20211624 Ver 1_20210218 Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Browns Pond_20210226

PRE-APPLICATION CONSULTATION
BROWNS POND BANK SITE
NEUSE 03020201 I CLEARWATER NEUSE 01 UMBI
"
PREPARED FOR:
North Carolina Inter-Agency Review Team;
For distribution and comment
SPONSORED BY: PREPARED BY:
1 1
t
CLEARWATER MITIGATION
N S] LUII L] fti ti MCADAMS
Kevin Yates Rebecca Stubbs, PE
[phone] [phone]
604 Macon Place 2905 Meridian Parkway
Raleigh, North Carolina Durham, North Carolina
FEBRUARY 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Project Objectives 1
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION 6
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument 6
2.2 Credit Determination 6
2.3 Credit Release Schedule 7
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS 7
4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS 7
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs 7
4.2 Bank Site Selection 8
5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT 9
6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR 9
7 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITE 10
7.1 Wetland Functional Uplift 11
7.2 Stream Functional Uplift 11
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES 12
9 EXISTING CONDITIONS 13
9.1 Physiography,Topography, and Land Use 13
9.2 Water Quality 14
9.3 Soils and Land Form 15
9.3.1 Nutrient Input 16
9.4 Site Design and Implementation Constraints 16
9.4.1 Threatened & Endangered Species 17
9.4.2 NCNHP Records 18
9.4.3 Cultural Resources 18
9.4.4 FEMA 19
9.4.5 Air Transport Facilities 19
10 RESTORATION PLAN 19
10.1 Wetland Reestablishment+ Rehabilitation 19
10.2 Stream Restoration 20

10.3 Vegetation Planting 20
10.4 Nuisance Species Management 21
11 PROPOSED MITIGATION 21
12 MONITORING PLAN 21
12.1 Wetland Vegetation Monitoring 22
12.2 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring 22
12.3 Stream Monitoring Activities 23
12.3.1 Stream— Bankfull Events 23
12.3.2 Stream—Channel Stability 23
12.3.3 Stream—Visual Monitoring 23
12.4 Stream—Success Criteria 24
13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES 24
13.1 Vegetation 24
13.2 Invasive Species 25
14 ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT WATER RIGHTS 25
15 CONCLUSIONS 26
16 REFERENCES 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Browns Pond Site NC WAM Summary 2
Table 2. Mitigation Work Plan Components and Functional Goals/Objectives 4
Table 3. Web Soil Survey Site Soils 15
Table 4.Threatened and Endangered Species 17
Table 5. Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area 18
Table 6. Mitigation Work Plan 19
Table 7. Proposed Mitigation Units 21

APPENDICES
Appendix A Figures
Figure 1. Site Location
Figure 2. Hydrologic Unit Map
Figure 3. Topography+ Drainage Area
Figure 4. LiDAR DEM + Riparian Zones
Figure 5. Existing Conditions+Soils
Figure 6. Proposed Conditions
Appendix B. Site Data
NC WAM Forms
USFWS Official Species List
NC Natural Heritage Program Report
Appendix C. Landowner Authorization Form
Signed Landowner Authorization Form

1 INTRODUCTION
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, LLC("the Sponsor") is pleased to propose the Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI
("the Bank").The proposed structure of the Site is designed to initially permit the establishment of stream
and/or wetland mitigation sites, while enabling the establishment of future mitigation sites not yet
identified.The Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI "Site" proposed under this prospectus is the Browns Pond Site
in Johnston County, North Carolina (Figure 1,Appendix A).
The Browns Pond Mitigation Site is located in the Upper Neuse River basin with the USGS 8-digit HUC
03020201 ("Neuse 01"). The Site is located about 6 miles northeast of Selma, along Browns Pond Rd
between its intersections with Rhondale Rd and Old Beulah Rd (Figures 1 and 2,Appendix A).
1.1 Project Objectives
Project goals are based on the Neuse River Basin Restoration Priorities (RBRP) report (NCEEP 2010,
amended 2018)and functional assessment methodologies conducted during field investigations.The Bank
Site is located within Targeted Local Watershed 03020201180050. The RBRP indicates that 44% of the
watershed is used for agriculture, including 19 animal operations (cattle, poultry and hog farms), and it
suggests projects that address flow restoration and reduction of impoundments are a high priority. The
project is not located in a Regional or Local Watershed Planning Area; however, the project goals reflect
priorities associated with the RBRP including the following.
1. Promote improved water quality through increase of dissolved oxygen (DO) concentrations
(riparian canopy restoration to lower water temperature will improve DO capacity while
construction of in-stream structures will increase turbulence increasing dissolved oxygen
concentrations)
2. Promote improved ecological processes through restoration of buffer and in-stream habitats
(riparian buffer area will be restored to the appropriate bottomland hardwood ecosystem and in-
stream structures will be designed to improve bedform diversity)
3. Promote nutrient reduction in municipal areas through implementation of stormwater best
management practices (restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter runoff, thereby
reducing nutrients and sediment concentrations reaching water bodies downstream)
4. Promote nutrient and sediment reduction in agricultural areas by restoring and preserving
wetlands,streams,and riparian buffers(reestablishing 7.1 acres of riparian wetland,rehabilitating
1.4 acres of riparian wetlands, and restoring 2,295 If of stream)
5. Continue targeted implementation of projects where they will provide the most functional
improvement to the ecosystem (restoring 8.5 acres of wetlands and removing an existing
impoundment to restore 2,295 If of stream)
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 11

Site specific wetland mitigation goals and objectives have been developed through the use of North
Carolina Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM) analyses of existing and reference wetland systems
at the Site(NC WFAT 2010). For the Site, no soil samples were taken due to a large portion of the proposed
wetland areas being significantly inundated. NC WAM methodology rates functional metrics for wetlands
as high, medium, or low based on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating
calculator. Using Boolean logic,the rating calculator assigns a high, medium,or low value for each metric
and overall function of the wetland. For the Site, a desktop NC WAM was performed for both existing
impoundments, the Northern Pond and Southern Pond (locations depicted on Figure 5 in Appendix A).
Site functional assessment data forms are available upon request and model output is included in
Appendix B.
Table 1 summarizes NC WAM metrics targeted for functional uplift while Table 2 identifies the
corresponding mitigation activities proposed to provide functional uplift for the metrics included in NC
WAM and NC SAM typical assessment criteria.
Table 1. Browns Pond Site NC WAM Summary
NC WAM Sub-function Rating Summary Northern Pond Southern Pond
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Headwater Forest
(1) HYDROLOGY LOW LOW
(2) Surface Storage & Retention LOW LOW
(2) Sub-surface Storage & Retention LOW LOW
(1)WATER QUALITY LOW LOW
(2) Pathogen Change LOW LOW
(2) Particulate Change MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Soluble Change MEDIUM MEDIUM
(2) Physical Change LOW LOW
(2) Pollutant Change N/A N/A
(1) HABITAT LOW LOW
(2) Physical Structure LOW LOW
(2) Landscape Patch Structure LOW LOW
(2)Vegetative Composition MEDIUM MEDIUM
OVERALL LOW LOW
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 12

Based on NC WAM output,an overall composite LOW rating was determined for both the Northern Pond and
Southern Pond. The Hydrology, Water Quality, and Habitat primary wetland functional metrics and all
sub-metrics are under-performing as exhibited by LOW and MEDIUM metric ratings. LOW and MEDIUM
performing metrics are targeted for functional uplift and area increase through mitigation activities, goals
and objectives, as well as, monitoring and success criteria (see Figure 5,Appendix A for NC WAM data form
locations).
Similar to NC WAM, utilizing the North Carolina Stream Assessment Method (NC SAM) was desired to
analyze existing and reference stream reaches in order to develop Site specific mitigation goals and
objectives. This methodology also rates functional metrics for streams as high, medium, or low based
on field data collected on forms and transferred into a rating calculator. Using Boolean logic, the
rating calculator assigns a high, medium,or low value for each metric and overall function of the stream.
Based on field observations in December 2020, a NC SAM assessment was not performed as no lotic
systems were observed within the proposed mitigation area. The Site currently functions as an
impoundment created by a dam located near Browns Pond Road with three 36" HDPE principle spillway
pipes that outlet to a short channel prior to entering a culvert under Browns Pond Rd. A second earthen
berm provides a driveway crossing for the Maltby properties, bisecting the impoundment. Two 30"
(assumed) HDPE pipes in the driveway crossing provide continuous flow from the Southern Pond to the
Northern Pond. The normal pool established by the principal spillway pipes extends nearly to the
southernmost property line of the Site. In the upstream areas of the pond there is evidence of recent
beaver activity.
The proposed Browns Pond stream and wetland mitigation project will provide ecological and water
quality benefits within the Neuse River Basin.While many of these benefits are limited to the project area,
others, such as pollutant removal and improved aquatic and terrestrial habitat, have more far-reaching
effects. Expected improvements to water quality, hydrology, and habitat are outlined as project benefits
in Table 2 below.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 13

