance factor u/u* • _"�•
4.4 velocity(ft/s) 1.7 relative roughness
58.5 discharge rate(cfs) r,mP
0.76 Froude number Materials _
90 D50 Riffle(mm)
View Downstream
230 D84 Riffle(mm)
42 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 2
XS 2 (UT1 Reach 1-Pool)
98
97 -
96 y •
95
94
v
*--\\****--•
93
• •
92
91
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions :E 3vt
15.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) 50.0 W flood prone area(ft)
8.4 width(ft) 6.0 entrenchment ratio "'r- .
1.9 mean depth(ft) 2.6 low bank height(ft) S
2.6 max depth(ft) 1.0 low bank height ratio
11.0 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.5 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance
4.4 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness
0.16 Darcy-Weisbach fric.
Bankfull Flow 5.0 resistance factor u/u* _ -
5.5 velocity(ft/s) 2.5 relative roughness
86.9 discharge rate(cfs) •
Z `
0.80 Froude number Materials r�Tti
90 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
230 D84 Riffle(mm)
58 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 3
XS 3(UT1 Reach 2-Riffle)
98
97
96
95 ►
^ 94
c 93
0
.n 92
w 91
90
89
88 * • * t
87 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width(ft)
- :. i
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions '" t
11.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) 13.8 W flood prone area(ft)
11.6 width(ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio
1.0 mean depth(ft) 6.3 low bank height(ft) ' -- }
1.4 max depth(ft) 4.6 low bank height ratio -1: ..-
12.5 wetted perimeter(ft) r Y ►..-f
1.0 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance �• ± —,
11.2 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness
0.19 Darcy-Weisbach fric. s ti -F -^;
Bankfull Flow 5.4 resistance factor u/u* `'6- -
4.6 velocity(ft/s) 2.6 relative roughness
54.5 discharge rate(cfs) -0.82 Froude number Materials -
52 D50 Riffle(mm)
120 D84 Riffle(mm)
47 threshold grain size(mm): View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 4
XS 4(UT1 Reach 2-Pool)
98
97
96
95 4
94
c 93
0
.2 92
w 91
90
89
• • •
88
87
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
45.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) 20.7 W flood prone area(ft)
17.6 width(ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio
2.6 mean depth(ft) 6.6 low bank height(ft) K; -
3.6 max depth(ft) 1.8 low bank height ratio •
21.5 wetted perimeter(ft) p,
2.1 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance •
6.8 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness
0.14 Darcy-Weisbach fric. yj
Bankfull Flow 7.5 resistance factor u/u*
-
7.8 velocity(ft/s) 6.6 relative roughness '
352.7 discharge rate(cfs) •
0.94 Froude number Materials
a. Wit..
52 D50 Riffle(mm) a-• _ ,.. y
120 D84 Riffle(mm)
104 threshold grain size(mm): View Downstream

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 5
XS 5(UT1b-Riffle)
97
96
t
95 4
c
4 94
r>
w
w 93
92
91 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions 'a' ..;'•' '`... 'Y` yi',:.'t
10.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) 19.1 W flood prone area(ft) i I" k,
11.7 width(ft) 1.6 entrenchment ratio .'"' ' 0 • ' � 1• . 1 A . ' r
'
0.9 mean depth(ft) 3.1 low bank height(ft) W •
1.6 max depth(ft) 2.0 low bank height ratio ' rr:4
12.6 wetted perimeter(ft) -
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance q,
12.9 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness ;,Z.
0.20 Darcy-Weisbach fric. " `,''
Bankfull Flow 8.9 resistance factor u/u* a
3.8 velocity(ft/s) 9.9 relative roughness •'' =_ .': ti ^'
40.5 discharge rate(cfs) -- ' ~# - i .
0.73 Froude number Materials ,e. - 4
13 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
28 D84 Riffle(mm)
34 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 6
XS 6(UT1b-Pool)
95
•
94 -
93
c
0 92
w
w 91
90 -
89 - ,
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions f �� '.r{"�` + r •
a "'' ` '-
tA7 I 1 aye
9.7 x-section area(ft.sq.) 30.0 W flood prone area(ft) 1 , Mr•-'_�� •.�'f+y 7._
6.4 width(ft) 4.7 entrenchment ratio •"• - -,' ), _ :.•' y
1.5 mean depth(ft) 3.6 low bank height(ft) . r'' '. :;l't ` ,.} .
2.1 max depth(ft) 1.7 low bank height ratioielqkq
` r. _
8.4 wetted perimeter(ft) (, _
1.2 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance ' i :
4.2 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness - .:.. , ,y - •
0.18 Darcy-Weisbachfric. a ; --l.•C---'1
Bankfull Flow 9.7 resistance factor u/u* .� :6�'4,• Y• r'
Y °;G.``1
4.7 velocity(ft/s) 16.6 relative roughness •'' F jr w
45.7 discharge rate(cfs) ' •r^. _
0.77 Froude number Materials / { ' y
13 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
28 D84 Riffle(mm)
46 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 7
XS 7(Big Branch-Riffle)
96
95
94
"� 93
c
4 92
v 91
90 -
89
88 ,
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Width(ft)
- •
r
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions • z�- -': '� '
39.8 x-section area(ft.sq.) 50.0 W flood prone area(ft) • .I- '.a• t.'4—.- : , r
23.3 width(ft) 2.1 entrenchment ratio ice. • i Ik; '• ..•,._I!.
1.7 mean depth(ft) 7.0 low bank height(ft) •'!
2.6 max depth(ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio A'. .
24.5 wetted perimeter(ft)
1.6 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance •
13.7 width-depth ratio 0.050 Manning's roughness - " '
0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric. f J '-,.
- 7.--..., 4'
Bankfull Flow 6.1 resistance factor u/u* vice. i:s'v-_• , may. .
3.4 velocity(ft/s) 3.2 relative roughness
` ►.,
136.9 discharge rate(cfs) - , ' n "`� 1."
0.48 Froude number Materials
48 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
160 D84 Riffle(mm)
35 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Contract No.100138
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 8
XS 8(Big Branch-Pool)
96
95
94
"^ 93
0 92
91
w
90
89
88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Width(ft)
Elevation(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions
42.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) 32.7 W flood prone area(ft)
17.3 width(ft) 1.9 entrenchment ratio
2.5 mean depth(ft) 6.6 low bank height(ft)
3.7 max depth(ft) 1.8 low bank height ratio
20.2 wetted perimeter(ft)
2.1 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance
"•
7.0 width-depth ratio 0.050 Manning's roughness _ . �,
0.23 Darcy-Weisbach fric.
Bankfull Flow 5.9 resistance factor u/u*
'�-
4.7 velocity(ft/s) 3.3 relative roughness
200.4 discharge rate(cfs)
0.56 Froude number Materials •
`• ,
90 D50 Riffle(mm)
230 D84 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
59 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Contract No.100138
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 9
XS 9 (Big Branch -Riffle)
96 -
94 -
F 93 -
0 92
v 91
90 -
89
88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions .rc,,...
28.5 x-section area(ft.sq.) 19.4 W flood prone area(ft) =
•
i$
15.8 width(ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio -="y .+ •
1.8 mean depth(ft) 5.1 low bank height(ft) •
2.2 max depth(ft) 2.3 low bank height ratio
17.8 wetted perimeter(ft) #.,r..
1.6 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance _
8.8 width-depth ratio 0.050 Manning's roughness
0.25 Darcy-Weisbach fric.
Bankfull Flow 7.4 resistance factor u/u* •
3.9 velocity(ft/s) 6.3 relative roughness
110.0 discharge rate(cfs) _
0.54 Froude number Materials ,t.-
36 D50 Riffle(mm)
87 D84 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
44 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Contract No.100138
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 10
XS 10(Big Branch-Pool)
96
95 «�...
94
93
0 92
w w 91
90
89
88
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions y '
47.8 x-section area(ft.sq.) 20.7 W flood prone area(ft) 4,9 i '' 4
ci g y
•
17.8 width(ft) 1.2 entrenchment ratio 'c •fl� '.
2.7 mean depth(ft) 6.2 low bank height(ft)
3.7 max depth(ft) 1.7 low bank height ratio - -
21.1 wetted perimeter(ft) _
2.3 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance
6.6 width-depth ratio 0.050 Manning's roughness
0.22 Darcy-Weisbach fric. 1 .
Bankfull Flow 8.4 resistance factor u/u*
4.9 velocity(ft/s) 9.4 relative roughness
232.5 discharge rate(cfs)
0.57 Froude number Materials
36 D50 Riffle(mm)
View Downstream
87 D84 Riffle(mm)
62 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 11
XS 11(UT3 Reach 1-Pool)
96
95
94 - •
93 -
92 -
0
91 -
>
v
w 90 -
89 -
88 -
87 7
0 5 10 15 20 25
Width(ft)
Elevation(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions r
4.9 x-section area(ft.sq.) 7.1 W flood prone area(ft) 4r'" =
r kE
3.5 width(ft) 2.0 entrenchment ratio
1.4 mean depth(ft) 5.7 low bank height(ft) �' {
2.1 max depth(ft) 2.7 low bank height ratio .' Z
5.8 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.8 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistance V.*•'
2.5 width-depth ratio 0.030 Manning's roughness
0.11 Darcy-Weisbach fric.
Bankfull Flow 3.9 resistance factor u/u* F'
6.7 velocity(ft/s) 1.9 relative roughness
33.1 discharge rate(cfs) , •
1.29 Froude number Materials `f r•
90 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
230 D84 Riffle(mm)
59 threshold grain size(mm):

Cross-Section Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Existing Conditions 2020
Cross Section 12
XS 12(UT3 Reach 1-Riffle)
95
94
•
93 •
92
4 91
a', 90
89
88
87 ,
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Width(ft)
Bankfull Dimensions Flood Dimensions +r 1 - :-
2.0 x-section area(ft.sq.) 3.6 W flood prone area(ft) i 4
2.6 width(ft) 1.4 entrenchment ratio ,'ry
t•
0.8 mean depth(ft) 5.2 low bank height(ft)
1.1 max depth(ft) 4.8 low bank height ratio
3.7 wetted perimeter(ft)
0.5 hydraulic radius(ft) Flow Resistancee.
_,_ -•
3.3 width-depth ratio 0.040 Manning's roughness •
0.23 Darcy-Weisbach fric. MOW
Bankfull Flow 2.6 resistance factor u/u* -
- -
3.8 velocity(ft/s) 1.0 relative roughness
7.6 discharge rate(cfs)
0.90 Froude number Materials
90 D50 Riffle(mm) View Downstream
230 D84 Riffle(mm)
39 threshold grain size(mm):

Existing Conditions Geomorphic Parameters
Big Branch Reach 1 Big Branch Reach 2 UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1B UT3 Reach 1
Parameter Notation Units
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
stream type C4/1 G4c/1 E4/1 G3c/1 B4c/1 F1
drainage area DA sq mi 2.1 2.3 0.54 1.13 0.54 0.01
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 34.4 28.5 13.3 11.9 10.7 2.0
average velocity during bankfull event Vbkf fps 3.3 3.9 4.4 4.6 3.8 1.8
Cross Section
width at bankfull Wbkf feet 21.4 15.8 10.3 11.6 11.7 6.4
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 2.4 2.2 2.4 1.4 1.6 1.0
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.6 1.8 1.3 1.0 0.9 0.3
bankfull width to depth ratio Wbkf/dbkf 13.3 8.8 8.0 11.2 12.9 20.6
low bank height feet 7.0 5.1 2.4 6.3 3.1 2.4
bank height ratio BHR 3.0 2.3 1.0 4.6 2.0 2.4
floodprone area width Wfpa feet 50.0 19.4 50.0 13.8 19.1 8.7
entrenchment ratio ER 2.3 1.2 >2.2 1.2 1.6 1.3
Profile
max pool depth at bankfull dpool feet 2.4 3.7 2.6 3.6 2.1 2.1
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 1.5 2.1 2.0 3.6 2.3 7.0
pool width at bankfull wood feet 14.5 17.8 17.5 17.6 6.4 7.2
pool width ratio Wpool/Wbkf 0.7 1.1 1.7 1.5 0.5 1.1
bankfull pool cross-sectional area Apool SF 22.5 47.8 17.6 45.5 9.7 12.1
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 0.7 1.7 1.3 3.8 0.9 6.1
pool-pool spacing p-p feet 35 88 69 104 28 117 57 89 23 122 52 191
pool-pool spacing ratio P-P/Wbkf 1.6 4.1 4.4 6.6 2.7 11.4 4.9 7.7 2.0 10.4 8.1 29.8
Slope
valley slope Svalley feet/foot 0.010 0.007 0.017 0.010 0.018 0.036
channel slope Schannel feet/foot 0.007 0.009 0.013 0.016 0.013 0.029
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.14 1.13 1.19 1.17 1.19 1.00
belt width Wblt feet 28 64 68 19 59 33 59 18 66 -
meander width ratio wblt/Wbkf 1.3 3.0 4.3 1.8 5.7 2.8 5.1 1.5 5.6 -
meander length Lm feet 139 237 220 51 152 96 125 50 145 -
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf 6.5 11 13.9 5.0 15 8.3 11 4.3 12 -
linear wavelength LW 96 194 171 44 124 80 34 56 -
linear wavelength ratio LW/Wbkf 4.5 9 10.8 4.3 12 6.9 2.9 5 -
radius of curvature /Rc feet 14 51 45 54 5 28 6 27 7 29 -
radius of curvature ratio Rd Wbkf 0.7 2.4 2.8 3.4 0.5 2.7 0.5 2.3 0.6 2.5 -
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 4

Proposed Geomorphic Parameters
Big Branch UT1 Reach 1 UT1 Reach 2 UT1B UT3 Reach 1
Notation Units Typical Typical Typical Typical Typical
Section Min Max Section Min Max Section Min Max Section Min Max Section Min Max
Values Values Values Values Values
stream type C4/1 C4/1 C4/1 C4/1 B4
drainage area DA sq mi 2.29 0.57 1.13 0.54 0.01
design discharge Q cfs 144.0 - 52.0 - 85.0 - 49.0 - 6.0 -
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 34.0 - 13.8 - 23.3 - 14.7 - 1.9 -
average velocity during bankfull event Vbkf fps 4.2 - 3.8 - 3.6 - 3.4 - 3.3 -
Cross Section
width at bankfull wbkf feet 24.0 - 14.5 - 20.0 - 15.2 - 5.2 -
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 2.0 - 1.3 - 1.5 - 1.3 - 0.5 -
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.4 - 1.0 - 1.2 - 1.0 - 0.4 -
bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 16.9 - 15.3 - 17.2 - 15.7 - 14.6 -
max depth ratio dmax/dbkf feet 1.4 - 1.4 - 1.3 - 1.3 - 1.4 -
bank height ratio BHR 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 - 1.0 -
floodprone area width wfpa feet - 52.8 120.0 - 31.9 72.5 - 44.0 100.0 - 33.4 76.0 - 7.3 11.4
entrenchment ratio ER - 2.2 5.0 - 2.2 5.0 - 2.2 5.0 - 2.2 5.0 - 1.4 2.2
Slope
valley slope Svalley feet/foot 0.0100 0.0160 0.0101 0.0110 0.0360
channel slope Schnl feet/foot 0.0083 0.0077 0.0091 0.0118 0.0123 0.0133 0.0080 0.0078 0.0133 0.0092 0.0085 0.0092 0.0327 0.0277 0.0360
Profile
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot - 0.0115 0.0355 - 0.0172 0.0520 - 0.0109 0.0328 - 0.0118 0.0358 - 0.028 0.090
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl - 1.5 3.9 - 1.4 3.9 - 1.4 3.9 - 1.4 3.9 - 1.0 2.5
pool slope Sp feet/foot - 0.000 0.000 - 0.000 0.0000 - 0.000 0.0000 - 0.000 0.0000 - 0.000 0.6000
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.00 0.00 - 0.0 0.60
pool-pool spacing Lp-p feet - 62 170 - 38 96 - 52 132 - 40 100 - 7.3 45.8
pool spacing ratio 1-p-p/wbkf - 2.6 7.1 - 2.6 6.6 - 2.6 6.6 - 2.6 6.6 - 1.4 8.8
pool cross-sectional area Apool SF 100.4 78.2 102.0 38.7 31.7 41.3 38.7 53.5 69.8 38.7 33.8 44.1 6.0 3.7 7.4
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 3.0 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.3 3.0 2.8 2.3 3.0 3.2 2.0 4.0
maximum pool depth dpool feet 5.5 4.3 5.7 3.5 2.9 3.8 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.5 2.9 3.9 1.5 0.7 1.8
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 3.9 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 3.7 3.0 4.0 4.2 2.0 5.0
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 32.0 28.8 36.0 19.8 17.4 23.2 19.8 24.0 32.0 19.8 18.2 24.3 7.0 5.7 7.8
pool width ratio wpoo/Wbkf 1.3 1.2 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.6 1.3 1.1 1.5
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.20 1.10 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.20 1.20 1.30 1.10 - -
belt width wblt feet - 60 168 - 29 73 - 40 100 - 30 76 - - -
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf - 2.5 7 - 2.0 5.0 - 2.0 5.0 - 2.0 5.0 - -linear wavelength(formerly meander LW feet - 120 312 - 73 160 - 100 220 - 76 167 - - -
length)
linear wavelength ratio(formerly meander
LW/wbkf - 5.0 13.0 - 5.0 11.0 - 5.0 11.0 - 5.0 11.0 - - -
length ratio)
meander length Lm feet - 100 260 - 87 191 - 120 264 - 91 201 - - -
meander length ratio Lm/Wbkf - 4.2 10.8 - 6.0 13.2 - 6.0 13.2 - 6.0 13.2 - - -
radius of curvature Rc feet - 48 96 - 29 44 - 40 60 - 30 46 - - -
radius of curvature ratio RJ wbkf - 2.0 4.0 - 2.0 3.0 - 2.0 3.0 - 2.0 3.0 - - -
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 4

Reference Reach Geomorphic Parameters
Foust Upstream Long Branch Collins Creek Spencer Creek 2 UT to Varnals UT to Sandy Spencer Pilot Mountain UT to Richland Creek
Notation Units Creek Run Creek 3 Trib Downstream
Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
stream type C4 C/E4 E4 E4 C4/E4 B4c E4b B4 C4/E4
drainage area DA sq mi 1.4 1.49 1.68 0.96 0.41 0.15 0.37 0.27 0.97
design discharge Q cfs 95.2 101 124 115 150 97 54.0 20 35 32 69 79
bankfull cross-sectional area Abkf SF 23.9 24.1 25 34.6 32.9 17.8 19.7 10.3 12.3 5.7 6.2 6.6 8.7 6 16.5 17.5
average velocity during bankfull event vbkf fps 2.9 3.7 3.6 4 3.9 4.9 5.4 4.4 5.2 3.4 5 5.3 4.2 4.5
Cross-Section
width at bankfull wbkf feet 18.5 19.4 14.8 18.6 11.9 20.1 10.7 11.2 9.3 10.5 7.3 7.8 6.3 9.3 8.6 13.3 15.2
maximum depth at bankfull dmax feet 1.8 2.1 1.9 2.9 3.3 4.2 2.1 2.6 1.5 1.7 1.1 1.4 1 1.2 1 1.8 2.1
mean depth at bankfull dbkf feet 1.3 1.4 1.3 2.1 1.6 2.7 1.60 1.80 1.1 1.2 0.7 0.8 0.8 1.0 0.7 1.1 1.3
bankfull width to depth ratio wbkf/dbkf 13.9 14.2 7.9 13.8 4.4 12.1 5.8 7.1 8.1 9.3 6.6 9.8 7.9 9.3 12.5 10.1 13.9
depth ratio dmaX/dbkf feet 1.4 1.6 1.4 1.5 1.5 2.5 1.3 1.4 1.36 1.42 1.6 1.8 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.6 1.7
bank height ratio BHR 1 1.2 1.5 1 1.1 1 1 1.7 2.6 1 1 1 1
floodprone area width wfpa feet 49 62.5 >50 60 60 114+ 60 100 12.2 15.6 14 125 13.3 >50
entrenchment ratio ER 2.6 3.4 >3.4 2.0 3 5.5 10 5.7 10 1.6 2.1 1.7 4.3 1.5 >2.5
Slope
valley slope Svalley feet/foot 0.0095 0.006 -- 0.011 0.020 0.02 0.022 0.0404 0.016
channel slope Schnl feet/foot 0.009 0.004 0.003 0.005 0.017 0.015 0.019 0.0378 0.0140
Profile
riffle slope Sriffle feet/foot 0.015 0.035 0.013 0.012 0.003 0.008 0.013 0.024 0.057 0.004 0.042 0.018 0.034 0.015 0.120 0.018 0.036
riffle slope ratio Sriffle/Schnl 1.7 3.9 3.3 3 -- 2.8 1.41 3.35 0.2 2.8 1.0 1.6 0.4 3.2 1.3 2.5
pool slope Sp feet/foot 0.0008 0.0034 0.0003 0.003 0 0.0007 0.0009 0 0.015 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00
pool slope ratio Sp/Schnl 0.09 0.38 0.1 0.8 0 0.15 0.19 0 0.88 0.00 0.47 0.00 0.60 0.00 0.30 0.02 0.27
pool-to-pool spacing Lp_p feet 48.8 91.3 50 105 32 80 71 7.8 82.2 9.3 54.8 9.0 46.0 7.2 51.9 33.0 93.0
pool spacing ratio Lp-p/wbkf 2.6 4.7 3.4 7.1 1.6 6.7 6.3 6.6 0.5 5.6 1.3 7.0 1.4 4.9 0.8 6.0 2.5 6.1
pool cross-sectional area Apool SF 29.2 34.9 25.5 33.4 57.9 24.5 22 22.7 5.5 8.7 6.5 9.8 9.6 1.8 1.8
pool area ratio Apool/Abkf 1.2 1.4 1.0 1.3 1.8 1.2 1.4 1.8 1.9 1.0 1.4 1.0 1.1 1.6 1.4 1.6
maximum pool depth dpool feet 2.5 2.9 2.2 2.4 3.3 2.5 2.6 1.3 1.5 1.2 1.8 1.6 14.7 16.0
pool depth ratio dpool/dbkf 1.9 2.1 0.8 1.2 0.9 1.5 1.8 2 3.0 3.1 1.9 1.9 1.5 1.8 2.3 1.0 1.2
pool width at bankfull wpool feet 15.3 20.5 16.2 18.8 24.3 17.5 15.1 18.6 7.6 9.2 6.0 12.0 8 14.7 15.8
pool width ratio wpool/wbkf 0.8 1.1 0.9 1.3 1.2 2.0 1.6 1.0 1.3 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.3 0.9 0.9 0.9
Pattern
sinuosity K 1.05 1.3 -- 2.3 1.2 1.6 1.0 1.2 1.1
belt width wblt feet -- 60 -- 38 41 14.6 44.5 24.3 59.6 10.0 50.0 --
meander width ratio wblt/wbkf -- -- 3.2 4.1 -- 3.4 3.6 1.0 3.0 3.3 7.6 1.6 5.4 --
linear wavelength Lm feet -- -- 66 191 -- 46 48 16.4 46.6 63.0 72.0 55.0 142.0 --
linear wavelength ratio Lm/wbkf -- -- 4.5 10.3 -- 4.1 4.4 1.1 3.2 8.6 9.2 8.7 15.3 --
meander length feet -- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- -- --- --- 53 178 --
meander length ratio -- -- --- --- -- --- --- -- -- --- --- 8.4 19.1 --
radius of curvature Rc feet -- -- 16 87 -- 11 15 8.3 47.3 13.7 29.4 12.0 85.0 --
radius of curvature ratio RJ wbkf -- -- 1.1 4.7 -- 1.3 1.4 0.6 3.2 1.9 3.8 1.9 9.1 --
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 4

S& Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA
E
1010 Ruvru Ridgy Road • Raleigh. North C awli l.i 27614 • Plum,. i';1°));i k•-59OCJ • F . 1 119}846-9407
www.ti:uuiC:C,cnits
HYDRIC SOIL INVESTIGATION
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
5799 NC Highway 73, Mt. Gilead, NC
PIEDMONT
Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
Montgomery County, North Carolina
Prepared for:
Mr. Eric Neuhaus
Wildlands
167-B Haywood Road,
Asheville, NC 28806
CO .t 0.t. A . 450047:fyiutto$C4otki \ .
�Fy x
pp WS� x� ri
I : 1)_
fir
V51 0) ',,i'
130 KEVIN Cr MARTIN "�e„`...e
"i, OOISB6f �? 1003
dyo—AL wenja N
I
November 9th, 2020
Revised December 24th, 2020
1

INTRODUCTION
Soil & Environmental Consultants, PA(S&EC, PA) was retained to perform a preliminary evaluation to
assess the presence and extent of hydric soils onsite. Proposed Wetland Area 1 is mostly fescue grass
with some herbaceous vegetation intermixed. Proposed Wetland 2 contains an agricultural pond with
fescue grasses intermixed with herbaceous and woody vegetation outside the boundary of the pond.
Proposed Wetland Area 3 has been maintained in the past but currently has mostly herbaceous
vegetation with some small saplings intermixed. Proposed Wetland areas 1, 2, and 3 contained hydric soil
indicators F3 or F19 within 10" of the surface (see attached Figure A- Preliminary Soils Investigation
Map).
METHODOLOGY
On August 1st, 2019 S&EC, PA staff performed a hydric soil evaluation at the site.Additional soil borings
were performed on October 20, 2020. Hand auger borings were advanced on the property at locations as
appropriate to approximately estimate the location and extent of hydric soils within the project area (see
attached Figure A- Soil Borings Map). Each soil boring was evaluated to assess the presence or absence
of hydric soil indicators. Hydric soil indicators were identified utilizing the NRCS Field Indicators of Hydric
Soils in the United States-A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 8.2, 2018).
All areas evaluated are mapped as the moderately well drained Tillery soil series (thermic Aquic
Hapludults) and a Badin (well drained, thermic Typic Hapludults)-Tarrus (well drained, thermic Typic
Kanhapludults) complex. However, hydric indicators were found within some areas containing each of
these mapped soil types. The areas containing hydric soil indicators were most like the Roanoke (Fine,
mixed, semiactive, thermic Typic Endoaquults) or Wehadkee (Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid, thermic
Fluvaquentic Endoaquept) soil series. Non hydric soils were also observed in these areas. Non-hydric
areas were generally observed near streams or at foot or toe slopes of adjacent uplands.
RESULTS
Twenty-seven soil borings were performed within the study area in August of 2019. Thirteen
additional soil borings were performed in October of 2020. Soil characteristics were evaluated
and all areas identified as containing hydric soils met the hydric soil criteria described below.
Soil boring locations are indicated on the attached Figure A—Soil Borings Map. The depth to and
type of hydric soil indicator at each boring is shown in the table on the Soil Borings Map.
Red Dots on the Map—are borings where hydric soil indicators were not observed in the top 10"
of the soil profile. Hydric indicators may have been observed below 10" of the soil surface
depending on the boring location (see the table on Figure A for further details).
Blue Plus Signs --are hydric soils areas containing a depleted matrix ((F3) indicator) within 10"
of current land surface (these borings may also have had the F19 indicator above the F3, see the
table on the soils map for details of where this occurred)
Orange Triangles- are hydric soils areas containing a Piedmont floodplain indicator F19 within
10" but not a depleted matrix F3 within 10" (these borings may have also had the F3 indicator
below the F19 indicator, see the table on Figure A for further details).
2