Table 2. Mitigation Work Plan Components and Functional Goals/Objectives
Functional Goals/Objectives Wetland Mitigation Work Plan Component
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Surface Storage & Retention • Remove principle spillway and replace with culvert crossing, reducing
(2)Sub-surface Storage & Retention duration and depth of ponding, improving hydrologic connection to
floodplain and buffer areas
• Planting native,woody vegetation in relic pond bed and buffer areas to
improve infiltration and improve groundwater recharge
• Increase soil infiltration (deep ripping pond bed soils to reduce
compaction)
• Reestablishing jurisdictional riparian wetlands
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2) Pathogen Change • Nutrient Removal -denitrification and nutrient uptake through buffer
(2) Particulate Change zones and wetland areas,filtering of runoff from upstream areas, and
(2) Soluble Change conversion of rural cleared areas through buffer zones
(2) Physical Change • Runoff Filtration—restoration of buffer areas that will receive and filter
(2) Pollutant Change runoff
(1) HABITAT
(2) Physical Structure • Additional habitat area created through the restoration of riparian buffer
(2) Landscape Patch Structure bottomland hardwood ecosystem.
(2)Vegetative Composition • Protected riparian corridors will create contiguous natural areas with
uninterrupted migration corridors.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 14

Functional Goals/Objectives Stream Mitigation Work Plan Component
(1) HYDROLOGY
(2) Baseflow • Remove principle spillway pipes and low flow outlet within existing dam
(2) Flood Flow embankment and existing culverts in driveway crossing. Both crossings
will be replaced with creek smart pipes to promote continuous baseflow
while providing appropriate flood flow conveyance
• Stream restored to a natural meandering pattern with an appropriately
sized channel, such that the channel's floodplain will be flooded more
frequently at flows greater than the bankfull stage.
• Construction of in-stream structures to provide appropriate grade
control and channel stabilization
• Increased storage of precipitation in buffer areas, ephemeral
depressions, and reconnection of existing floodplain. Greater storage of
water will lead to improved infiltration and groundwater recharge.
(1)WATER QUALITY
(2) Baseflow • Constructed stream banks to be stabilized with native woody vegetation
(2) Streamside Area Vegetation • Riparian buffers established with native vegetation
(2) Indicators of Stressors • Removal of the impoundment will remove a barrier to natural sediment
(2)Aquatic Life Tolerance transport processes. Stream will be designed with the appropriate
channel dimension to promote sediment transport equilibrium.
(1) HABITAT
(2) In-Stream Habitat • Stream design to incorporate riffle-run and pool-glide sequences to
(2) Streamside Habitat promote instream habitat with improved bedform diversity and trapping
detritus.
• Addition of wood structures as part of the restoration design will provide
in-stream habitat Such structures may include log vanes, log sills, and log
weirs.
• Restoration of riparian buffer habitat to appropriate bottomland
hardwood ecosystem. Protected riparian corridors will create
contiguous natural areas with uninterrupted migration corridors.
• Restoration of canopy tree species to the stream buffer areas to reduce
temperature of water
• Removal of impoundment will reconnect the downstream channel to its
headwaters allow aquatic life passage through the relic pond bed
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 15

The proposed easement, existing conditions, and proposed mitigation activities are depicted in Figures 5-
6(Appendix A). The Site provides for restoration and protection of aquatic resources within a conservation
easement and will result in net gains in hydrology, water quality, and habitat functions. A summary of
mitigation activities includes the following.
1. Providing 7.8 Riparian WMUs and 2,295 SMUs as calculated in accordance with the
requirements stipulated in NCIRT 2016.
• Reestablishing approximately 7.1 acres of riparian wetland.
• Rehabilitating approximating 1.4 acres of riparian wetland.
• Restoring approximately 2,295 LF of stream.
2. Revegetating wetlands throughout the Site with native, woody vegetation.
3. Providing a continuous and stable stream reach
4. Protecting the Site in perpetuity with conservation easements.
Bank Sponsor and Contact Information
Clearwater Mitigation Solutions
Kevin Yates
604 Macon Place
Raleigh, North Carolina
[e-mail]
919.624.6901
2 ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION
2.1 Umbrella Mitigation Banking Instrument
The Sponsor is proposing to permit the Bank using an umbrella mitigation banking instrument("UMBI").
As proposed, the UMBI would allow for the establishment and operation of multiple sites and multiple
phases. The first phase described in this prospectus, if approved,will serve as the Bank's initial source of
mitigation credit. The Sponsor also proposes the incorporation into the Bank of additional sites not yet
identified(within the Geographic Service Area described in the next section),following Interagency Review
Team ("IRT") review and approval.
2.2 Credit Determination
Credit for the first phase, and all additional phases, shall be based on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) most current mitigation credit determination methodology. Presently,the USACE is utilizing the
Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update (IRT 2016) to quantify
mitigation project credit potential. If other methods are released and become de facto requirements for
mitigation projects in the USACE, future phases will utilize methods as appropriate.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 16

2.3 Credit Release Schedule
Credits generated by actions described and approved in the Bank's final UMBI shall be released in
predetermined increments according to the milestones agreed to by the Sponsor and the Interagency
Review Team (IRT) in the UMBI's credit release schedule. The Sponsor will use the credit release schedule
detailed for mitigation banks in IRT(2016).
3 GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA AND USE OF CREDITS
Located within the Southeastern Plains level III ecoregion and the Neuse River Basin, the Bank's
geographic service area ("GSA") is defined by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 8-digit
Hydrological Unit Code ("HUC") within which the Bank's sites are located, the Neuse 01 (Figure 2,
Appendix A).
The Bank's credits are proposed to be used to offset unavoidable, permitted impacts within the Bank's
GSA. Use of the Bank's credits outside of its GSA may be permissible with approval by the USACE, which
will be considered on a case-by-case basis.
4 WATERSHED CONSIDERATIONS
4.1 Watershed Environmental Concerns and Mitigation Needs
Basinwide
Neuse River subbasin 03-04-06, per the 2009 Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (RBWQP),
includes eastern Wake County, northeast Johnston County, central Wayne County, and a small portion of
Franklin County at the headwaters of the Little River. In 2009,of the subbasin's 220 miles of stream,103.5
miles are supporting, 8.7 miles are impaired, and the remaining are not rated or have no data (NCDWQ
2009). Land cover for this subbasin is over half forest/wetland, with the remainder crop and pastureland
and about three percent urban (NCDWQ 2009).The Neuse 01 river basin, as described in the 2009 Neuse
RBWQP, is undergoing rapid population growth. The subbasin includes a total of 15 municipalities,
including portions of the Raleigh-Durham-Cary combined statistical area (DMS 2015). The populations of
Wake County,Johnston County, and Wayne County are projected to increase by 17.7%, 24.4%, and 5.6%
respectively from 2020 to 2030 (NC OSBM 2020). With a significant increase in population comes an
increase in developmental pressures, land use changes, and the need for expanded infrastructure, all of
which create the necessity for mitigation banks in this region.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 17

Local Subbasin
One of the main environmental stressors in this watershed is habitat degradation of critical aquatic
organisms (NCDWQ 2009).The Site drains to a reach of Buffalo Creek that is listed as impaired due to fair
aquatic life. Recommendations for the Buffalo Creek Targeted Local Watershed indicate that high priority
projects for this watershed are those that address flow restoration and reduction of impoundments.
Additionally, pursuing buffer projects and other agricultural BMPs are also very important for the Buffalo
Creek Watershed (NCEEP 2010, amended 2018) to help reduce sedimentation and nutrient loading
(NCDWQ 2009).
Selma, NC is the closest town and shows a 3% population increase according to census from 2017-2018.
Due to its transportation network and close proximity to the largest planned research park in the United
States,Selma has fostered success in the retail industrial development arena.The Town has helped attract
some of the best-known corporate names in the country to the Selma area, such as Sysco Foods (Town of
Selma 2020).
The North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services' (DMS) 2015 Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan (RWP)
for the upper Neuse River Basin (03020201 — Neuse 01) identified and prioritized potential mitigation
strategies to offset ecological impacts from development throughout the Neuse 01 subbasin. According
to this 2015 RWP,the Site's 12-digit HUC watershed, Lower Buffalo Creek, is a priority and a targeted area
for wetland restoration implementation (DMS 2015).
4.2 Bank Site Selection
Based on the analysis presented in Section 4.1, the Neuse 01 was targeted as a watershed in need of
mitigation. The Sponsor and its consultant, the John R. McAdams Company (McAdams), conducted a
search for sites possessing stream and/or wetland restoration and enhancement opportunities. Identified
Sites were prioritized based on geomorphic condition and land use, and the necessary landowners were
contacted to gauge their interest in participating in a stream mitigation project. Sites with willing
landowners were then pursued further. Many of the identified opportunities are not currently feasible
because such sites require the cooperation of several landowners to achieve sufficient ecological and
economic scale. Therefore, selection of the properties was based on a combination of geomorphic
condition, land use, and the willingness of landowners to participate.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 18

5 OWNERSHIP AND LONG-TERM MANAGEMENT
Current property ownership and parcel information is as follows:
Owner Name ` PIN#
Thomas and Maria Blythe 262700-61-4879
Michael Maltby 262700-60-5323
Michael Maltby 262700-60-3989
Hereafter, the owner will be referred to as "the Landowner."
The Sponsor and the Landowner have executed separate Agreements for Purchase and Sale of
Conservation Easements covering approximately 12.7 acres. Following USACE approval of the UMBI and
the Bank Site Mitigation Plan, the Sponsor will exercise its rights provided under the above-referenced
agreements.
The property will be protected in perpetuity by conservation easements approved by the USACE. At a
minimum, conservation easements will be written to prohibit incompatible uses that might jeopardize
objectives of the Bank. Conservation easements will be held in perpetuity by the North Carolina Wildlife
Habitat Foundation. The Sponsor will provide the land trust with a financial sum, in an amount agreeable
to both parties, appropriate for the long-term stewardship of the Site.
During the operational period of the Site, the Sponsor will be responsible for management actions. A
long-term management plan will be developed for each Bank Site and incorporated into their respective
mitigation plans. In general, long-term management activities will include protecting the sites from
encroachment, trespass, clearing, and other violations that interfere with conservation purposes. Other
activities may be incorporated based on site-specific considerations.
6 QUALIFICATIONS OF SPONSOR
The Sponsor, Clearwater Mitigation Solution, LLC(CMS), a North Carolina Limited Liability Company, was
founded in 2015, but has over 18 years of experience in water resources consulting, regulatory
experience,environmental site investigations,mitigation plan development, permitting, implementation,
and monitoring, with proven ability to carry out large-scale ecological restoration projects. CMS has
worked on a broad range of projects in the public and private sector over the years, which has provided
for a well-rounded approach to problem solving and a unique ability to manage the complex needs of
ecological restoration projects.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 19

CMS's Principal, Kevin Yates, has over 18 years of experience in water resources, stream, wetlands,
stormwater, riparian buffer, environmental restoration, and mitigation. Mr.Yates began working for the
US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District in 2001, while attending graduate school at the
University of North Carolina at Wilmington, graduating with a Masters of Marine Science in 2004. Mr.
Yates went into private environmental consulting in 2005, working on a broad range of projects which
brings a well-rounded approach to problem solving and ability to manage the complex needs of large-
scale restoration projects. More recently, Mr. Yates formed Clearwater Mitigation Solutions in 2015 and
has since developed and managed a 71-acre turn-key riparian and non-riparian wetland mitigation site
known as the Lowlands Wetland Mitigation Site, in the Hydrologic Unit 03020201(Neuse 01)service area.
CMS is currently under contract with the North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services(DMS)on four full-
delivery mitigation projects in North Carolina, two riparian buffer mitigation sites and two stream and
wetland mitigation sites.
The team assembled for this project includes the multidisciplinary expertise of The John R. McAdams
Company (McAdams). McAdams is a full-service civil engineering firm with a dedicated team of over 25
water resources professionals comprising of experienced engineers and environmental scientists. Within
our Water Resources team,we have experience with mitigation projects from initial site selection through
project monitoring and closeout.Success of these projects was dependent on buy-in from all stakeholders
associated with each project including, landowners, clients, and regulatory agencies. CMS's philosophy
on developing successful environmental design and construction projects is to promote ownership of the
project from the ground up. This involves informing and training contractors, landowners, regulatory
staff, project owners and other project stakeholders through diligent communication and involvement.
The CMS / McAdams Team has been formed with these factors in mind and will be dedicated to the
success of the project.
7 ECOLOGICAL SUITABILITY OF SITE
Primary considerations for selecting the Site included the potential for protection/improvement of water
quality within a region of North Carolina under heavy development and rapid conversion of agriculture
and forest land to commercial and residential uses, which is resulting in major impacts to water quality.
More specifically, considerations included desired physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of
the Site including aquatic resource functions, hydrologic conditions, soil characteristics, aquatic
habitat diversity, habitat connectivity, compatibility with adjacent land uses, reasonably foreseeable
effects the mitigation projects will have on ecologically important aquatic and terrestrial resources,
and potential development trends and land use changes. Therefore, based on preliminary existing
conditions assessments, the Sponsor is confident that the Site has substantial potential for the
development of a viable mitigation bank. The project can be of substantial benefit to the local Lower
Buffalo Creek watershed and the Neuse River Basin.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 110

7.1 Wetland Functional Uplift
Site specific functional uplift to physical, chemical, and biological characteristics at the Site have been
documented utilizing the NC Wetland Assessment Method (NC WAM). Based on NC WAM data collection
and methodology, functional uplift would be expected to occur for the following metrics for physical,
chemical, and biological characteristics.
1. Hydrology
a. Surface storage and retention
b. Sub-surface storage and retention
2. Water Quality
a. Pathogen change
b. Particulate change
c. Soluble change
d. Physical change
e. Pollution change
3. Habitat
a. Physical structure
b. Landscape patch structure
c. Vegetation composition
In addition to NC WAM data forms and output, published data at the proposed Bank Site indicates that
current land uses are contributing to impaired water quality;the subbasin currently includes 34 targeted
local watersheds and many of the streams within the subbasins are impaired due to increased turbidity,
nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen), fecal coliform bacteria, iron, and/or copper (NCEEP 2010,
amended 2018). Restoration and enhancement work proposed in Section 10(Restoration Plan)will create
and improve riparian habitat which will aide in additional nutrient uptake that the current impoundment
cannot provide.
7.2 Stream Functional Uplift
The existing stream channel halts at southernmost property boundary due to hydraulic modifications on
site such as impoundments, road crossing, and beaver dams. Stream habitat is completely lacking, as a
result of the transition from a lotic to lentic ecosystem.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 111

The ecological uplift for the Site of Priority 1 Restoration activities includes:
1. Reconnecting the stream to its floodplain promoting over-bank flooding during bankfull events
2. Reduce sediment, pesticides and nutrients imported from uplands by restoring vegetation
buffers.
3. Increase the width of the active floodplain.
4. Reduce ponding depth to increase storage and improve riparian plant growth.
5. Enhance aquatic habitat.
6. Improve terrestrial wildlife habitat.
8 FINANCIAL ASSURANCES
The Sponsor will provide financial assurances in a form acceptable to the IRT, sufficient to assure
completion of all mitigation work, required reporting and monitoring, and any remedial work that may be
required pursuant to the final UMBI.
Prior to the first credit release, for the Bank Site proposed here as well as all additional sites permitted
under the proposed UMBI, the Sponsor shall furnish a financial assurance instrument covering all
reasonably anticipated costs relating to construction, operation, monitoring, maintenance,and any
remedial measures associated with the Bank. This instrument shall consist of either a Performance Bond
underwritten by a surety company licensed to do business in North Carolina with a Best's current rating
of not less than "A-," or a casualty insurance policy in an appropriate form to be approved by the
USACE in compliance with current USACE policy and guidance documents. The total value of such a
bond or policy will be based on reasonably expected costs associated with approved Mitigation Plans,
plus a reasonable contingency, which collectively shall be sufficient to ensure the project will be
successfully completed in accordance with applicable performance standards.
If performance bonds are utilized, the initial performance bond shall be replaced following
completion of construction and USACE approval of the Bank Site as-built reports. The Sponsor shall then
furnish a replacement performance bond, to be valued based on reasonably anticipated costs associated
with project monitoring and maintenance. Once all performance standards have been met,the Sponsor
may withdraw monies from or otherwise terminate the financial assurance instrument described in this
paragraph.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 112