Indicator F3: Depleted Matrix
Technical Description: A layer that has a depleted matrix with 60 percent
or more chroma of 2 or less and that has a minimum thickness of either:
(a) 2 in. (5 cm) if the 2 in. (5 cm) is entirely within the upper 6 in. (15 cm)
of the soil, or
(b) 6 in. (15 cm) starting within 10 in. (25 cm) of the soil surface.
Indicator F19: Piedmont Floodplain Soils
On flood plain, a mineral layer at least 15 cm (6 inches) thick, starting at a depth <25cm (10
inches) from the soil surface, with a matrix (60 percent or more of the volume) chroma of less
than 4 and 20 percent or more distinct or prominent redox concentrations occurring as soft
masses or pore linings.
3

Soil Profile#1/ Boring Location 3
Hydric Soil Indicator: None
Series and Taxonomic Class: Shellbluff- Fine-silty, mixed, active,thermic Oxyaquic Dystrudepts
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-12 A 10YR 4/4 100 Silt Loam
12-24 Bw 10YR 4/3 90 10YR 6/6 10 C M Silty Clay
Loam
4

Soil Profile#2/ Boring Location 5
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class:Wehadkee- Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid,thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquept
Redox Features
Horizon Depth (inches) Horizon Matrix Color(moist) % Texture Notes
Color (moist) % Type Location
0-4 A 10YR 4/2 100 Silt Loam
4-16 Btg 10YR 6/2 90 7.5YR 6/8 20 C M Silty Clay Loam
5

Soil Profile#3/ Boring Location 11
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class:Wehadkee- Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid,thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquept
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-4 A 10YR 4/4 100 Silty Clay
4-25 Bw 10YR 6/1 60 7.5YR 6/8 40 C M Silty Clay
6

Soil Profile#4/ Boring Location 25
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Roanoke- Fine, mixed, semiactive,thermic Typic Endoaquults
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-12 A 10YR 6/2 60 10YR 6/6 15 C M Silty Clay Compacted, unable to dig below
10YR 5/8 15 C M 12"
7.5YR 5/8 10 C M
7

Soil Profile#5/ Boring Location 27
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class: Roanoke- Fine, mixed, semiactive,thermic Typic Endoaquults
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-24 A 10YR 6/2 100 Silty Clay
24-36 Bw 10YR 6/6 50 Silty Clay
10YR 6/2 50
8

Soil Profile#6/ Boring Location 29
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class:Wehadkee- Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid,thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquept
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-6 A 10YR 5/2 90 5YR 4/6 10 C M Loam
6-17 Btg1 10YR 5/2 80 5YR 4/6 20 C M Silt Loam Plinthite at 16"
17-26 Btg2 10YR 4/1 90 10YR 6/8 10 C M Silty Clay
Loam
26-34 Btg3 10YR 5/1 60 10YR 6/6 40 C M Silty Clay
Loam
9

Soil Profile#7/ Boring Location J4
Hydric Soil Indicator: F3a & F3b
Series and Taxonomic Class:Wehadkee- Fine-loamy, mixed, active, nonacid,thermic Fluvaquentic Endoaquept
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-2 A 7.5YR 3/1 100 Sandy Loam
2-5 Bt 10YR 5/3 60 10YR 5/2 20 D M Silty Clay
7.5YR 4/3 20 C M Loam
5-13 Btg 10YR 6/1 60 10YR 5/6 40 C M Silty Clay
Loam
10

Soil Profile#8/ Boring Location J13
Hydric Soil Indicator: F19
Series and Taxonomic Class: Chewacla - Fine-loamy, mixed, active,thermic Fluvaquentic Dystrudepts
Horizon Matrix Redox Features
Depth Horizon Color % Texture Notes
(inches) (moist) Color (moist) % Type Location
0-14 A 2.5Y 6/3 75 7.5YR 5/6 20 C M Sandy Clay
10YR 7/1 5 D M Loam
11

•
Proposed Wetland 1 ■ _ F r t y,I
,`r\ '!;�'., : ,��..,,t?, ?' ,
2.
- Soil Profile 6 ■ , ` e 5 , . : ;: �,n;:' ! .+•
o. } 7
J03
BH28 .-•J01 .. . ■ - - a• , • T. * , s .
�. ," '1.• '� • ' k' �. ;` • , '1',.,.�� i
_ l ,J02 s Soil Profile 7 • '' \ R W `{ a',:Y', •i4',,+i ;tp,i',▪ c. .` r .`,tt'' _ t,
" \.'M., I..: • ' irifiiii#
, . , ,.. , ▪. ,t, , • . • NO , , , ... . .
J08 \ , U -- r '4'k '' t ,..,',� ' :.fit ,1'r► L:
y ti J04 J07 �' BH30 a ,f�•i.• • :,, :' .,t• • C'± p..; , �.
Rt. }i J06, J09 Ng �.••. - •+ as ,„ ".,- .` .: • ,`r 'l. "z, r y , �t ;
l Soil Profile 4 BH25+' BH.27�BH2O BH 1 `• ,t;.4., ;',, ..; K. .�▪i^ r',.h.',4•fti ':i�•i""".'1. ►S`y,`1
BH23 BH22 ' i'" ��'� -'�d•*^
405 y '10-
} '. 0 • 1•l �+y'•+ 't ''. � Ir
+e. T OJ'19' 1k ;. �.`.' :4•:1{";'i- - tip' ,'. , :1.
Depth to r i 'f • } t ,ti+ J' tl,y.
Boring Hydric Soil Profile Y BH24 , `ti " rLA ; '''• I ■
K ' t �/
Indicator i. i -. ��y ‘A ''.• ,�# ►, s t . ' + :.r� " ;l ' . .`,,. , . -
BH1 NonHydric— .4, Soil Profile 5 " • r'46ii t` ', l sqt
BH2 Non Hydric— r _T- 6 y1. '... of 4. ,' y�,y r '•. .. y
4 4.
BH3 Non Hydric Soil Profile 1 0, L• ,, �. ,1 ' „f• s; "�
BH4 Non Hydric— 4 y Proposed Wetland 2 • •l + ,�,� ''++ M �- r •
BHS 4" F3 Soil Profile 2 a p �•� -. �a, Y. . ,`�+ =1 �.,.-;� . •y•,. *4' 1:■..1. _
BH6 4"-F3 N. -. tom. v cl,K.I L, ..., ..r.} iy Y . ��• hl •.. 't ,7'V� ,�1' yaF P4w"� l •. •,-y4.t t
BH7 Non Hydric—' . +, 7. +'•■ ty. ,• +7y;-r•,: • •.� 1..'.`,y;�14, - •+'' , ,-••'f •;►`.y- {.•
BH8 NonHydric— * 14 ': -I ;.A ;.1 • :. t- {, .y -s.:;. F, ieL a '. ,.,`• ; %.:'
—. 1 r i■ a y � r 1 .
BH9 4"-F19 ' a.. ■ i; �.�c :• �_' 4gi�w:;:it,} ';q:-
BH10 4"-F19 - � F ■ a +� + �. " ,��'�c'', � .7 '•,'. „ ?3i� #?
BH11 4" F3 Soil Profile 3 r , , a` ;et A+.:.'' '' ':.;;4� �3iltsi:. ;;�'fk','— . n*E
BH12 Non Hydric • �+► ' ,ta .' ,• ',; .'��,'; ' ti t�►% )/ 1 4, K .:
1'4
BH14 9"-F3 li,'. t � t + ; •,Sy,1i L .• '
BH15 Non Hydric— '' 'R
BH16 Non Hydric ■ /f- Soil Profile 1
- .' - I,___,_• Project Area Wetland Soils ' `S
BH2O 9"-F3 —
BH21 9"-F3 BdD - Badin-Tarrus Complex, 15-25% r' �F� Soil Profile 3
BH22 Non Hydric U Proposed Wetland Re-establishment
BH23 12"-F3 Areas slopes, Hydric !.
BH24 10"-F3 BeC2 Badin Tarrus Complex, 8 15% ' • BH3 f7�'h�
BH25 9"-F3 SoilProfile4• _BH'15 J'11
Existing Project Stream s;'� - • - o
Slopes, Moderate) Eroded Hydric . ,.
BH26 Non Hydric p y y ��`'. �/ �J12 -BH9 �`._
aEM
BH27 0"-F3 Soil Profile 5 0 -
BH14
BH28 0"-F3 • Soil Profile OkA - Oakboro Silt Laom, 0-2/Slopes, , ...;
BH2
1- BH29 3"-F3 Soil Profile 6 Frequently Flooded �s_ • .r BH13 -. ;:.-
BH30 Non Hydric- Soil Borings and Hydric Indicator a ?,. a•* — -BHS._ ` - -
J01 Non Hydric— Observed Within 10" of the Soil Surface TeB-Tillery Silt Loam, 0-6% Slopes, •• ,t 1`-yy BH1 BH10 BH6. 3 - BH8 V
J03 Non Hydric Ili
Rarely Flooded, Hydric ( a•. . BH710 ��' , 0 F19 =
J04 5"-F3 Soil Profile 7• + -y^ • I •
'
J05 6"-F3 • -
J06 6"-F3 —.' , . ;y + F3 �.
J07 5"-F3 9 `�. Soil Profile 8
J08 Non Hydric ?" 1 `�
• Non-Hydric ,
J09 7"-F3v �! w. 4
J10 Non H dric • � . - Proposed Wetland 3
ill 0"-F3 —. +
• �� ° *yellow circle indicates additional
J12 Non Hydric- •
:�.w .• boring from 10-20-2020 ,r;+ti� ■ Y: Soil Profile 2
J13 0"-F19 Soil Profile 8 a`� .t�, I • "}
Figure A- Preliminary Soils Investigation Map
IPP‘ii/11W W I L D L A N D S Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
ENGINEERING 0 225 450 Feet8t Yadkin River Basin o3040104
I I I I I Montgomery County, NC

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#1
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 0 o
m ro
v m
40 `^ p to p 5.0
bo N Oo (NI
C p C ON
30 o ^ 30
O N
20 - 4— m _ C7 �-
o 57 days a.,—
c 4.0
10 _ • • is c
w if1 =-
w 0 - � 3.0 al
w
Ql co
co
to' 10 L cc
5 -20 � 2.0
30 1\
40 1.0
-50 Il.i J. L� I
-60 I I I I ' I • 11 1 1.4 11.E . . ii . I' 11• I I d I .I "I I 0.0
C 4 L T C CIO a > U
LL g Q co
g —'i , Q (I 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#1 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#2
Existing Conditions-2020
c
60 - Lo 0 6.0
v co
boo SO o n o
c 0 oc
NI
40 - 1.7 o N 5.0
30 - rn 0 w �
0
20 - � c
24 days "' 4.0
Y-= 10 - • •
w =-
w 0 ..�., 3.0
J
v
m 10 L
5 -20 2.0
\ANNIL_, \.\. 1
30
40 1.0
\\. .
-60 I I L I 1I. i . I I .
-60 I I i.i , .�J. I , Li , . I iJI, _I.� . , . . . I I 1 - 1 0.0
c L c DO Q > U
Rainfall Gage#2 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#3
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 - o to
co co
40 `^ o to 0 5.0
pp N OA N
C p C 0
30 - o ^ 30
O N
co
20 - o r^ —4- i - 4.0
0
2 t 25 days 25 days
-= 10 ;° •• • w
w -
0 3.0 al
`w S
taj -10 — - - - — - - - - � - - - - 1 - - - - — L
iiiii
-20 2.0
-30
-40 1.0
-60 i _8..d..1.... 11 1 . 1 III. lJ.I 1 L ` JI_. - L .Il\
-60 I I III I 1 I 0.0
C - T C M a +-' > V
V
LL g ¢ g ' ¢ In 0 z 0
Rainfall Gage#3 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#4
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 - o to
m ro
v m
40 `^ p to p 5.0
boo N Oo (NI
C p C ON
30 0 ^ 30
O NI
20 or^ \
c t 11 days 4.0
10 .-• w c
Ti, VI =-
°1 0 - 3.0 ,l
J
Ql
m -10 d 1�1co
!' -202.0
30 \Jv NI ,_ ..4\
40 • 1.0
50 I.i J. �� I 1 �J� ak . . ��I .i JI. . Ii . L .I I L.. .60 I I I I I 1 1 0.0
C L T C CIO Q > U
ro LL g ¢ g ¢ (I 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#4 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#5
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 0 o
m ro
v m
40 - VI to p 5.0
boo N Oo(NI
C p C ON
30 o ^ 30
O N
20 - r^ t7 �-
o 14 days ' �0o 4.0
10 roS• is
Ti, VI =-
°1 0 - 3.0 .70—
J
Ql
\61%, \Ortu....kk k\lc\.\.%
\S:\
-20 — 2.0
\111111VINI\N
30
tL.
40 1.0
-50I . . i . . ..
-60 I I i.i , .� I J. I , �� 1 , I iJI, �I� . . II ,. II II I 1 I 0.0
C _0 ,_ C no Q > U
co LL g ¢ g ¢ (I 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#5 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#6
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 0 o
m ro
v m
40 `^ p VI 0 5.0
boo ry Oo(NI
C p C NI
30 - o ^ 30
O ry
20 - or^ \ 4.0
c t 16days
10 a3 �� is
Ti, =-
°1 0 - 3.0 ,l
J
v 1 co
co
m -10L 1 1 T cc
20 N 2.0
30 ,- 1
40 —V- , W�� 1.0
-60 �i.� 18. ., I, ili . �, . , . . ��. _ Ii . LI d i
0.0
I I i I I I I I 1 I
C ,_ T C CIO Q >0 U
U- g ¢ g —'i ¢ ., 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#6 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#7
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 0 o
m 0
cu co
40 `^ o ,no 5.0
30 co cN
2 ^
c O N
20 - wM — 0 � - 4.0
c t 25 days . o
10 _ � w
Ti, tfl
i 0 - , r k/ik �_ 3.0 42
,11J Y c
m 10 -\ CC
5 -20 2.0
30
40 — 1.0
50 IIi
I I
-60 I I _1I.I I , .�1. I , li 1 , . I i I iJi, Ili . . ll . , . JI. _ _ , . , .I L..1 I 0.0
C 4 ,_ 8. T C 00 Q > U
LL g ¢ g ¢ (I 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#7 — — Criteria Level

Groundwater Gage Plots
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
DMS Project No.100138
Existing Conditions-2020
Cross Creek Ranch Groundwater Gage#8
Existing Conditions-2020
60 - - 6.0
50 0 o
m ro
v m
40 `^ p to p 5.0
ho N Oo (NI
C p C ON
30 o ^ 30
O NI
20 - — r^ \
2 t 19 days 4.0
10 • — w c
Ti, if1 =-
0 al
Ql
o' -10 \\\r,1\\) co
co
,1N Vill\ _\
cc
-20 \ 2.0
-30 \
40 \ 1.0
50 II. .11 J.1 L1 1 . I i 1 IJI 11.E . i ��I I JI. Ii . I L..I
60 I I 1 I I I I ' I 1 1 0.0
C 4 ,_ T C CIO Q > U
LL g ¢ gco ¢ (I 0 z o
Rainfall Gage#8 — — Criteria Level

Cross Creek Ranch 30-70 Percentile Graph for Rainfall in 2020
10
9
8
7 -
c 6 -
c
0
0 5 -
4..
D.
V
N
a 4 -
3
2
1 -
0
Jan-20 Feb-20 Mar-20 Apr-20 May-20 Jun-20 Jul-20 Aug-20 Sep-20 Oct-20 Nov-20 Dec-20
Date
2020 30th Percentile -70th Percentile
Rainfall

Appendix 5

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id.SAW-2020-00051 County:Montgomery U.S.G.S.Quad:NC-Mount Gilead West
NOTIFICATION OF JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION
Requestor: Wildlands Engineering
Ian Eckardt
Address: 1430 S.Mint Street,suite 104
Charlotte,NC 28203
Telephone Number: 704-517-4988
E-mail: ieckardt(a,wildlandseng.com
Size(acres) 113 Nearest Town Mount Gilead
Nearest Waterway Clarks Creek River Basin Upper Pee Dee
USGS HUC 03040104 Coordinates Latitude:35.2322
Longitude:-80.0242
Location description:The project site is approximately 113 acres located adjacent to NC Hwy 73,near the town of Mount
Gilead,Montgomery County,North Carolina.
Indicate Which of the Following Apply:
A. Preliminary Determination
e 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 9/2/2020.Therefore
this preliminary jurisdiction determination may be used in the permit evaluation process,including determining compensatory
mitigation.For purposes of computation of impacts,compensatory mitigation requirements,and other resource protection
measures,a permit decision made on the basis of a preliminary JD will treat all waters and wetlands that would be affected in any
way by the permitted activity on the site as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S.This preliminary determination is not an
appealable action under the Regulatory Program Administrative Appeal Process(Reference 33 CFR Part 331).However,you may
request an approved JD,which is an appealable action,by contacting the Corps district for further instruction.
❑ There appear to be waters,including wetlands on the above described project area/property,that may be subject to Section 404
of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC § 1344)and/or Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC§403).
However,since the waters,including wetlands have not been properly delineated,this preliminary jurisdiction determination
may not be used in the permit evaluation process. Without a verified wetland delineation,this preliminary determination is
merely an effective presumption of CWA/RHA jurisdiction over all of the waters,including wetlands at the project area,which
is not sufficiently accurate and reliable to support an enforceable permit decision.We recommend that you have the waters,
including wetlands on your project area/property delineated.As the Corps may not be able to accomplish this wetland
delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that can be verified by the Corps.
B. Approved Determination
❑ There are Navigable Waters of the United States within the above described project area/property subject to the permit
requirements of Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act(RHA)(33 USC §403)and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA)(33 USC § 1344). Unless there is a change in law or our published regulations,this determination may be relied upon for
a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑ There are waters,including wetlandson the above described project area/property subject to the permit requirements of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act(CWA)(33 USC§ 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,this
determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
❑We recommend you have the waters,including wetlands on your project area/property delineated. As the Corps may not be
able to accomplish this wetland delineation in a timely manner,you may wish to obtain a consultant to conduct a delineation that
can be verified by the Corps.
❑The waters,including wetlands on your project area/property have been delineated and the delineation has been verified by
the Corps.The approximate boundaries of these waters are shown on the enclosed delineation map dated DATE.We strongly
suggest you have this delineation surveyed. Upon completion,this survey should be reviewed and verified by the Corps. Once

SAW-2020-00051
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(252)808-2808 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 James Lastin2er at 919-554-4884 ext 32 or
James.C.Lastin2er(ausace.army.mil.
C. Basis For Determination: Basis For Determination: See the preliminary jurisdictional determination
form dated 11/13/2020.
D. Remarks: None.
E. Attention USDA Program Participants
This delineation/determination has been conducted to identify the limits of Corps'Clean Water Act jurisdiction for the particular site
identified in this request. The delineation/determination may not be valid for the wetland conservation provisions of the Food Security
Act of 1985. If you or your tenant are USDA Program participants,or anticipate participation in USDA programs,you should request
a certified wetland determination from the local office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service,prior to starting work.
F. Appeals Information (This information applies only to approved jurisdictional determinations as indicated in B.
above)
This correspondence constitutes an approved jurisdictional determination for the above described site. If you object to this
determination,you may request an administrative appeal under Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331. Enclosed you will find a
Notification of Appeal Process(NAP)fact sheet and request for appeal(RFA)form. If you request to appeal this determination you
must submit a completed RFA form to the following address:
US Army Corps of Engineers
South Atlantic Division
Attn: Phillip Shannin,Review Officer
60 Forsyth Street SW,Room 10M15
Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
In order for an RFA to be accepted by the Corps,the Corps must determine that it is complete,that it meets the criteria for appeal
under 33 CFR part 331.5,and that it has been received by the Division Office within 60 days of the date of the NAP. Should you
decide to submit an RFA form,it must be received at the above address by Not applicable.
**It is not necessary to submit an RFA form to the Division Office if you do not object to the determination in this correspondence.**
Corps Regulatory Official: �°'"`_car
Date of JD:11/13/2020 Expiration Date of JD: Not applicable

SAW-2020-00051
The Wilmington District is committed to providing the highest level of support to the public. To help us ensure we
continue to do so,please complete the Customer Satisfaction Survey located at
http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cmapex/f?p=136:4:0
Copy furnished:
Property Owner: Cross Creek Family LP
Address: PO Box 43
Mt. Gilead,NC 27306
Telephone Number: 704-796-0222
E-mail:

Mik NOTIFICATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL OPTIONS AND PROCESS AND
REQUEST FOR APPEAL
Applicant:Wildlands Engineering,Ian Eckardt File Number: SAW-2020-00051 Date: 11/13/2020
Attached is: See Section below
❑ INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT(Standard Permit or Letter of permission) A
❑ PROFFERED PERMIT (Standard Permit or Letter of permission) B
❑ PERMIT DENIAL C
❑ APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION D
❑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.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/RegulatoryProgramandPermits.aspx
or the Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 331.
A: INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT: You may accept or object to the permit.
• ACCEPT: If you received a Standard Permit,you may sign the permit document and return it to the district engineer for fmal
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 fmal
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.
1
SECTION II -REQUEST FOR APPEAL or OBJECTIONS TO AN INITIAL PROFFERED PERMIT
REASONS FOR APPEAL OR OBJECTIONS: (Describe your reasons for appealing the decision or your objections to an initial
proffered permit in clear concise statements. You may attach additional information to this form to clarify where your reasons or
objections are addressed in the administrative record.)
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The appeal is limited to a review of the administrative record,the Corps memorandum for the
record of the appeal conference or meeting,and any supplemental information that the review officer has determined is needed to
clarify the administrative record. Neither the appellant nor the Corps may add new information or analyses to the record.
However,you may provide additional information to clarify the location of information that is already in the administrative
record.
POINT OF CONTACT FOR QUESTIONS OR INFORMATION:
If you have questions regarding this decision and/or the If you only have questions regarding the appeal process you may
appeal process you may contact: also contact:
District Engineer,Wilmington Regulatory Division Mr.Phillip Shannin,Administrative Appeal Review Officer
Attn:James Lastinger CESAD-PDO
Raleigh Regulatory Office U.S.Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division
U.S Army Corps of Engineers 60 Forsyth Street,Room 10M15
3331 Heritage Trade Drive,Suite 105 Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
Wake Forest,North Carolina 27587 Phone: [phone]
RIGHT OF ENTRY: Your signature below grants the right of entry to Corps of Engineers personnel,and any government
consultants,to conduct investigations of the project site during the course of the appeal process. You will be provided a 15-day
notice of any site investigation,and will have the opportunity to participate in all site investigations.
Date: Telephone number:
Signature of appellant or agent.
For appeals on Initial Proffered Permits send this form to:
District Engineer,Wilmington Regulatory Division,Attn:James Lastinger,69 Darlington Avenue,Wilmington,North
Carolina 28403
For Permit denials,Proffered Permits and Approved Jurisdictional Determinations send this form to:
Division Engineer,Commander,U.S.Army Engineer Division,South Atlantic,Attn:Mr.Phillip Shannin,Administrative
Appeal Officer,CESAD-PDO,60 Forsyth Street,Room 10M15,Atlanta,Georgia 30303-8801
Phone: [phone]

PRELIMINARY JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (PJD) FORM
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR PJD: 11/13/2020
B. NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSON REQUESTING PJD: Wildlands Engineering,Ian Eckardt, 1430 S.
Mint Street, suite 104,Charlotte,NC 28203
C. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME,AND NUMBER: Wilmington District,Cross Creek Ranch
Mitigation site/NCDMS, SAW-2020-00051
D. PROJECT LOCATION(S) AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The project site is approximately
113 acres located adjacent to NC Hwy 73,near the town of Mount Gilead,Montgomery County,North
Carolina.
(USE THE TABLE BELOW TO DOCUMENT MULTIPLE AQUATIC RESOURCES
AND/OR AQUATIC RESOURCES AT DIFFERENT SITES)
State:NC County: Montgomery City:Mount Gilead
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Latitude: 35.2322 Longitude:-80.0242
Universal Transverse Mercator:
Name of nearest waterbody: Clarks Creek
E. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION(CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Z Office (Desk) Determination. Date:November 13,2020
Field Determination. Date(s):
TABLE OF AQUATIC RESOURCES INREVIEW AREA 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.,wetland which the aquatic resource
degrees) degrees) aquatic vs. non-wetland waters) "may be"subject(i.e.,
resources in Section 404 or Section
review area 10/404)
(acreage and
linear feet, if
applicable
Clarks Creek 35.2278 -80.0218 5081 LF Non-wetland Section 404
UT1 35.2362 -80.0327 3577 LF Non-wetland Section 404
UT1B 35.2364 -80.0267 1570 LF Non-wetland Section 404
UT3 35.2340 -80.0350 3587 LF Non-wetland Section 404
Big Branch 35.2318 -80.0181 1999 LF Non-wetland Section 404
UT to Big Non-wetland Section 404
Branch 35.2321 -80.0180 75 LF
Wetland A 35.2362 -80.0322 0.075 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland B 35.2361 -80.0315 0.129 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland C 35.2357 -80.0310 0.004 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland D 35.2356 -80.0307 0.036 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland E 35.2356 -80.0304 0.102 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland F 35.2349 -80.0301 0.103 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland G 35.2341 -80.0295 0.051 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland H 35.2344 -80.0285 0.162 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland I 35.2346 -80.0290 0.004 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland J 35.2337 -80.0271 0.041 acre Wetland Section 404

Wetland K 35.2357 -80.0270 0.022 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland L 35.2354 -80.0266 0.008 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland M 35.2351 -80.0264 0.039 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland N 35.2347 -80.0261 0.076 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland 0 35.2344 -80.0224 0.024 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland P 35.2327 -80.0233 0.004 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland Q 35.2301 -80.0219 0.063 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland R 35.2331 -80.0334 0.028 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland S 35.2301 -80.0303 0.028 acre Wetland Section 404
Wetland T 35.2285 -80.0297 0.032 acre Wetland Section 404
Pond 35.2341 -80.0284 0.741 acre Wetland Section 404

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

SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for PJD(check all that apply)Checked items are included in the administrative
record and are appropriately cited:
®Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor:
Map:attached
®Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the PJD requestor.Datasheets:
®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: Mount Gilead Quad
®Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:NRCS websoil survey
▪National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: USFWS NWI
❑State/local wetland inventory map(s):
▪FEMA/FIRMmaps: NC FIRM maps
❑100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929)
®Photographs: ® Aerial (Name & Date):2019 aerial
or Z Other(Name&Date): site photos undated
❑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.
1.4.4-re.zo
Signature and date of Regulatory Signature and date of person requesting PJD
staff member completing PJD (REQUIRED, unless obtaining the signature is
11/13/2020 impracticable)'
1 Districts may establish timeframes for requester to return signed PJD forms. If the requester does not respond within the established
time frame, the district may presume concurrence and no additional follow up is necessary prior to fmalizing an action.