9 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The Site encompasses 12.7 acres of a long-term impoundment, headwaters, and adjacent riparian areas.
The Site was impounded over 40 years ago, creating a normal pool area of approximately 7.6 acres.Two
impoundment areas are connected via two existing HDPE culverts installed under a driveway crossing.
The downstream impoundment (Northern pond) has a dam estimated fourteen feet tall with three HDPE
principle spillway outlets that typically determine the normal pool water surface elevation. The Site
remains mowed and maintained around the Northern pond, thus prevents establishment of a diverse
riparian buffer. The pond water surface level has recently been lowered after receipt of a notice of
violation from North Carolina Dam Safety siting observable seepage. Dam Safety has required the dam
be reconstructed to current high hazard standards and/or be breached. Currently the property owner has
plans to breach the existing embankment in Spring of 2021.
9.1 Physiography,Topography, and Land Use
The Site is located in the Southeastern Plains (65) Level III Ecoregion, specifically the Rolling Coastal Plains
(65m). The boundary between the Southeastern Plains (65) and ecoregions 45 and 64 occurs at the Fall
Line where the metamorphic rocks of the Piedmont and the sedimentary rocks of the Coastal Plain
interfinger (Woods, 1999). These irregular plains with broad interstream areas have an assortment of
cropland, pasture, woodland, and forest. Natural vegetation was predominantly longleaf pine, with
smaller areas of oak-hickory-pine. Forest cover has been greatly reduced for agriculture. Remaining forest
is highly fragmented and interspersed with farmland. Intact forest is more common in riparian areas
(Woods, 1999). Streams in this area are relatively low-gradient and sandy-bottomed (Griffith et al, 2002).
The Rolling Coastal Plain extends south from Virginia and covers much of the northern upper coastal plain
of North Carolina. Relief, elevation, and stream gradients are generally greater than the Mid Atlantic
Coastal Plain Ecoregion 63 to the east, and soils tend to be better drained.
Elevations on the Site range from 189-ft to 160-ft, sloping around 1-2% (Figure 3, Appendix A). The Site
drainage area encompasses 508 acres to the existing Browns Pond outfall. Based on 2011 National Land
Cover Data (NLCD), 36%of the drainage area is agricultural land use(cultivated crops/pastures),followed
by 32% open water and woody wetlands, 28% forested areas, and approximately 4% developed. Similar
land use trends can be concluded for the Site's 14-digit HUC Lower Buffalo Creek.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 113

9.2 Water Quality
The Site is located in the Upper Neuse River Basin, 8-digit Hydraulic Unit Code (HUC) 03020201 ("Neuse
01") and the Targeted Watershed Buffalo Creek (14-digit HUC 03020201180050). Outlet drainage from
Browns Pond travels downstream approximately 1,700 feet before entering Buffalo Creek. Buffalo Creek
(Stream Index Number 27-57-16(3)b) from Wendell Lake to the confluence of Little River has been
assigned a Best Usage Classification of C, NSW (NCDWR 2013). Streams with a Class C designation are
suitable for uses including aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture.Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not involving human body
contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. The designation NSW(Nutrient Sensitive Waters)
includes areas with water quality problems associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient
enrichment (NCDWR 2013).
The North Carolina Department of Environment Quality (NCDEQ) has assembled a list of impaired
waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, which is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. Impaired waters are a subset of the
assessments made where water quality samples for a particular parameter on a waterbody exceed water
quality standards and the assessment methodology has determined that the waterbody is indeed
impaired for the particular parameter.The 15 mile stretch of Buffalo Creek that the Site discharges to has
an assessment unit number (AU#) 27-57-16-3(b) and is impaired for not supporting aquatic life due to a
Fair fish community bioclassification. It has exceeded the fish community standard and has been placed
on the 2018 303(d) list.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 114

9.3 Soils and Land Form
Soils that occur within the Site, according to Web Soil Survey(USDA 2020) are described in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Web Soil Survey Site Soils
Soil Series Hydric Status Description
This series consists of moderately drained soils on fluvial terraces.These
soils are derived from loamy fluvial sediments. Slopes range from 0 to 2
Altavista fine sandy loam No percent. Depth to restrictive features is more than 60 inches, depth to
the water table is 18-30 inches, and the available water storage in the
profile is very high.
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on stream
Augusta sandy loam No terraces.These soils are derived from loamy fluvial sediments.Slopes
range from 0 to 2 percent. Depth to restrictive features is more than 60
inches,depth to the water table is 12-24 inches.
The Cowarts series consists of very deep, moderately well and well
drained soils on ridge tops and side slopes on uplands of the Coastal
Cowarts loamy sand No Plain (MLRA 133A) Major Land Resource Area.They formed in loamy
marine sediments.The slopes range from 2 to 6 percent.
The Gilead series consists of very deep, moderately well drained,firm,
Gilead sandy loam No clayey soils in the upper Coastal Plain.They have moderately slow or
slow permeability.These soils are on uplands and have slopes ranging
from 2 to 8 percent.
The Goldsboro series consists of moderately well drained soils in the
upper and lower coastal plains on main terraces and flats.These soils
Goldsboro sandy loam No are derived from marine/fluviomarine deposits.Slopes range from 0 to
2 percent. Depth to restrictive features is more than 80 inches,depth to
the water table is 18-30 inches.
This series consists of somewhat poorly drained soils on main terraces
Lynchburg sandy loam No and uplands.These soils are derived from marine/fluviomarine deposits.
Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Depth to restrictive features is more
than 80 inches,depth to the water table is 6-18 inches.
Soils of the Nason series are deep and well drained.They are on uplands
Nason silt loam No and formed in material weathered from schist and other fine grained
metamorphic rocks.Slopes range from 2 to 15 percent.
Norfolk series consists of well drained soils on main terraces and
uplands in the Coastal Plains.These soils are derived from
Norfolk loamy sand No marine/fluviomarine deposits.Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Depth
to restrictive features is more than 80 inches,depth to the water table is
40-72 inches.
The Rains series consists of poor drained soils in the Coastal Plains on
flats,depressions and Carolina Bays.These soils are derived from
Rains sandy loam Yes marine/fluviomarine deposits.Slopes range from 0 to 2 percent. Depth
to restrictive features is more than 80 inches,depth to the water table is
0-12 inches.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 115

9.3.1 Nutrient Input
The Site is currently used as a rural residential property with the potential for low amounts of nutrient
input from plant fertilizers. The Site was impounded over 40 years ago creating a normal pool area of
approximately 7.6 ac. Immediately upstream of the proposed mitigation area is a property that is actively
farmed. Agricultural areas are the predominant land use within the 508 acre watershed and the 12-digit
HUC watershed (Lower Buffalo Creek)that drain to the Site.
9.4 Site Design and Implementation Constraints
The presence of conditions or characteristics that have the potential to hinder restoration activities
on the Site was evaluated. The evaluation focused primarily on the presence of hazardous materials,
utilities and restrictive easements, rare/threatened/endangered species or critical habitats, and the
potential for hydrologic trespass. Existing information regarding Site constraints was acquired and
reviewed. In addition,any Site conditions that have the potential to restrict the restoration design and
implementation were documented during the field investigation.
No known Site constraints, that may hinder proposed mitigation activities, were identified during field
surveys.
Potential constraints reviewed include the following.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 116

9.4.1 Threatened & Endangered Species
There is a total of seven threatened, endangered, or candidate species in Johnston County, NC (USFW
2020). See Appendix B.
Table 4. Threatened and Endangered Species
Species Habitat Potential Status Biological
Habitat at Site Conclusion
Red cockaded Require old (more than 60 years old), living pine
Woodpecker trees to excavate roosts and nest cavities, usually Yes Endangered May Effect
Picoides borealis in trees infected with a fungus known as red-heart
disease.
Inhabits streams wider than 15 meters that are
Neuse River Waterdog generally low to moderate gradient and low Proposed
Necturus lewisi current velocity. Needs clean,flowing water with No Threatened No Effect
high dissolved oxygen concentrations.
Species occurs in riffles, runs,and pools in
medium to large streams and rivers. Must have
Carolina Madtom cover for nest sites. Ideally, it inhabits fresh No Proposed No Effect
Norturus furiosis waters with continuous,year-round flow and Endangered
moderate gradient in both the Piedmont and
Coastal Plain physiographic regions.
Coarse sand and gravel, and rarely in silt and
Atlantic Pigtoe detritus. In small creeks to larger rivers with Proposed
Fusconaia masoni excellent water quality,where flows are sufficient No Threatened No Effect
to maintain clean,silt-free substrates.
Inhabits small streams less than five meters wide
to large rivers more than 100 meters wide; it is
Dwraf Wedgemussel found in a variety of substrate types including No Endangered No Effect
Alasmidonta heterodon clay,sand,gravel and pebble,and sometimes in
silt depositional areas near banks;and it usually
inhabits hydrologically stable areas
Tar River Spinymussel Lives in relatively silt-free unconsolidated beds of No Effect
Elliptio Steinstansana coarse sand and gravel in relatively in fast-flowing, No Endangered
well oxygenated stream reaches
a sand-loving species often found buried deep in
clean,coarse to medium sand,although it can
Yellow Lance sometimes be found in gravel substrates.This No Threatened No Effect
Elliptio steinstansana species depends on clean, moderate flowing
water with high dissolved oxygen.This species is
found in medium-sized rivers to smaller streams.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 117