3 'n o
`I q
o : o o
a z
m
o O To U
N 2 22m
o
o s
F3,(Y) ,2a c
2 v Y
�� m
}
0)_ G�E v V
LIT ��5
GAP
Q A
o c% H3NV89./9
tim
o,
m o
1
,. /
. II' r / .....,..
/I
o GREED F
R,5
G�
c ..
4
•
'z Y ;
E. *'. . .21 o
-'
S{ O —
lelliP.....1:.....
D . t
• H:::,
- .. - i
. . i/ -. , '.* ‘...i.. .
r�
3 ., • d _ v7
s w
r e• if f� tj- '"'
1411 -i•':. '
' E��. :! `
,;,.: ' r _ _ a Q a O a a Z al
r

•
rrr„ - a o- a) a U
rr5o
,A rno ° zz o`
',, /- k 2 E' ,.
r 6 To0 u
•r, - 8 -- Of -i-u 1111
v
f ff a V
Ma
./
r
♦S
5
4i
, Y 2a)1 RI
•
;fir, �.' • r
' r
• ` ir x , —S '.0
11
1, 1 i k
3 g O y f . sg, I �g
r /
%, : la
11
�!. o7 d goo
q ,„,.,,, -., 10 rt.
AtN. IN, 'fj.1%,f' ,* *
3 a a it
�I ; . . P
V �.Z
s= s= o r:i� _
v a /'•
h1 -- Z
II 3 a v t w
V
rvv v v v v v - _
o a0- aa o - v
a Q O Z w vl
p a
alle '�� l0 ® :1.1 I O • .O 0'
•l 9: 4

fl_ N a U
TIIHI
.t11
I.:-.
a 't o f
a N N F V
o v a 3 3 a - .i
3 z z
Y• E Y Y Y ° b° a /..
v v v v v
o n o v
a Q a O a a z w v,
11
•
1111.
2' . iiiiikaillipor ,
1
u. 'II
*
•
� ' A. A 1
I . ,
li
I', ,! t , .
- _,
„„ , 0
•,, '
. • „,„ ;
.':,. ,
• _i' i Y i J ,i O
e ,
F n f !!•
•• yi■ , I I
gip{ 1 ■
0 Is qV • ,
igi
lip{ • '•i ■ ^w
• gyp{ • �
ft
5(py9 1 ■ •
•
MI I '•• ■ - FBI W
v! .;
,_
a
E. �°
w 7N IL
IL

o- N a U
4-' 0
O i
r - .r O ° 0 S
E
1 - m T t m W
+� -' o m E
1, 9 Q m j a
v
' ..N LL V }
3e °
V
II
U
asp
k mi gi .
I
U
.
•
1 ° ' op
o �' .., . ,
+ {w m
4, i4 v• ; 0
E 13;x � .• - # .., /
0 —
a
7"Iir 0 c:)2' ,. h ,.
, .
; i 0 1 •
. _
0 .
i , : ,.. .....• ........:., r.,...
•
*It" * fl4A
E
- Tx.' ,r v�0
a a Z
v v 0 o Y �j
3 a a a -,L.
Z
0
a a v v E 1_ U'
00 it 3- p v i - a Z
a - Qw
o v ,, z Z v v
.Y 3 .Y .Y P w a E
o �
v a - m
v v v v v
o nöñ Y

Appendix 6

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: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
County Name: Montgomery County
DMS Number: 100138
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 Pro'ect Mana•er: Kelly Phillips
Project Description
The project includes stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation on Clarks Creek, Big Branch,
and multiple unnamed tributaries. Three areas of relic wetlands are proposed for re-establishment within
the floodplains of project streams. Clarks Creek drains to the Pee Dee River just downstream of the
Norwood Dam on Lake Tillery. The area surrounding the streams and channels proposed for stream and
wetland mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures and previously deforested
timber areas.
For Official Use Only
Reviewed By:
3/11/2020 Katy 17144:L .
Date DMS Project Manager
Conditional Approved By:
3-//-2_o
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
❑ Check this box if there are outstanding issues
Final Approval By:
8---2-5-2-0 Pow-aid G(). U4_zu)--
Date For Division Administrator
FHWA
6 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 2: All Projects
Regulation/Question Response
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)
1. Is the project located in a CAMA county? ❑Yes
ElNo
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 Liability Act(CERCLA)
1. Is this a "full-delivery" project? ✓❑Yes
❑ No
2. Has the zoning/land use of the subject property and adjacent properties ever been ❑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 II 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
7 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Part 3: Ground-Disturbing Activities
Regulation/Question Response
American Indian Religious Freedom Act(AIRFA)
1. Is the project located in a county claimed as "territory" by the Eastern Band of ❑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
8 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(f))
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 Treaty Act (MBTA)
1. Does the USFWS have any recommendations with the project relative to the MBTA? ❑Yes
✓❑ No
2. Have the USFWS recommendations been incorporated? ❑Yes
❑ No
✓❑ N/A
Wilderness Act
1. Is the project in a Wilderness area? ❑Yes
❑✓ No
2. Has a special use permit and/or easement been obtained from the maintaining ❑Yes
federal agency? ❑ No
❑✓ N/A
9 Version 1.4, 8/18/05

Cross Creek Ranch 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 Cross Creek Ranch 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 February 7, 2020.
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 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
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site on January 15, 2020. SHPO stated they were aware of"no historic
resources which would be affected by the project" and would have no further comment. All
correspondence related to Section 106 is included in the Appendix.
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.
Cross Creek Ranch 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.
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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Information for Planning and Consultation database
(IPaC) list of endangered species for the site includes the Red-cockaded Woodpecker(Picoides borealis),
the Schweinitz's Sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii), and the Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
The USFWS does not currently list any Critical Habitat Designations for the Federally listed species
within Montgomery County nor are there any current known occurrences of the above listed species
within a 2-mile radius of the project site. Results from pedestrian surveys conducted on December 12,
2019 and August 19, 2020 indicated that the project area provides areas of suitable habitat for the
Schweinitz's sunflower and the smooth coneflower.Wildlands conclusions and determinations are
noted below and included in the Appendix.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
DMS#100138 2

Schweinitz's Sunflower
Wildlands identified open areas and old pastures on the site, however, no populations resembling the
species were found during the pedestrian surveys. Wildlands determined the project will have "no
effect" on the Schweinitz's sunflower.
Smooth Coneflower
Wildlands identified open and disturbed areas on the site, however, no populations resembling the
species were found during the pedestrian surveys. Wildlands determined the project will have "no
effect" on the smooth coneflower.
To meet regulatory requirements, a self-certification letter was submitted through the USFWS IPaC
requesting comment from USFWS dated December 19, 2019. No response from the USFWS was
received within the 45-day response period. However,the USFWS responded to the public notice
issued on April 3, 2020 stating that the project is not likely to adversely affect federally listed species
or their critical habitat.
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.
Cross Creek Ranch 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 Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site includes stream restoration, enhancement, and preservation.
Wildlands requested comment on the project from both the USFWS and the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission (NCWRC) on December 19, 2019, respectively. No response from the USFWS was
received within the 45-day response period. However,the USFWS responded to the public notice issued
on April 3, 2020. NCWRC responded via email to the scoping letter on January 16, 2020 noting they have
no concerns with the project.
All correspondence with the two agencies is included in the appendix.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act(MBTA)
The MBTA makes it unlawful for anyone to kill, capture, collect, possess, buy, sell,trade, ship, import, or
export any migratory bird.The indirect killing of birds by destroying their nests and eggs is covered by
the MBTA, so construction in nesting areas during nesting seasons can constitute a taking.
Wildlands requested comment on the Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site from the USFWS in regard to
migratory birds on December 19, 2019.The USFWS did not respond to the scoping letter. However,the
USFWS responded to the public notice issued on April 3, 2020. All correspondence with USFWS is
included in the Appendix.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Categorical Exclusion
tart DMS#100138 3

Cross Creek Ranch
5700 NC 73
Mount Gilead, NC 27306
Inquiry Number: 5963894.1s
February 07, 2020
The EDR Radius Map TM Report with GeoCheck®
6 Armstrong Road,4th floor
Shelton, CT 06484
EDIr Toll Free:800.352.0050
www.edmet.com
FORM-NULL-CCA

TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
Executive Summary _ ES1
Overview Map 2
Detail Map 3
Map Findings Summary 4
Map Findings 8
Orphan Summary_ 9
Government Records Searched/Data Currency Tracking GR-1
GEOCHECK ADDENDUM
Physical Setting Source Addendum_ A-1
Physical Setting Source Summary A-2
Physical Setting Source Map A-7
Physical Setting Source Map Findings A-8
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 2020 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.
TC5963894.1 s 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
5700 NC 73
MOUNT GILEAD, NC 27306
COORDINATES
Latitude(North): 35.2335040-35° 14' 0.61"
Longitude(West): 80.0279270-80° 1' 40.53"
Universal Tranverse Mercator: Zone 17
UTM X(Meters): 588454.1
UTM Y(Meters): 3899173.0
Elevation: 308 ft. above sea level
USGS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP ASSOCIATED WITH TARGET PROPERTY
Target Property Map: 5948325 MOUNT GILEAD WEST, NC
Version Date: 2013
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY IN THIS REPORT
Portions of Photo from: 20140920
Source: USDA
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1

MAPPED SITES SUMMARY
Target Property Address:
5700 NC 73
MOUNT GILEAD, NC 27306
Click on Map ID to see full detail.
MAP RELATIVE DIST(ft. &mi.)
ID SITE NAME ADDRESS DATABASE ACRONYMS ELEVATION DIRECTION
NO MAPPED SITES FOUND
5963894.1s 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-VSQG RCRA-Very Small Quantity Generators(Formerly Conditionally Exempt Small Quantity
Generators)
Federal institutional controls/engineering controls registries
LUCIS Land Use Control Information System
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
US ENG CONTROLS Engineering Controls Sites List
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
DEBRIS Solid Waste Active Disaster Debris Sites Listing
OLI Old Landfill Inventory
LCID Land-Clearing and Inert Debris(LCID) Landfill Notifications
State and tribal leaking storage tank lists
LAST Leaking Aboveground Storage Tanks
LUST Regional UST Database
INDIAN LUST Leaking Underground Storage Tanks on Indian Land
LUST TRUST State Trust Fund Database
State and tribal registered storage tank lists
FEMA UST Underground Storage Tank Listing
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
INDIAN VCP Voluntary Cleanup Priority Listing
VCP Responsible Party Voluntary Action Sites
State and tribal Brownfields sites
BROWNFIELDS Brownfields Projects Inventory
ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL RECORDS
Local Brownfield lists
US BROWNFIELDS A Listing of Brownfields Sites
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Local Lists of Landfill/Solid Waste Disposal Sites
SWRCY Recycling Center Listing
HIST LF Solid Waste Facility Listing
INDIAN ODI Report on the Status of Open Dumps on Indian Lands
DEBRIS REGION 9 Torres Martinez Reservation Illegal Dump Site Locations
ODI Open Dump Inventory
IHS OPEN DUMPS Open Dumps on Indian Land
Local Lists of Hazardous waste/Contaminated Sites
US HIST CDL Delisted National Clandestine Laboratory Register
US CDL National Clandestine Laboratory Register
Local Land Records
LIENS 2 CERCLA Lien Information
Records of Emergency Release Reports
HMIRS Hazardous Materials Information Reporting System
SPILLS Spills Incident Listing
IMD Incident Management Database
SPILLS 90 SPILLS 90 data from FirstSearch
SPILLS 80 SPILLS 80 data from FirstSearch
Other Ascertainable Records
RCRA NonGen/NLR RCRA- Non Generators/No Longer Regulated
FUDS Formerly Used Defense Sites
DOD Department of Defense Sites
SCRD DRYCLEANERS State Coalition for Remediation of Drycleaners Listing
US FIN ASSUR Financial Assurance Information
EPA WATCH LIST EPA WATCH LIST
2020 COR ACTION 2020 Corrective Action Program List
TSCA_ Toxic Substances Control Act
TRIS Toxic Chemical Release Inventory System
SSTS Section 7 Tracking Systems
ROD Records Of Decision
RMP Risk Management Plans
RAATS RCRA Administrative Action Tracking System
PRP Potentially Responsible Parties
PADS PCB Activity Database System
ICIS Integrated Compliance Information System
FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System-FIFRA(Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, & Rodenticide
Act)/TSCA(Toxic Substances Control Act)
MLTS Material Licensing Tracking System
COAL ASH DOE Steam-Electric Plant Operation Data
COAL ASH EPA_ Coal Combustion Residues Surface Impoundments List
PCB TRANSFORMER PCB Transformer Registration Database
RADINFO Radiation Information Database
HIST FTTS FIFRA/TSCA Tracking System Administrative Case Listing
DOT OPS Incident and Accident Data
CONSENT Superfund (CERCLA)Consent Decrees
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
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
US MINES Mines Master Index File
ABANDONED MINES Abandoned Mines
FINDS Facility Index System/Facility Registry System
ECHO Enforcement&Compliance History Information
DOCKET HWC Hazardous Waste Compliance Docket Listing
UXO Unexploded Ordnance Sites
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
CCB Coal Ash Structural Fills(CCB) Listing
MINES MRDS . Mineral Resources Data System
SEPT HAULERS Permitted Septage Haulers 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 not identified.
Unmappable(orphan)sites are not considered in the foregoing analysis.
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6

1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
There were no unmapped sites in this report.
TC5963894.1s EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7

OVERVIEW MAP - 5963894.1 S
Illhikll / f
"-----W.40 -.,r 6-74 --NRN%11
t
,,
I
•
' 41 /
it‘i*I41::://.1ti
A /Amiat , s6,_ 1/
4
)1
P / -
_ .;;Iiiiit
41
_ .._daiiiii . ... $0.16 *
- . ifir s ., ,..„ . 4
* Target Property 0 1i4 1/2 1 naves
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property = Indian Reservations BIA l',',1 Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than :\.7 Power transmission lines Disposal Sites
the target property
A Manufactured Gas Plants / Special Flood Hazard Area(1%)
National Priority List Sites VA 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
Dept.Defense Sites • National Wetland Inventory
State Wetlands
This report includes Interactive Map Layers to
display and/or hide mapinformation.The
p Y
legend includes only those icons for the
default map view.
SITE NAME: Cross Creek Ranch CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 5700 NC 73 CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Mount Gilead NC 27306 INQUIRY#: 5963894.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.233504/80.027927 DATE: February 07,2020 10:12 am
Copyright g 2020 EDR,Inc.(g?2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

DETAIL MAP — 5963894.1 S
F,a, m
Pd
m
A
a
' k .
//
•
i
., /
•
V /
* Target Property 0 1/16 1/8 1/4 Mlles
A Sites at elevations higher than
or equal to the target property = Indian Reservations BIA l','.1 Hazardous Substance
• Sites at elevations lower than /��/ Special Flood Hazard Area(1%) Disposal Sites
the target property
VA 0.2%Annual Chance Flood Hazard
A Manufactured Gas Plants • National Wetland Inventory
t Sensitive Receptors State Wetlands
l National Priority List Sites
Dept.Defense Sites
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: Cross Creek Ranch CLIENT: Wildlands Eng, Inc.
ADDRESS: 5700 NC 73 CONTACT: Andrea Eckardt
Mount Gilead NC 27306 INQUIRY#: 5963894.1s
LAT/LONG: 35.233504/80.027927 DATE: February 07,2020 10:13 am
Copyright g 2020 EDR,Inc.(g?2015 TomTom Rel. 2015.

Pir
‘41,
WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
December 19,2019
Renee Gledhill-Earley
State Historic Preservation Office
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh,NC 27699-4617
Subject: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Montgomery 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 and wetland restoration project on the Cross Creek
Ranch Mitigation Site located in Montgomery County,NC. A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the
approximate project area are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Mount Gilead West 7.5-Minute USGS
Topographic Quadrangle,and the site is located at latitude 35.235 longitude
-80.022.
The Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation in the Yadkin River basin.
The project includes stream restoration,enhancement,and preservation on Clarks Creek,Big Branch,and multiple unnamed
tributaries.Three areas of relic wetlands are proposed for re-establishment within the floodplains of project streams.Clarks
Creek drains to the Pee Dee River just downstream of the Norwood Dam on Lake Tillery.The area surrounding the streams and
channels proposed for stream and wetland mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures and previously
deforested timber areas.
The major goals of the stream and wetland mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Yadkin River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level.This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels,stabilizing eroding stream banks,restoring and enhancing native floodplain and wetland vegetation,
improving the stability of stream channels,improving instream and wetland habitat,reducing sediment and nutrient input from
adjacent agricultural fields,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 the Pee Dee
River,as well as reconnect instream and terrestrial habitats on the project site.
No surveyed sites listed on the North Carolina State Historic Preservation office are located within a mile of the Site.The Mount
Gilead Downtown Historic District(HPO Site ID: MG0037)is the closest NC Historic Preservation Area and is located 2 miles
southeast of the Site.The NC Natural Heritage Program(NHP)Managed Areas referenced two Division of Mitigation Services
Easements,one national forest,one Catawba Lands Conservancy Easement,and one Three Rivers Land Trust Easement within
five miles of the Site. No other architectural structures or archaeological artifacts have been observed or noted 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,
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

I ;11 _.,,,,-trill
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
January 15, 2020
Kirsten Gimbert
Wildlands Engineering,Inc.
1430 South Mint Street
Suite 104
Charlotte,NC 28203
Re: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site,Montgomery County,ER 19-5494
Dear Ms. Gimbert:
Thank you for your email of December 19,2019 concerning the above project.
We have conducted a review of the project and are aware of no historic resources which would be affected by
the project. Therefore,we have no comment on the project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,at 919-814-6579 or
environmental.review@a,ncdcr.gov. In all future communication concerning this project,please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
Sincerely,
(2k.-A_a_t_. w
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

3.9 Notices.All notices required by this agreement shall be in writing,shall be given only in accordance with
the provisions of this Section,shall be addressed to the Parties in the manner stated below,and shall be conclusively
deemed properly delivered: (a) upon receipt when hand delivered during normal business hours; (b) upon the day of
delivery if the notice has been deposited in an authorized receptacle of the United States Postal Service as first-class,
registered or certified mail, postage prepaid,with a return receipt requested; (c)one business day after the notice has
been deposited with either FedEx or United Parcel Service to be delivered by overnight delivery;or(d) if sent by email,
upon receipt of an acknowledgement email sent to the sender's email address in which the party receiving the email
notice acknowledges having received that email.An automatic"read receipt"is not acknowledgement for purposes of
this section 3.9.The addresses of the parties to receive notices are as follows:
TO BUYER: Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
1430 S. Mint Street,Suite 104
Charlotte, North Carolina 28203
Attention: Robert W. Bugg
Email: [e-mail]
TO SELLER: Bruce E. Hudson
PO Box 43
Mt Gilead,NC 27306
Email:[e-mail]
Notice of change of address shall be given by written notice in the manner described in this paragraph.
3.10 Assignment. Buyer has the right to assign this agreement without the consent of Seller. No assignment
shall be effective unless the assignee has delivered to Seller a written assumption of Buyer's obligations under this
agreement.Seller hereby releases Buyer from any obligations under this agreement arising after the effective date of
any assignment of this agreement by Buyer.
3.11 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.
3.12 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 otherobligation.
3.13 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.
3.14 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
7
7-24-19 RWB
sSW1 Buyer
Seller

�EtyT OF T r u.a N
i6 h� FISH&N'nar.IFE
QP ^I�j S1E€VICh
o��=_ - United States Department of the Interior
�QR .� FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ,'' r.,,
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Date.12/19/2019, REV 8.21 .2020
Self-Certification Letter
Project Name Cross Creek Ranch
Dear Applicant:
Thank you for using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Raleigh Ecological
Services online project review process. By printing this letter in conjunction with your
project review package,you are certifying that you have completed the online project
review process for the project named above in accordance with all instructions
provided,using the best available information to reach your conclusions. This letter,
and the enclosed project review package, completes the review of your project in
accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544, 87 Stat.
884), as amended(ESA), and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act(16 U.S.C.
668-668c, 54 Stat. 250), as amended(Eagle Act). This letter also provides
information for your project review under the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (P.L. 91-190,42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 83 Stat. 852), as amended. A copy of this
letter and the project review package must be submitted to this office for this
certification to be valid. This letter and the project review package will be maintained
in our records.
The species conclusions table in the enclosed project review package summarizes
your ESA and Eagle Act conclusions. Based on your analysis, mark all the
determinations that apply:
"no effect" determinations for proposed/listed species and/or
if proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
ri "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed/listed
species and/or proposed/designated critical habitat; and/or
n "may affect, likely to adversely affect" determination for the Northern long-
eared bat(Myotis septentrionalis) and relying on the findings of the January 5,
2016,Programmatic Biological Opinion for the Final 4(d) Rule on the
Northern long-eared bat;
"no Eagle Act permit required"determinations for eagles.

Applicant Page 2
We certify that use of the online project review process in strict accordance with the
instructions provided as documented in the enclosed project review package results in
reaching the appropriate determinations. Therefore,we concur with the "no effect" or
"not likely to adversely affect" determinations for proposed and listed species and
proposed and designated critical habitat; the"may affect" determination for Northern
long-eared bat; and/or the "no Eagle Act permit required" determinations for eagles.
Additional coordination with this office is not needed. Candidate species are not
legally protected pursuant to the ESA. However, the Service encourages consideration
of these species by avoiding adverse impacts to them. Please contact this office for
additional coordination if your project action area contains candidate species.
Should project plans change or if additional information on the distribution of
proposed or listed species,proposed or designated critical habitat, or bald eagles
becomes available,this determination may be reconsidered. This certification letter is
valid for 1 year. Information about the online project review process including
instructions, species information, and other information regarding project reviews
within North Carolina is available at our website http://www.fws.gov/raleigh/pp.html.
If you have any questions,you can write to us at [e-mail] or please contact
Leigh Mann of this office at 919-856-4520, ext. 10.
Sincerely,
/s/Pete Benjamin
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor
Raleigh Ecological Services
Enclosures -project review package

Species Conclusions Table
Project Name: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Date: 12/19/2019, REV 8/21/2020
Species/Resource Name Conclusion ESA Section 7/Eagle Act Notes/Documentation
Determination
Red-cockaded Woodpecker No suitable habitat present No effect Field Survey conducted on December 12, 2019 determined no
(Picoides borealis) individual species or suitable habitat were found to exist. No
critical habitat has been designated by USFWS for this
species. Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element
occurrences exist within the proposed project area.
Schweinitz's Sunflower Potential habitat present No effect Field Survey conducted on December 12, 2019 determined
(Helianthus schweinitzii) potential suitable habitat was found to exist.An additional field
survey was conducted on August 19, 2020 during the
blooming season of the plant and confirmed no individual
species were found to exist on the site. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Smooth Coneflower Potential habitat present No effect Field Survey conducted on December 12, 2019 determined
(Echinacea laevigata) potential suitable habitat was found to exist.An additional field
survey was conducted on August 19, 2020 during the
blooming season of the plant and confirmed no individual
species were found to exist on the site. No critical habitat has
been designated by USFWS for this species. Per NCNHP data
explorer, no known element occurrences exist within the
proposed project area.
Bald Eagle Unlikely to disturb nesting No Eagle Act Permit Required Field Survey conducted on December 12, 2019 observed one
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) bald eagles subadult individual in flight, but no nests were found to exist.
Per NCNHP data explorer, no known element occurrences
exist within the proposed project area.
Critical Habitat No critical habitat present
Acknowledgement: I agree that the above information about my proposed project is true. I used all of the provided resources to make an informed decision about
impacts in the immediate and surrounding areas.
Senior Environmental Scientist 8/21/2020
Signature/Title Date

� L hSai keWILIillft
x = _. United States Department of the Interior �`��
is' . . -
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
" ,;} Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: December 05, 2019
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0323
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733
Project Name: Cross Creek Ranch
Subject: List of threatened and endangered species that may occur in your proposed project
location, and/or may be affected by your proposed project
To Whom It May Concern:
The species list generated pursuant to the information you provided identifies threatened,
endangered, proposed and candidate species, as well as proposed and final designated critical
habitat, that may occur within the boundary of your proposed project and/or may be affected by
your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) under section 7(c) of the Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.).
New information based on updated surveys, changes in the abundance and distribution of
species, changed habitat conditions, or other factors could change this list. Please feel free to
contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to
federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical
habitat. Please note that under 50 CFR 402.12(e) of the regulations implementing section 7 of the
Act, the accuracy of this species list should be verified after 90 days. This verification can be
completed formally or informally as desired. The Service recommends that verification be
completed by visiting the ECOS-IPaC website at regular intervals during project planning and
implementation for updates to species lists and information.An updated list may be requested
through the ECOS-IPaC system by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list.
Section 7 of the Act requires that all federal agencies (or their designated non-federal
representative), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action federally authorized,
funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
federally-listed endangered or threatened species.A biological assessment or evaluation may be
prepared to fulfill that requirement and in determining whether additional consultation with the
Service is necessary. In addition to the federally-protected species list, information on the
species' life histories and habitats and information on completing a biological assessment or

12/05/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733
evaluation and can be found on our web page at http://www.fws.gov/raleigh. Please check the
web site often for updated information or changes
If your project contains suitable habitat for any of the federally-listed species known to be
present within the county where your project occurs, the proposed action has the potential to
adversely affect those species.As such, we recommend that surveys be conducted to determine
the species' presence or absence within the project area. The use of North Carolina Natural
Heritage program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect(i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a federally-protected species, you should notify this office with your
determination, the results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects
of the action on listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects,
before conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed
action will have no effect(i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on federally
listed species, then you are not required to contact our office for concurrence (unless an
Environmental Impact Statement is prepared). However, you should maintain a complete record
of the assessment, including steps leading to your determination of effect, the qualified personnel
conducting the assessment, habitat conditions, site photographs, and any other related articles.
Please be aware that bald and golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle
Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668 et seq.), and projects affecting these species may require
development of an eagle conservation plan(http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/
eagle_guidance.html).Additionally, wind energy projects should follow the wind energy
guidelines (http://www.fws.gov/windenergy/) for minimizing impacts to migratory birds and
bats.
Guidance for minimizing impacts to migratory birds for projects including communications
towers (e.g., cellular, digital television, radio, and emergency broadcast) can be found at: http://
www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/towers.htm; http://
www.towerkill.com; and http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/CurrentBirdlssues/Hazards/towers/
comtow.html.
Not all Threatened and Endangered Species that occur in North Carolina are subject to section 7
consultation with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service.Atlantic and shortnose sturgeon, sea
turtles,when in the water, and certain marine mammals are under purview of the National Marine
Fisheries Service. If your project occurs in marine, estuarine, or coastal river systems you should
also contact the National Marine Fisheries Service, http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/
We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages
Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project
planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Tracking Number in
the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project
that you submit to our office. If you have any questions or comments, please contact John Ellis
of this office at [e-mail].

12/05/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

12/05/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733 1
Official Species List
This list is provided pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and fulfills the
requirement for Federal agencies to "request of the Secretary of the Interior information whether
any species which is listed or proposed to be listed may be present in the area of a proposed
action".
This species list is provided by:
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
[phone]

12/05/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2020-SLI-0323
Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733
Project Name: Cross Creek Ranch
Project Type: LAND - RESTORATION/ENHANCEMENT
Project Description: Stream &Wetland Mitigation Site
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/35.231242599350225N80.01907561073094W
_ 1/4ripS
Counties: Montgomery, NC

12/05/2019 Event Code: 04EN2000-2020-E-00733 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 3 threatened, endangered, or candidate species on this species list.
Species on this list should be considered in an effects analysis for your project and could include
species that exist in another geographic area. For example, certain fish may appear on the species
list because a project could affect downstream species.
IPaC does not display listed species or critical habitats under the sole jurisdiction of NOAA
Fisheriesl, as USFWS does not have the authority to speak on behalf of NOAA and the
Department of Commerce.
See the "Critical habitats" section below for those critical habitats that lie wholly or partially
within your project area under this office's jurisdiction. Please contact the designated FWS office
if you have questions.
1. NOAA Fisheries, also known as the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), is an
office of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration within the Department of
Commerce.
Birds
NAME STATUS
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/7614
Flowering Plants
NAME STATUS
Schweinitz's Sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3849
Smooth Coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/3473
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

T OF t,, United States Department of the Interior
4v4Tr �es.
4 —' FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
z Raleigh ES Field Office
S S l-F Pylon Drive
'ReH 3 ,B' Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
April 20, 2020
Kim Browning
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Mitigation Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, NC 27587
Re: NCDMS Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site /SAW-2020-00051/ Montgomery County
Dear Mrs. Browning:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed the project advertised in the above
referenced Public Notice. The project, as advertised in the Public Notice, is expected to have
minimal adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources. Therefore, we have no objection to the
activity as described in the permit application.
In accordance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, (ESA) and based on the
information provided, and other available information, it appears the action is not likely to
adversely affect federally listed species or their critical habitat as defined by the ESA. We believe
that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for this project. Please
remember that obligations under the ESA must be reconsidered if: (1) new information identifies
impacts of this action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2) this action is modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or, (3) a
new species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
For your convenience a list of all federally protected endangered and threatened species in North
Carolina is now available on our website at <http://www.fws.gov/raleigh>. Our web page contains
a complete and updated list of federally protected species, and a list of federal species of concern
known to occur in each county in North Carolina.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review and provide comments on the proposed action.
Should you have any questions regarding the project, please contact Kathy Matthews at (919) 856-
4520, extension 27.
Sincerely,
for Pete Benjamin,
Field Supervisor
cc: NMFS, Beaufort, NC
EPA, Atlanta, GA
WRC, Raleigh