9.4.2 NCNHP Records
Based on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)'s database,there are no records for rare
species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or conservation/managed areas within the
proposed project boundary. NCNHP documentation is included in Appendix B. The table below
summarizes 'Potential Occurrences' of rare species and natural communities within a one-mile radius of
the property boundary(see also Appendix B). Within a one-mile radius of the project boundary there are
seven element occurrences, four of which are significantly rare species and the remaining three are
endangered according to state status.
Table 5. Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic Last Federal
Species Grou Observation Status State Status
P Date
Neuse River Waterdog Proposed Special
Necturus lewisi Amphibian 2019 10 29 Threatened Concern
Coppery Emerald Dragonfly or 2004-Pre Significantly
Somatochlora georgiana Damselfly Rare
Dwraf Wedgemussel Freshwater 2004-08-04 Endangered Endangered
Alasmidonta heterodon Bivalve
Northern Lance Freshwater 2018-05-10 Significantly
Elliptio fisheriana Bivalve Rare
Yellow Lance Freshwater 2006-01-09 Threatened Endangered
Elliptio steinstansana Bivalve
Banded Sunfish Freshwater Significantly
Enneacanthus obesus Fish 2006 02 24 Rare
Ironcolor Shiner Freshwater Significantly
Nortropis chalybaeus Fish 1961 06 21 Rare
9.4.3 Cultural Resources
The term "cultural resources" refers to prehistoric or historic archaeological sites, structures, or artifact
deposits over 50 years old. "Significant"cultural resources are those that are eligible or potentially eligible
for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places. Evaluations of site significance are made with
reference to the eligibility criteria of the National Register(36 CFR 60) and in consultation with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).
Utilizing the North Carolina SHPO GIS Web Service (Buffer Tool),the desktop review found there were no
historic structures on site. Within a 1-mile radius of the site, the Peele-Blackmon House (JT0682 — SO
status)was listed.Typical SHPO coordination will occur prior to construction activities to determine if any
significant cultural resources are present; however, no constraints are expected at this time.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 118

9.4.4 FEMA
The FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 3720262700K, effective June 20, 2018 was reviewed to determine if
the project area is located in a FEMA study area (DFIRM panel number 2627). Based on existing floodplain
mapping,the Bank Site is not located in a Special Flood Hazard Area and the project should not alter FEMA
flood zones.Therefore, a "Conditional Letter of Map Revision" (CLMOR) is not expected for this project.
Surface drainage on the Site and surrounding areas are in the process of being analyzed to predict the
feasibility of manipulating existing surface drainage patterns without adverse effects to the Site or
adjacent properties.
9.4.5 Air Transport Facilities
There are no air transport facilities located within a 5-mile radius of the Site.
10 RESTORATION PLAN
The site offers a total ecosystem restoration opportunity through the combined proposed of wetland and
stream mitigation activities described below. Primary activities at the Site are designed to re-establish
riparian wetlands, rehabilitate riparian wetlands, and restore a stream reach (Figure 5, Appendix A).
Table 6. Mitigation Work Plan
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Type Mitigation Type Acreage Mitigation Ratio WMU
Riparian Re-establishment 7.1 1:1 7.1
Riparian Rehabilitation 1.4 2:1 0.7
Totals 8.5 7.8
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Type Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio SMU
Restoration 0 2,295 1:1 2,295
Totals 2,295 2,295
10.1 Wetland Reestablishment + Rehabilitation
The two proposed wetland mitigation areas are located adjacent to the proposed stream restoration and
within the relic pond footprint. Wetland restoration is proposed within the relic pond footprint of the
Northern and Southern ponds experiencing greater inundation depths and duration preventing any
vegetation establishment.Wetland rehabilitation is proposed in the shallower backwater of the Southern
pond in the vicinity of the southernmost property line. In this area wetland vegetation is present, however
diversity and optimum function is lacking due to prolonged periods of shallow inundation.
Reestablishment of wetland hydrology and wetland soil attributes will involve the removal and draining
of ponds and beaver dams in combination with reforestation.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 119

10.2 Stream Restoration
The objective of stream restoration at the Site is to create a new, stable stream channel with bankfull
stage located at the existing pond bottom.The new channel will approximate reference reach conditions
including appropriate dimension, pattern, and profile. Restoration is expected to be implemented along
the Site's drainage path from the southernmost property boundary to the existing impoundment outlet
(2,295 linear feet). See the Restoration reach in Figure 6 of Appendix A. Mitigation work is expected to
entail floodplain preparation, channel excavation, channel stabilization, and channel diversion. Creation
of a new stream channel will return the Site to a lotic ecosystem.
10.3 Vegetation Planting
Deep-rooted, woody riparian vegetation will be restored or supplemented with native planting within
the Bank Site. Planting vegetation throughout reestablished wetlands is proposed to reestablish
historic vegetation community patterns within the associated wetlands. Revegetating the floodplain
and stream banks will filter pollutants from adjacent stormwater, residential, and agricultural runoff
and provide habitat for area wildlife.
Variations in vegetative planting may occur based on topographic locations and hydraulic conditions
of the soil. Vegetative species composition should mimic reference forest data and onsite observations.
Species expected for this project may include the following elements in combination with riparian buffer
seed mix to promote dense coverage.
Coastal Plain Small Stream Swamp(Riparian Areas)
1. River birch (Betula nigra)
2. Persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)
3. Tulip poplar(Liriodendron tulipifera)
4. Sweet bay(Magnolia virginiana)
5. Black gum (Nyssa sylvatica)
6. Red bay(Persea palustris)
7. Pond pine (Pinus serotina)
8. Water oak (Quercus nigra)
9. Laurel oak(Quercus laurifolia)
10. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
Stream-side
1. Black willow (salix nigra)
2. River birch (Betula nigra)
3. Tag alder(Alnus serrulate)
4. Willow oak (Quercus phellos)
5. Buttonbush (cephalanthus occidentalis)
6. American elm (Ulmus americana)
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 120

Coastal plain small stream swamp is the target community for the riparian wetland
reestablishment areas. Bare-root seedlings will be planted at a density of approximately 680 stems per
acre on 8-foot centers throughout the Site.
10.4 Nuisance Species Management
Beaver, privet, and other potential nuisance species will be monitored over the course of the 5-year
monitoring period. Appropriate actions to ameliorate any negative impacts regarding vegetation
development and/or water management will occur on an as-needed basis.
11 PROPOSED MITIGATION
Mitigation options outlined in this report are designed to provide 7.8 WMUs and 2,295 SMUs, as
calculated in accordance with the requirements stipulated in applicable guidance (IRT 2016
[Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update]). Proposed Mitigation Units
are presented below.
Table 7. Proposed Mitigation Units
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Type Mitigation Type Acreage Mitigation Ratio WMU
Riparian Re-establishment 7.1 1:1 7.1
Riparian Rehabilitation 1.4 2:1 0.7
Totals 8.5 7.8
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Type Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio SMU
Restoration 0 2,295 1:1 2,295
Totals 2,295 2,295
12 MONITORING PLAN
The Bank's performance standards and monitoring plan will be based on the IRT (2016) guidance
document titled, Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation Update. In general,
the monitoring program will be implemented for 7 years with an opportunity for an early termination after
5 years if a site's performance standards, as set forth in IRT(2016), are met.
Additional monitoring of each site, aside from the Bank's performance standards, will occur to identify
areas to be treated by the Adaptive Management and Remedial Measures Plan (see Section 13).
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 121

12.1 Wetland Vegetation Monitoring
After planting has been completed in winter or early spring,an initial evaluation will be performed to verify
planting methods and to determine initial species composition and density. Supplemental
planting and additional Bank Site modifications will be implemented, if necessary.
During quantitative vegetation sampling, sample plots(10-meter by 10-meter)will be installed within the
Bank Site as per guidelines established in CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording Vegetation, Version 4.2(Lee et
al. 2008). In each sample plot, vegetation parameters to be monitored include species composition and
species density. Visual observations of the percent cover of shrub and herbaceous species will also be
documented by photograph.
Vegetation Success Criteria
An average density of 320 planted stems per acre must be surviving in the first three monitoring years.
Subsequently, 290 planted stems per acre must be surviving in year 4, 260 planted stems per acre must
be surviving in year 5, and 210 planted stems per acre in year 7. Volunteer stems may be considered on
a case-by-case basis in determining overall vegetation success; however, volunteer stems should be
counted separately from planted stems.
12.2 Wetland Hydrology Monitoring
Groundwater monitoring gauges will be installed to take measurements after hydrological
modifications are performed at the Bank Site. Hydrological sampling will continue throughout the growing
season at intervals necessary to satisfy the jurisdictional hydrology success criteria within each wetland
restoration area. According to the Soil Survey of Johnston County, the growing season is from March
21-November 4 (USDA 1994). However, for purposes of this project gauge hydrologic success will be
determined using data from March 1-November 9 to more accurately represent the period of biological
activity. Soil temperatures will be collected in late February/early March of each monitoring year
and will be reported in the annual monitoring report.
Wetland Hydrology Success Criteria
Establishing the wetland hydrologic performance will be soil type specific. Soil taxonomy will be verified
by a licensed North Carolina soil scientist prior to Draft Mitigation Plan submittal. Based on the soils
identified in the field, the wetland saturation threshold for these soils will determine the wetland
hydrology success criteria.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 122

12.3 Stream Monitoring Activities
Stream geometry will be considered successful if the geometry, profile, and sinuosity are stable or reach
a dynamic equilibrium. It is expected that there will be minimal changes in the designed cross sections,
profile, and/or substrate composition. Changes that may occur during the monitoring period will be
evaluated to determine if they represent a movement toward a more unstable condition (e.g. down
cutting, or bank erosion) or are minor changes that represent an increase in stability (e.g. settling,
vegetative changes, etc.). Deviation from the design ratios will not necessarily denote failure as it is
possible to maintain stability and not stay within the design geometry.
12.3.1 Stream—Bankfull Events
The occurrence of bankfull events within the monitoring period will be documented using a crest gage
and photographs. A crest gage will be installed which will record the highest watermark between site
visits. The crest gage will be checked each time there is a site visit to determine if a bankfull event has
occurred. Photographs will be used to document the occurrences of debris lines and sediment deposition
on the floodplain during monitoring site visits.
12.3.2 Stream—Channel Stability
An as-built survey documenting permanent cross-sections, a longitudinal profile, and bank pins will be
collected to document channel stability. Cross sections will be installed after construction of the Site and
will be surveyed as part of the As-built survey, one (1) year after construction, and then three (3) years
after construction. Each cross section will be marked on both banks with permanent pins/monuments to
establish the exact transect used. A common benchmark will be used for the cross sections and it will be
consistently used to facilitate easy comparison of year to year data.The cross-section survey will include
points measured at all breaks in slope, including top of bank, bankfull, inner berm, edge of water, and
thalweg, if the features are present.There will be one(1) riffle cross section and one(1) pool cross section.
Photographs shall be taken at each cross section with photographs looking up and downstream and one
photograph facing each bank. Stream geometry will be considered successful if the geometry, profile, and
sinuosity are stable or reach a dynamic equilibrium.
12.3.3 Stream—Visual Monitoring
Visual monitoring shall take place along the entire stream reach twice annually during the monitoring
period to document any lateral movement, structure failure, aggradation/degradation, invasive species,
headcuts, or beaver activity. Visual monitoring will also be required in the buffer to document any
excessive mortality, low stem density, encroachments, or invasive species.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 123

12.4 Stream—Success Criteria
Success criteria will determine if the project is meeting its prescribed goals for the project. A
determination will be made regarding the success of the project following the collection and evaluation
of ecological and physical monitoring data, photographs, site observations, and the performance of the
streams during storm events. Monitoring components that will be evaluated include vegetation survival,
channel bed and bank stability, and in-stream structure performance.
Stream Success Criteria
Channel stability will be reflected in the surveyed permanent cross sections, evaluation of bank stability
and cover, evaluation of in-stream structure performance and any previously collected monitoring data.
The general trend should reflect a stable or slightly decreasing riffle cross sectional area whereas pools
may increase and yet be considered relatively stable. Normally the constructed channel will adjust
(especially in a sand dominated bed) but it will need to function without significant degradation (bed
scour), aggradation (mid-channel bars), or bank erosion.
The Bank Height Ratio (BHR) as determined by cross section surveys, shall not exceed 1.2 and the
Entrenchment Ratio shall be no less than 2.2 within the restored reach. The stream shall remain stable
over the three-year monitoring period as indicated by visual surveys and cross sections.
Vegetative Success Criteria
Vegetative success criteria will be based on the visual monitoring conducted twice annually. If there are
no significant bare areas or areas of dead vegetation at the end of the monitoring period,the project will
be considered successful. If any bare areas or areas of dead vegetation are noted during any of the visual
inspections,they will be addressed with supplemental seeding at that time.
13 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIAL MEASURES
An adaptive management plan will be developed for the Site based on the plan approved in the UMBI. In
the event monitoring results indicate a Bank Site will not meet one or more of its performance standards,
remedial actions will be implemented following notification of the UMBI's USACE project manager.
Adaptive management and remedial measures are discussed in general below.
13.1 Vegetation
Remedial actions for vegetation mortality may include replanting, and, if needed, corrective measures
will be based on the cause(s) (e.g. portions of site too wet for planted species). Remedial actions
for low vegetation vigor may include, but are not limited to, deep ripping, replanting(same or similar
species), mowing, herbicide application, fertilization, and replanting with other species possessing
condition-specific tolerance.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 124

13.2 Invasive Species
In the event that invasive or otherwise undesirable species—as defined in an appendix to the NC SAM
User Manual(NC SFAT 2014)—reasonable efforts will be made to eradicate or otherwise control growth
and distribution of the species across the mitigation Bank Site. Such efforts may involve herbicide
applications, mechanical, and/or hand removal, or prescribed burns.
14 ASSURANCE OF SUFFICIENT WATER RIGHTS
In the State of North Carolina, water rights are owned by the State (General Statute 142-211 (N.C. G.S. §
143-211(a)). Developed using the "riparian rights" doctrine, water law in the State of North Carolina
entitles a riparian landowner to the natural flow of a stream running through or along his land. The
landowner has the right to make"reasonable use"of the watercourse, meaning the landowner may make
use the water, as long as their use does not interfere with the reasonable use of another downstream
riparian landowner.
Native waters supplied through surface runoff and groundwater will provide sustaining hydrology to the
Bank Parcel. Restoration of the Bank Parcel will not result in an adverse effect on the Bank Parcel's
hydrology.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 125

15 CONCLUSIONS
The Bank Site encompasses approximately 12.7 acres of a long-term impoundment, headwaters, and
adjacent maintained riparian areas. Within the Bank Site, existing hydric soils have been drained,
compacted, excavated, and receive extensive sediment and nutrient inputs. Mitigation outlined in this
report are designed to provide 7.8 WMUs and 2,295 SMUs, as calculated in accordance with
applicable guidance (IRT 2016 [Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory Mitigation
Update]). Proposed Mitigation Units are presented below.
Proposed Mitigation Units
Wetland Mitigation
Wetland Type Mitigation Type Acreage Mitigation Ratio WMU
Riparian Re-establishment 7.1 1:1 7.1
Riparian Rehabilitation 1.4 2:1 0.7
Totals 8.5 7.8
Stream Mitigation
Stream Mitigation Type Existing Length (LF) Proposed Length (LF) Mitigation Ratio SMU
Restoration 0 2,295 1:1 2,295
Totals 2,295 2,295
Bank Site Characteristics Summary
Site: Browns Pond Mitigation Site
Location: Johnston County
River Basin: Neuse
USGS Cataloging Unit: 03020201
NCDWR Subbasin: 03-04-06
USGS 14-Digit Cataloging Number: 03020201180050
Targeted Local Watershed: Yes
303d Listed: Yes
Best Use Classification: C;NSW
Drainage Area at Site Outfall: 0.79-square mile
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 126