Kirsten Gimbert
From: Kirsten Gimbert
Sent: Friday, February 21, 2020 2:29 PM
To: Cortes, Milton - NRCS, Raleigh, NC
Subject: AD1006 FPPA Form-Cross Creek Ranch
Attachments: FPPA_AD1006 Cross Creek 2.21.2020.pdf
Milton,
Please find attached to the email the completed FPPA AD1006 Form for the Cross Creek Ranch 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
1

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 Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Federal Agency Involved FHWA
Proposed Land Use Stream Restoration County And State Montgomery County, NC
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 140 acres
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt.Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
CORN Acres: 108,921 acres % 46 Acres: 92,266 acres %39
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System Date Land Evaluation Returned By NRCS
Montgomery Co. LESA N/A 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 62.9
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site 62.9 0.0 0.0 0.0
PART IV(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland 39.6
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland 20.4
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0.0651
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt.Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value 39.2
PART V(To be completed by NRCS) Land Evaluation Criterion 48 0 0 0
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted(Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria(These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use 15 15
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use 10 10
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed 20 5
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government 20 20
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area 15 13
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 1
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services 10 0
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use 10 0
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 79 0 0 0
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 48 0 0 0
Total Site Assessment(From Part VI above or a local 160 79 0 0 0
site assessment)
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260 127 0 0 0
Was A Local Site Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes ❑ No 0
Reason For Selection:
(See Instructions on reverse side) Form AD-1006(10-83)
This form was electronically produced by National Production Services Staff

WILDLANDS
E NGINEER!NG
December 19,2019
Gabriela Garrison
North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Eastern Piedmont Coordinator
Sandhills Depot
PO Box 149
Hoffman,NC 28347
Subject: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Montgomery County,North Carolina
Dear Ms.Garrison,
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 and wetland restoration project on the Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
located in Montgomery County,NC.A USGS Topographic Map and an Overview Site Map showing the approximate project area
are enclosed. The topographic figure was prepared from the Mount Gilead West 7.5-Minute USGS Topographic Quadrangle,
and the site is located at latitude 35.235 longitude.
The Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site is being developed to provide stream and wetland mitigation in the Yadkin River basin.
The project includes stream restoration,enhancement,and preservation on Clarks Creek,Big Branch,and multiple unnamed
tributaries.Three areas of relic wetlands are proposed for re-establishment within the floodplains of project streams.Clarks
Creek drains to the Pee Dee River just downstream of the Norwood Dam on Lake Tillery.The area surrounding the streams and
channels proposed for stream and wetland mitigation is currently an active farm composed of cattle pastures and previously
deforested timber areas.
The major goals of the stream and wetland mitigation project are to provide ecological and water quality enhancements to the
Yadkin River Basin while creating a functional riparian corridor at the site level.This will be accomplished by excluding livestock
from stream channels,stabilizing eroding stream banks,restoring and enhancing native floodplain and wetland vegetation,
improving the stability of stream channels,improving instream and wetland habitat,reducing sediment and nutrient input from
adjacent agricultural fields,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 the Pee Dee
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
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: Garrison, Gabriela <[e-mail]>
Sent: Thursday,January 16, 2020 1:31 PM
To: Kirsten Gimbert
Subject: Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Hello Ms. Gimbert,
I have reviewed the information you sent regarding the Cross Creek Mitigation Site in Montgomery County. I don't have
any concerns with this project at this time.
Thank you,
Gabriela
Gabriela Garrison
Eastern Piedmont Habitat Conservation Coordinator
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Sandhills Depot, P.O. Box 149
Hoffman, NC 28347
Office and Cell: 910-409-7350
[e-mail]
www.ncwildlife.org
Email correspondence to and from this sender is subject to the N.C. Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.
1

.}`•• - -
V_•1 Proposed Conservation Easement Temporary Contruction Easement Path _
QProject Parcels Non-Project Stream l_ - • ;
Temporary Construction Easement Area Project Stream .7 ` ' 1.,.
WNW S.
.
N.*:4111. •:-:...
i
/----'''' -,..... .... ... 0
• UT1 y —�
. U
a.
7' 11 11
•
.. ...; IN -:"",:-. 40 ••. ••••'V .%. -•, . •:..
- . • , - * -_
o
m
m
2019 Aerial Photography •
II4Figure 1 Site Map
W I L D LA N D S 0 875 1,750 Feet Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
E h1 G I fJ E E R I tJ G I I I I I Yadkin River Basin 03040104
Montgomery County, NC

....._...,-... - -.............\\.) ,,j ) ...... k F ,! • iv° --t \.../t
Lj Proposed Conservation ` r 1`
)1.4tiNi?")% .N''''' • V
I.
\ . 1 i 4 , f,/ /
9 -6 1.211//f°6 'Nil) 1.1oki .i 27 .,...... ...... -41 4a.. . ) ! i \,.. ..1,1 •Iiiiii
• a:\ i ‘ fibtih .
r-4 .,1, 0
dig ., -- `4t,.__,. . / 11 Irflatrillii..— i Ilk(
V/ .. ,011.1 re,,,:iffr.,,i . .il
e••••J'S r:4 lar *4
.—‘'%.:
: .,
• I 1 .." / ,i/ \4111,N
N / . 21/ //1 ' 4;41:
•
4I (
• a ki,. f, Q r
„ ,,.. .c.%
\ . •
.,-;„ ..
-...)h. ....NIII ‘c
.....---- .., . - - \ \,5,0
. ,
0 ..?ziok \
lik
) ,
11 ,) \‘, ;5--(-...
ti . 4,\......\\,"
Pr v lio
\ \t\>
i , N• i 1 11) ‘11S 1) i ! 4 '1 Vr 4
:iii. 1:\b' Aill t4*res: d Aigi.W.
--.14 1 0 re. ,..i
Mount Gilead West, NC USGS US Topo 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle
Figure 2 USGS Topographic Map
�- WILD LAND 5 0 850 1,700 FeetI
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin 03040104
Eh1GIfJEERItJG I I I I
Montgomery County, NC

WILDLANDS
ENGINEERING
MEETING MINUTES
MEETING: Post Contract IRT Site Visit
CROSS CREEK RANCH Mitigation Site
Yadkin River Basin 03040104; Montgomery County, NC
NCDMS Project No. 100138
USACE ID: SAW-2020-00051
NCDEQ Contract No. 7879-01
Wildlands Project No. 005-02186
DATE: On-site Meeting: Monday,January 13, 2020, 10:00 am
Meeting Notes Distributed:Wednesday,January 22, 2020
LOCATION: 5630 NC-73
Mt Gilead, NC 27306
Attendees
Todd Tugwell, USACE
Mac Haupt, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Erin Davis, NC Department of Environmental Quality
Paul Wiesner, Division of Mitigation Services (NCDMS)
Kirsten Ullman, NCDMS
Kelly Phillips, NCDMS Project Manager
Casey Haywood, NCDMS
Shawn Wilkerson, Wildlands Engineering
John Hutton, Wildlands Engineering
Eric Neuhaus, Wildlands Engineering
Materials
• Wildlands Engineering Technical Proposal dated 8/13/2019 in response to NCDMS RFP#16-007879
Overall Site Notes/Comments
1. The IRT appreciates the bigger project scale with few crossings/breaks and encourages expanded/wide
stream buffers when possible.
2. The IRT appreciates the additional buffer area at the upstream and downstream extent of Clarks Creek.
It was noted that these additional buffer areas should be highlighted within the mitigation plan.
3. Given the quantity and extent of invasive vegetation (primarily Chinese privet) within the project,
Wildlands needs to ensure strong language within the mitigation plan regarding treatment as well as a
detailed management plan for treatment long-term with the conservation easement.
4. With the exception of the potential of segmenting UT3 into different mitigation types, the IRT agreed
with the approaches and ratios on the project streams and wetlands.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 1
CROSS CREEK RANCH mitigation site
Post-Contract IRT Site Walk

Meeting Notes
1. Wildlands gave a brief site overview before the walk which discussed stream and wetland approach and
general site conditions.
2. It was noted by Wildlands that upstream of UT1 (outside of the project area)the property owner
harvested timber in 2014 but left a forested buffer adjacent to stream.
3. The walk began at the upstream end of Big Branch. It was noted that the concrete box culvert passing
under NC-73 is perched and that Wildlands will set the upstream grade of Big Branch high enough to
eliminate the current perching of the existing culvert.
4. Work within the DOT right-of-way at the upstream end of Big Branch was discussed. Wildlands noted
that they would seek approval to work within the DOT right-of-way as required. It was noted that the
conservation easement would start approximately 30 feet downstream of the ROW.
5. The walk continued down Big Branch until its confluence with Clarks Creek. Bank height ratio along Big
Branch was discussed. It was noted that Wildlands needs to note/include discussion around incision,
instability, floodplain access, and hydrologic connection to the adjacent wetlands along Big Branch to
help justify restoration within the mitigation plan.
6. The group proceeded into proposed wetland 3 to look at the existing ditches and potential wetland soils.
Soil borings were taken in the southwest end and centrally within proposed wetland 3. Generally,the
IRT agreed with the licensed soils scientist hydric soils investigation provided with the proposal.
7. It was noted that if soils vary in type between proposed wetland 1, 2, and 3 after further soils
investigation; separate wetland hydrology performance standards may be required for separate wetland
areas.
8. The IRT noted the extensive amount of broomsedge (Andropgon virginicus)within proposed wetland 3.
Wildlands intends to disk and roughen the wetland area and mechanically remove the broomsedge.
9. Emphasis was placed on restoring the natural flooding regime of Big Branch and reconnecting the
stream and wetland systems to justify restoration approach of Big Branch.
10. The walk continued at the confluence of UT1 and UT1B areas of the site. It was noted that Crossing 2 will
be a 100'wide internal crossing and that the existing overhead electric line will be relocated to within
the internal crossing.
11. The site walk continued up UT1B.The IRT asked if the internal crossing (crossing#1 in the proposal)
could be relocated to the upstream extent of UT1B. Wildlands confirmed with the property owner that
this should not be an issue and intends on relocating the crossing based on this discussion.
12. UT1 was then walked from upstream to downstream. Potential hydric soils within proposed wetland 1 in
the left floodplain of UT1 were confirmed. It was noted by the IRT that re-aligning UT1 closer to
proposed wetland 1 would be ideal if possible.
13. Potential hydric soils were also confirmed within proposed wetland 2, along with seep hydrology source
which is currently in cattle wallow.
14. The IRT noted that proper approach and jurisdictional classification will be required for the pond
conversion to wetland. Wildlands understands the need to ensure proper jurisdictional classification of
the existing pond and associated pond conversion to wetland. Wildlands will provide information within
the mitigation plan that outlines the current pond jurisdiction, proposed restoration approach, evidence
of relic hydric soils (as available), and an associated crediting ratio to be evaluated by the IRT and
NCDMS.
15. The site walk continued with some spot visits to sections of Clarks Creek. The IRT agreed that with
major privet removal, spot erosion repairs, planting out the buffer, and given the size of the creek that
E2 at 4:1 was appropriate mitigation.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 2
CROSS CREEK RANCH mitigation site
Post-Contract IRT Site Walk

16. The walk proceeded to the upstream extent of UT3. It was noted by Wildlands that if the jurisdictional
stream call was moved upstream, Wildlands would capture the entirety of the jurisdictional stream
within the proposed conservation easement.
17. UT3 was walked from upstream to downstream, and it was noted by the IRT that the reach is in varying
condition which will require fluctuating levels of treatment and design. Wildlands will provide a follow-
up memo including a map and table that outline lengths, approaches, and associated crediting ratios for
UT3 and provide it to NCDMS and the IRT for approval prior to major design efforts.
Wildlands Engineering, Inc. page 3
CROSS CREEK RANCH mitigation site
Post-Contract IRT Site Walk

From: Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US)
To: Wiesner,Paul;Haupt,Mac; Davis.Erin B; Kim Browning
Cc: Phillips,Kelly D; Ullman, Kirsten J; Haywood,Casey;Shawn Wilkerson;John Hutton;Eric Neuhaus
Subject: [External]RE: Cross Creek Ranch Site_DMS#100138:Post Contract IRT Site Visit(1-13-2020)Meeting Minutes
Date: Friday,January 24,2020 2:46:28 PM
CAUTION:External email.Do not click links or open attachments unless you verify.Send all suspicious email as
an attachment to [e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Paul,
I looked over the minutes and they look OK. I would note that the JD needs to be done to confirm the existing
jurisdictional status and limits within the wetlands to confirm the approaches. Also,we will need to concur with the
approach within the pond,and whether the resulting credits will be R or RE,but I think we need more info on that
before we can make a decision.
Thanks and let me know if you have any questions.
Todd
Original Message
From:Wiesner,Paul[mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: Wednesday,January 22,2020 11:13 AM
To: Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US)<[e-mail]>;Haupt,Mac
<[e-mail]>;Davis,Erin B<[e-mail]>;Browning,Kimberly D CIV USARMY
CESAW(USA)<[e-mail]>
Cc:Phillips,Kelly D<[e-mail]>;Wiesner,Paul<[e-mail]>;Ullman,Kirsten J
<[e-mail]>;Haywood,Casey<[e-mail]>; Shawn Wilkerson
<[e-mail]>;John Hutton<[e-mail]>;Eric Neuhaus
<[e-mail]>
Subject: [Non-DoD Source]Cross Creek Ranch Site_DMS# 100138:Post Contract IRT Site Visit(1-13-2020)
Meeting Minutes
All:
The meeting minutes from the January 13,2020 IRT post contract site visit are attached for your review.
Please let us know if you have any additional comments,questions or concerns.
Thanks
Paul Wiesner
Western Regional Supervisor
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality

Division of Mitigation Services
828-273-1673 Mobile
[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>
Western DMS Field Office
5 Ravenscroft Drive
Suite 102
Asheville,N.C.28801
Email correspondence to and from this address is subject to the
North Carolina Public Records Law and may be disclosed to third parties.