16 REFERENCES
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson,J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelbourne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and
South Carolina. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
Interagency Review Team (IRT). 2016. Wilmington District Stream and Wetland Compensatory
Mitigation Update. North Carolina Interagency Review Team—October 24, 2016
Lee, M.T., R.K. Peet, S.D. Roberts, and T.R.Wentworth. 2008. CVS-EEP Protocol for Recording
Vegetation. Version 4.2. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Ecosystem Enhancement Program. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ). 2019. 2018 NC Category 5
Assessments "303(d) List" Final (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/TM DL/303d/2018/2018-NC-303-d--List-Final.pdf
[December 23, 2020].
North Carolina Division of Mitigation Services (DMS). 2015. Neuse 01 Regional Watershed Plan Phase II,
Final Report. (online).Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/Neuse River Basin/Neuse0l R
WP/Final%20NS01%20Phase%2011%20Report%20To%20Post.pdf [December 23, 2020].
North Carolina Division of Water Resources (NCDWR). 2013. Neuse River Basin Classification
Schedule (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/CSU/Surface%20Water/River%20
Basin%20Water%20Quality%20Classifications%20as%20of%20Dec%209%202013/Neuse
Hydro order.pdf[December 23, 2020].
North Carolina Division of Water Quality(NCDWQ). 2009. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan.
(online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Water%20Quality/Planning/BPU/BPU/Neuse/Neuse%20Plans/2009%20PIan/
NR%20Basinwide%20Plan%202009%20-%20Final.pdf[December 23, 2020].
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). 2010, amended 2018. Neuse River
Basin Restoration Priorities 2010, Amended August 2018 (online). Available:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/Mitigation%20Services/Watershed Planning/Neuse River B
asin/RBRP-Neuse-201807-.pdf[December, 23 2020]. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
North Carolina Office of State Budget and Management (NC OSBM). County/State Population
Projections (online).Available:
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 127

https://www.osbm.nc.gov/facts-figures/population-demographics/state-demographer/countystate-
population-projections [December 23, 2020].
N.C. Wetland Functional Assessment Team (NC WFAT). 2010. N.C. Wetland Assessment Method (NC
WAM) User Manual. Version 4.1.
Town of Selma. 2020. Economic Development. (online). Available:
https://selma-nc.com/economic-development/ [December 23, 2020].
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). 1994.Johnston County Soil Survey(online).
Available:
https://www.nres.usda.gov/Internet/FSE MANUSCRIPTS/north carolina/NC101/0/Johnston.pdf
[December 23, 2020].
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA). Web Soil Survey—National Cooperative Soil
Survey. Hydrologic Soil Group-Johnston County, North Carolina. (online). Available:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm [December 23, 2020].
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW). 2020. Browns Pond Mitigation Site Consultation. Raleigh Ecological
Services Field Office. Raleigh, NC.
Woods,A.J, Omernik,J.M., Brown, D.D. 1999. Level III and IV Ecoregions of Delaware, Maryland,
Pennsylvania,Virginia, and West Virginia. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: National Health and
Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, Corvallis, OR.
Browns Pond Bank Site
Clearwater Neuse 01 UMBI Page 128

APPENDIX A
Figures
Browns Pond Mitigation
CLW-18000

-4b,
Mtika gpl 1.1 I.I 1 r "Mil .
-.011011AAVAKIIIIrt foki*". . _..-- -
41610141r I: %
*WO . . _ . AllikwaNinliatt'
lir
r.
64 y ►+'�1 \lb
•
1` �+ f
7 911116 0 41iir jr.IL.1.'. 1.:,,..._ . ...._
4 o' -tx•'7 ,,tom .�-S 4 i 4 I 4 dx.m. . To
Feillig.P2Iti 1.;:' '111111" - 17..; di N 1 1938 ' \ _. '.4te080- _.:4010-
lir .t .\,,_
w y�
•�� �c f
Pi. r ,.
SITE }7. • i % Browns Pond y :PIP'
I- 4
.
• , qt31 ', .
.. , ,.., --I11%16. r--
.„_,,,.
, \,•r . 13 - rf f�
,I
S
1 } o
70 1 _II_ SITE . a
-^
Cern
ii,
_10
_ -ter
� 3M t• •1 fi•
•
Legend �© 200 . ..y- . C
OAP.' . 714ikt,
Proposed Conservation Easement 1 telFr-
INT5
Project Parcels o 5 10 20 - _
Johnston County �'�'` ! F".°•191.9 0 500 1,000 2,000
1 inch = 10 milesI v Feet
NC Counties - Ikc 1 inch = 1,000 feet
Esri, HERE,Garmin,(c OpenStreetMap contributors,Copyright:©2013
Esri, HERE, Garmin rs, (c)OpenStreetMap contributo ` , National Geographic Society;i-cubed
Prepared For:
BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CLEARWATER MITIGATION Date: 2/5/2021
SOLUTIONS 1 SITE LOCATION MAP Scale: As Noted 1
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

r ......
f . 3
•
•4pppr irrdirrailp.mr--ip 4
Te
/ ,ene
_ _ �r
t"Pr
f
IIII* ,,i),...• , , s
t
fg.Ls .. ..
` • '_ ) —. `I- .. it 1 /- ... .. .......
I
� �
}
I � _Of
, •Upper Neuse River4....*--."N'N'tt tit
/ � _
c. _ 8 digit HUC 03020201ii
r ..._
, ,
Lower Buffalo Creek
'�: �.�°- r -: 12 d i i t HUC ,.,�,�- - -_",.m,.....,.
Targeted 118 0 '''
Watershed _
h N' �� arge ed Local Wa d 0302020 005
v 1.
a
L'
` SITE
I
%1141110 . - ,
ray -,i .. _ f -
-
( .
1 .'
/
1161111r .
Legend _ ,.
1 _
n '
,,....:,
le, Proposed Conservation Easement , , w
•
/' Lower Buffalo Creek 12-dig HUC ,,, T. ..
_ ...` '1=X --y:.. r is �: �. ..
I
Upper Neuse River 8-dig HUC 03020201
N
12digitHUC-UpperNeuse o 10 20 40 •Miles i
- 1inch = 20 miles . ( = -
8digitHUC NC _
of eal Boundare D. et,3DEP Elevators Pro tr c .ttir.t Information System.National Hydrography Dataset,National and Cover Database Natonal Structures Dataset,and National Trans.grtat (Da^set,,USGS Global Ec yore ms,U.S.Census Bureau TIGER/Line data',USF:Ry Data',Natural Earth Data;U.S.Department of State Humaritanan Information U,t.0ndN6'AA atonal'lJ Centers fo�Envio ental Information,
shed May,2020 11w-..i
tt
Prepared For:
WI BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CL 4R�:3TER LITIGATION Date: 2/5/2021
SOLUTIONS HYDROLOGIC UNIT MAP Scale: 1" = 20 mi 2
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

-
Legend lif.: - . - - -- -- +- •�
f - ter +' + +
Proposed Conservation Easement .., `-� T-� ° di {
% • N. Drainage Area = 508 ac r. --.A'-: - -� - Ni- ;,ir.r. - V itten 0= -�t,pe11-
•
Project Parcels ,. Jki ;, ' : - ' -
5-ft LIDAR Contour c ;. a - - _ c \-
t:.
1»-
2
I
1-ft LIDAR Contour �. r, - s -
�'ow
\ . '/ '' / `V r' _ ■ vJ • . -
. -
;'..
.-.-:_.',i.'...-.,-.,-_.._,-.1.),.._\_--.,[-,„,-:,'.''-,'„6.-j.'
7--,_-,;,.1(,o17-1
h1:'--6...,,,t,-7.•-A,---.-,
213-i)e i
" . Browns Pond A.
' . . .• / ( 'f tN el Cek Browns Pond .''
f. t A . •
frn /X
—... i . . s "��'='ye •
fl . ..----. ,,.42 .11,.=,-- f.,-.. y i,.../.,t--,- .-zi-4---;(-))pk.i . .. -." P iir Old N -----,r ,
j' i' i ;A �o !� L �� _ �� 43
�` -t..je . n - ',� t7 P.. .r ...r'--_"r^---1 1 `' C. - p r w
-p•..0 = •y f �._'•\ ry� Y Y i ill
\\ 'r. , -, ` ::��!1 4 _ t
1 •- �� ��� ►►Vl1444��'-��,��,
SITE
ilf 1\ •-,_-, -
it''7.:.';-:--';,-.En \ ' - : (rF-t' -- t „„ „ .
;Y;t1 7
. , , ,k. <,,,. .,,
t•i ...-- ar
. 414 • iv.r . p
-� �7 rH .� _. y.ry. J ls� N
, ...
. . .
_�.��i•. 5'/�I Q ��,�!.t. tia a • "ie 17.s
' ^- p° f -�N tr : ;-. �„� „r'.. : . -. ._ "` r59 0 375 750 1,500
i
F 0 375 750 1,500 '�. : ' N. / Feet
M Feet -- .' r�. I �� -
In -�- ` �? 1 inch 1,500 feet
`o GCga •Maxar,GeoE,t„C -1G G'GFeographb�§,MIEN. i m.Deg J� C ■
1 inch = 1,500 feet �� C o ,- '��user co,�mdG o C ry,Goo� k9 Q�➢ -e4 �L O p p pY 9 wee,Ae-roGRdD,IGNl LEsri, HERE, Garmin, c O enStreetMa contributors,Co ri ht:©2013
�ChiR•®pern tr--tMap contributors / ` -• National Geographic Society, i-cubed J
I
Prepared For:
ILII BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CLEARWATER MITIGATION Date: 2/5/2021
SOLUTIONS 1 TOPOGRAPHY AND DRAINAGE AREA Scale: 1" = 1 ,500' 3
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