From: Jeff Keaton
To: Tugwell,Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW(US); Brownina, Kimberly D CIV USARMY CESAW(USA); Davis.Erin B;
Haywood,Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW(USA);Wiesner. Paul; Phillips, Kelly D
Cc: Shawn Wilkerson;Abigail Vieira
Subject: RE: Cross Creek Ranch UT3 Approach Memo
Date: Friday,September 18, 2020 11:38:48 AM
Attachments: Figure 1. UT3 Concept Approach Map.pdf
Folks—After sending out the approach memo for UT3 at the Cross Creek Ranch site, we had a
follow-up conference call and email exchange with Kim, Erin, and Casey. The result of those
discussions is that we will propose three reaches for UT3. The first reach will be approximately 792
LF of restoration at the upstream end of the stream. The second reach will be 848 LF of"lumped"
enhancement II consisting of a few different sections with different treatments similar to what was
proposed in the memo. The lower 321 LF will be a short preservation reach. A map is attached to
show the three separate reaches. Each reach will be described in more detail in the upcoming draft
mitigation plan. Both Erin and Kim indicated that they would need to review the mitigation plan
before agreeing on credit ratios, so we will hold off on further discussion of proposed ratios until the
draft mit plan is submitted late this year. Erin and Kim did not think a final version of the memo was
necessary, so I'm sending this email as the final communication on this until the draft mit plan is
submitted. Please let me know if there are any questions or concerns. Thanks.
Jeff
From:Jeff Keaton
Sent: Tuesday, August 4, 2020 1:59 PM
To: Tugwell, Todd J CIV USARMY CESAW (US) <[e-mail]>; Browning, Kimberly
D CIV USARMY CESAW (USA) <[e-mail]>; Davis, Erin B
<[e-mail]>; Haywood, Casey M CIV USARMY CESAW (USA)
<[e-mail]>; Wiesner, Paul <[e-mail]>; Phillips, Kelly D
<[e-mail]>
Cc: Shawn Wilkerson <[e-mail]>; Abigail Vieira <[e-mail]>
Subject: Cross Creek Ranch UT3 Approach Memo
All —One of the outcomes of the Cross Creek Ranch post-contract site visit was a request by
members of the IRT that the treatments and crediting for the different sections of UT3 be planned
and discussed in a memo to be sent out to the IRT. Here is the comment from the post contract
meeting summary:
UT3 was walked from upstream to downstream, and it was noted by the IRT that the reach is in
varying condition which will require fluctuating levels of treatment and design. Wildlands will provide
a follow-up memo including a map and table that outline lengths, approaches, and associated
crediting ratios for UT3 and provide it to NCDMS and the IRT for approval prior to major design
efforts.
The follow-up memo is attached. We look forward to your feedback on this memo and specifically if
you agree with our proposed approach and crediting for the stream. Please let us know if we can
move forward with the 2.5:1 credit ratio for the entire UT3 stream and the treatments we have

proposed for that stream. Please feel free to contact me if we need to discuss. Thanks.
Jeff Keaton, PE I Senior Water Resources Engineer
0: 919.851.9986 x103 M: 919.302.6919
Wildlands Engineering, Inc.
312 West Millbrook Road, Suite 225
Raleigh, NC 27609

Appendix 7

Appendix 7 Invasive Vegetation Treatment Plan
The presence of invasive species on Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site is extensive throughout the
streambank zone of the project streams.The most prevalent species, Chinese privet(Ligustrum sinense),
is spread throughout the length of the project. Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altissima), and princess tree (Paulownia tomentosa) are also scattered along the existing
stream banks, but in much lower quantities.Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and lespedeza
(Lespedeza bicolor) also have scattered populations that will require ongoing treatment. Populations of
lespedeza within or adjacent to areas of disturbance will need to be treated aggressively and monitored
closely post construction.
A goal of this project is to treat and remove as many invasive plant populations as possible before and
during construction. During construction and post construction, the presence and extents of invasive
species will be monitored, and treatment of invasive species will continue as necessary throughout the
life of the project to ensure project stability and success of the riparian and streambank vegetation.
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 steward. All invasive species treatments will be reported in each monitoring
report.
Table 1.Invasive Species Treatment Techniques
Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
Small infestations of L.japonica can be pulled by hand. Monitor to remove any re-sprouts.
Japanese Large infestations of L.japonica will usually require a combination of cut stump and foliar
Honeysuckle herbicide treatments.Where vines have grown into the tree canopy,cut stems as close to
the ground as possible.Treat the freshly cut surface of the rooted stem with a 25 percent
(Lonicera solution of glyphosate or triclopyr.Groundcovers of L.japonica can be treated with a foliar
japonica) solution of 2 percent glyphosate or triclopyr plus a 0.5 percent non-ionic surfactant to
thoroughly wet all the leaves.
Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant:a
glyphosate herbicide as a 2-percent solution (12 ounces per 3-gallon mix) in the late fall or
early winter. Backpack mist blowers can broadcast glyphosate as a 3-percent solution (12
ounces per 3-gallon mix)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.
For stems too tall for foliar sprays and when safety to surrounding vegetation is desired,
apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon mix) in a
Chinese Privet labeled basal oil product,vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant,or fuel oil or diesel
(Ligustrum fuel (where permitted);or undiluted Pathfinder II. Elsewhere,apply Stalker* as a 6-to 9-
sinense) 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 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. For large stems, make stem injections using Arsenal AC* or when safety to
surrounding vegetation is desired,Garlon 3A or a glyphosate herbicide using dilutions and
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 1

Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
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 can be hack-and-squirt injected.
Foliar treatment of large populations with 2%glyphosate or triclopyr solution.
For stems too tall for foliar sprays,apply basal sprays(January to February or May to
October) using Garton 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon mix) in a labeled
basal oil product,vegetable oil or mineral oil with a penetrant.
Multiflora rose
(Rosa multiflora) Cut stump treatment is time consuming,though effective.Cut large stems and immediately
treat the stump tops with a glyphosate herbicide as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-
gallon mix).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 trees, make stem injections or hack and squirt using Garton 3A as a 25%solution
in water. For felled trees,apply the herbicides to stem and stump tops immediately after
cutting.Also,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 saplings,apply basal sprays mixed in a labeled basal oil product,vegetable oil or
Tree of Heaven mineral oil with a penetrant using Garton 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon
(Ailanthus mix).
altissima) For seedlings,thoroughly wet all leaves with Garton 4 as a 1-to 2-percent solution (4 to 8
ounces per 3-gallon mix)or Garton 3A as a 2-percent solution (8 ounces per 3-gallon mix)
mixed in water with a surfactant.
Treatments most effective July—October.
Lespedeza Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water with a surfactant
(Lespedeza (July to September):Garlon 4 as a 2-percent solution (8 ounces per 3-gallon mix),or Velpar
bicolor) L as a 2-percent solution (8 ounces per 3-gallon mix).
For large trees, make stem injections using Garlon 3A or a glyphosate herbicide in dilutions
and cut-spacings specified on the herbicide label (anytime except March and April). For
felled trees,apply these herbicides to stump tops immediately after cutting.Also,ORTHO
Brush-B-Gon and Enforcer Brush Killer are effective undiluted for treating cut-stumps and
Princesstree available in retail garden stores(safe to surrounding plants).
(Paulownia For saplings,apply a basal spray of Garlon 4 as a 20-percent solution (5 pints per 3-gallon
tomentosa) mix) in a labeled basal oil product.
For seedlings and resprouts,thoroughly wet all leaves with a glyphosate herbicide,Garlon
3A,or Garlon 4 as a 2-percent solution (8 ounces per 3-gallon mix).
Treatment most effective July—October.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 2

Invasive Species Recommended Treatment Technique
Foliar applications—Thoroughly wet all leaves with one of the following herbicides in water
Asian Spiderwort, with a surfactant:2-3%aquatic labeled glyphosate.
also known as
Marsh Dewflower Do not remove mechanically.Spiderwort spreads readily in disturbed areas through
(Murdannia kiesk) fragmentation and seed dispersal.
Undesirable orchard and fescue grasses will be mechanically removed during construction
Orchard grasses on large portions of the site. Following construction,these grasses will be treated where
and fescue they are impacting planted stems using a number of methods including herbicide ring
sprays, herbicide treatment and reseeding,and mechanical tree release.
Invasive species management will be conducted and monitored by Wildlands Engineering's Stewardship
team with cooperation and assistance from the project engineer and environmental science teams.
Management actions will be completed in accordance with an invasive species management plan that
will be continually updated by the site's lead steward to ensure accurate response to changing
conditions.This management plan outlines timing and details of planned management actions
throughout the length of the project along with an identification of species found on the project site.
The management plan can be found below in Table 2.
Table 2.Invasive Species Management Plan
Treatment Season Recommended Treatment Technique
• Site walk-create invasive species maps for pre-construction.
• Discuss any changes or updates to construction plan and timing.
Summer/Spring 2021 • Draft site prep plan/review planting plans.Take soil samples where necessary
once grading plan is available.
• Finalize site prep/planting plans.
Fall/Winter 2021 • Organize privet treatments for Enhancement/Preservation reaches to be
done in tandem with construction.
• Monitor disposal of large stands of privet in restoration areas.
During Construction • Manage privet treatment efforts on enhancement/preservation reaches.
• Post construction site walk.
• Update site maps accordingly.
Summer/Spring 2022
• Identify areas of concern and establish stewardship photo points to
document management efforts.
• Monitor for emergence of aquatic invasive species,map and plan treatments
appropriately.
• Monitor emergence of invasive species on restoration reaches where
previous invasive species populations existed before construction.Treat,as
necessary.
Fall/Winter 2022 2023 • Follow up treatments on preservation reaches where necessary.
■ Photo-document changes to the bank in these areas as privet dies and live
stakes take over.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2023 • Record photo points.
Winter 2023-2024 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2024 • Record photo points.
k Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 3

Treatment Season Recommended Treatment Technique
Winter 2024-2025 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2025 • Record photo points.
Winter 2025-2026 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2026 • Record photo points.
Winter 2026-2027 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2027 • Record photo points.
Winter 2027-2028 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
• Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
Summer 2028 • Record photo points.
Winter 2028-2028 • Follow up treatment of invasive plants,as necessary.
k Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 7
DMS ID No. 100138 Page4

Appendix 8

Appendix 8 Maintenance Plan
The site shall be monitored on a regular basis and a physical inspection of the site shall be conducted a
minimum of once per year throughout the post-construction monitoring period until performance
standards are met.These site inspections may identify site components and features that require
routine maintenance. Routine maintenance should be expected most often in the first two years
following site construction and may include the following:
Table 1. Maintenance Plan
Component/Feature Maintenance through project close-out
Routine channel maintenance and repair activities may include chinking of in-stream
structures to prevent piping,securing of loose coir matting,and supplemental
installations of live stakes and other target vegetation along the channel.Areas where
Stream storm water and floodplain flows intercept the channel may also require maintenance
to prevent bank erosion. If beaver become active on the site, Wildlands will
contract with the USDA to trap the beaver and remove the dams.
Routine wetland maintenance and repair activities may include supplemental
Wetlands installations of target vegetation within the wetland.Areas where storm water and
floodplain flows intercept the wetland may also require maintenance to prevent scour
that adversely and persistently threatens wetland habitat or function.
Vegetation shall be maintained to ensure the health and vigor of the targeted
community. Routine vegetation maintenance and repair activities may include
Vegetation
supplemental planting, pruning, mulching,and fertilizing. 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,
Site boundary marker, bollard, post,tree-blazing,or other means as allowed by site conditions
and/or conservation easement. Boundary markers disturbed,damaged,or destroyed
will be repaired and/or replaced on an as-needed basis.
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 8
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 1

Appendix 9

Appendix 9 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
Credit Monitoring Interim Total
Release Year Credit Release Activity Release Released
Milestone
1 0 Site Establishment 0% 0%
2 0 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made 30% 30%
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan—see requirements below
3 1 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 10% 40%
interim performance standards have been met
4 2 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 10% 50%
interim performance standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 5 3 interim performance standards have been met 10% 60%
6 4* Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 50/ 65%
interim performance standards have been met (75%**)
7 5 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 10% 75%
interim performance standards have been met (85%**)
8 6* Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 5% 80%
interim performance standards have been met (90%**)
9 7 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that channels are stable and 10� 90%
interim performance standards have been met (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 NCIRT.
**10%reserve of credits to be held back until the bankfull event performance standard has been met
Table B:Credit Release Schedule—Wetland Credits
Credit Monitoring Interim Total
Release Year Credit Release Activity Release Released
Milestone
1 0 Site Establishment 0% 0%
2 0 Completion of all initial physical and biological improvements made 30% 30%
pursuant to the Mitigation Plan—see requirements below
3 1 Year 1 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance 10% 40%
standards have been met
Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 1

Credit Monitoring Interim Total
Release Year Credit Release Activity Release Released
Milestone
4 2 Year 2 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance 10% 50%
standards have been met
Year 3 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance 65%
5 3 standards have been met 15/
Year 4 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
6 4* standards have been met 5o 70%
�
7 5 Year 5 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance 15% 85%
standards have been met
Year 6 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance
8 6* standards have been met 5o 90%
�
9 7 Year 7 monitoring report demonstrates that interim performance 10% 100%
standards have been met
*Vegetation data may not be required with monitoring reports submitted during these monitoring years unless
otherwise required by the Mitigation Plan or directed by the NCIRT.
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.
trei Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 9
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 2

Appendix 10

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.
trei Cross Creek Ranch Mitigation Site Appendix 10
DMS ID No. 100138 Page 1

Appendix 11