.
1
\ .' ,:,, '
om
\\\'
-mil\aTZ
' NIIN
NSift- ' N
NI
la la
Legend \\.""
Proposed Conservation Easement
NWI Wetlands
DEM Elevation (ft) Z
- 200
- 0 150 300 600 .
- 145 Feet
1 inch = 300 feet ,\
Prepared For: I
2 BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CLEARWATER MITIGATION Date: 12/18/2020
SOLUTIONS LIDAR DEM AND RIPARIAN ZONES Scale: 1" = 300' 4
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

V.
Soil Map Unit Soil Series �' _z j '
AaA Altavista fine sandy loam _ - s,
AsA Augusta sandy loam
/ A. S
CoB Cowarts loamy sand , *• • , 3
GeB Gilead sandy loam ' �� ' , 1•
GoA Goldsboro sandy loam }
Existing Pond
Ly Lynchburg sandy loam �,� Principal Spillway Outlets - + - Ra
NnB, NnD Nason silt loam ��.,'' L •■ , _
NoA Norfolk loamy sand � _ /,
Ra Rains sandy loam
1 `/`� �� NC WAM Location NoA
4 �w��G� _ N n D " r -
1 •�
AsA �.,, Existing Access �'
iii. AaA - 1111117
\ - i, i Road Culverts � f"
6 * I4 ,.,��r • NORTHERN POND _ --
�'' © ) , NC WAM Location GoA f
1
Existing Pond - -�i 1
Low Flow Outlet �. �,.-- _ '` -- . ,d`_ 4
, �• 1 GoA �..r �
/ • SOUTHERN POND_.. ` } re
r
-- MALTBY(1) i
/ PIN #262700-60-3989 ,� ------
,
> ' - • -
l - , �.
l _• \ — GeB _
�� l I
MALTBY 2
-- PIN #262700-6N. „_,1-4879� L PIN #262700-60-5323
l C ;� I
_ iNIP•.
NnD
NnB . ' - - - z-
�• ' +l CoB I■ I
Ra , ' . 1 Ly 1
\\ Ra
Legend - N
_ I
1
Proposed Conservation Easement (12.7 ac)
Soh -►:
•
Existing Pond = 7.64 ac --- — ` - -
Existing Stream '� - V
Existing Pipes / \ __
0 150 300 600 •
Project Parcels (59.7 ac) VrA ---
Soil Boundary CoB ' 1 inch = 300 feet-
rip
i °°l [fro gloc PGeograph(K(�0 o CV,Lk-DA,UM,z e
I., \ OpenStreetMap contributors �� �� ` ` w `�
Prepared For:
WI BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CLEARWATER?[•47TIGATION Date: 2/5/2021
SOLUTIONS EXISTING CONDITIONS Scale: 1" = 300' 5
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

lie"n Ai
,.......„, _. _0,
.i
,. �'i0, ' " F it »r�'C
ti
ail
a.`1 41 ;.,
'��, Existing Pipe Outlets . SWIlitallitirwrw-- "
iirffilirMir.in
Mr , , . '!.• h.
to be Removed - -���.
o
IfrAL
"� .-
lioisociwy
.l Li
d" r `„',,''4-- - - .- ".- ',, 40 ---•'' 11••••••............_ %
ply
1' !sue d� :0",".
1 1 .I I
',B7P4pjp. s::),, — -1, 1
Existing Pipe Outlet "" .
s l
to be Removed and Replaced ' 1 f�� "�,� " -
with Culvert Crossings I
c \ -- --- t,. 'c•--- \(„,
Upgrade Existing I .,-
Culvert Crossing ,� - _ `Y
are
MALTBY(1)
NN
\ -- - _ • _ #.- .. 1 PIN 62700-60-3989i.� ail , ��
-;�� i T; `.'..� fir. r
BLYTHE - - - MALTBY(2) !! +
PIN #262700-60-5323 �- _
PIN #262700-61-4879 --r
ILegend - - 9 . _
Proposed Conservation Easement (12.7 ac) N _
Wetland Rehabilitation (Riparian) = 1.4 ac N.
- '
km Wetland Reestablishment (Riparian) = 7.1 ac
•""".""■ Stream Restoration = 2,295 LF k_,
Existing Stream ;'• . -. _
Existing Pipes L._ "" '
Project Parcels (59.7 ac) .
n.° S- 0 150 300 600
1-ft LIDAR Contours ' •:.* 'e r __ N
5-ft LIDAR Contours • • -• - - 1 inch = 300 feet
r - ...- - y. b_
- • - _ -600=1E4 maw,120CC n,Earth dar Geographbg3o CHIEMIbm opg,U DA,Meta,AeroGRID,Mg,EIDC7 2hg 121E NkOPCOMM%Egt,NIERIE,91EIMIK Q6
-- - OpenStreetMap contributors '`' '-
Prepared For:
LII BROWNS POND MITIGATION SITE Drawn By: KEG FIGURE
CLEARWATER MITIGATION Date: 2/5/2021
SOLUTIONS 1 PROPOSED CONDITIONS Scale: 1" = 300' 6
MCADAMS Johnston County, NC Project No.: CLW-18000

APPENDIX B
Site Data
Browns Pond Mitigation
CLW-18000

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Browns Pond Mitigation Date of Evaluation 12/10/2020
Applicant/Owner Name LLC Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, Wetland Site Name Pond 1 (Northern Pond)
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization A. Pierzga(McAdams)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh
® Yes ❑ No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.592232,-78.236889
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 HQW, ORW,or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ® Yes ❑ No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
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. EA EA 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
ED ED Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. EA Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
EC 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 DC 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 >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
®E EE EE >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F 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?
DYes ®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.)
DA >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
DC 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?
DYes ❑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
DC DC From 50 to<80 feet
❑D ❑D From 40 to<50 feet
❑E ❑E From 30 to<40 feet
OF ❑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
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.
DC 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)
DA ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
DC DC DC From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
❑F OF ❑F From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
❑H ❑H ❑H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
®I ®I ®I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
DJ DJ DJ 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)
DA 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
DB ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
❑C DC From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ED 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."
DA 0
®B 1to4
DC 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.
DC 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)
DA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
DB Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
DC 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
c ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
0 ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
>,
o❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
in ❑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
❑C ❑C Shrub layer sparse or absent
. ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ®B ®B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B 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.
El 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
--\
r
77-7\
1r� s
J
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 Pond 1 (Northern Pond) Date of Assessment 12/10/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization A. Pierzga(McAdams)
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
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) YES
Assessment area experiences overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions (Y/N) NO
Assessment area is on a coastal island (Y/N) NO
Sub-function Rating Summary
Function Sub-function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Surface Storage and Retention Condition LOW
Sub-surface Storage and
Retention Condition LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

NC WAM FIELD ASSESSMENT RESULTS
Accompanies User Manual Version 5.0
USACE AID# NCDWR#
Project Name Browns Pond Mitigation Date of Evaluation 12/10/2020
Applicant/Owner Name LLC Clearwater Mitigation Solutions, Wetland Site Name Pond 2(Southern Pond)
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization A. Pierzga(McAdams)
Level III Ecoregion Piedmont Nearest Named Water Body Buffalo Creek
River Basin Neuse USGS 8-Digit Catalogue Unit 03020201
County Johnston NCDWR Region Raleigh
® Yes ❑ No Precipitation within 48 hrs? Latitude/Longitude(deci-degrees) 35.590576,-78.237731
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 HQW, ORW,or Trout
❑ Designated NCNHP reference community
❑ Abuts a 303(d)-listed stream or a tributary to a 303(d)-listed stream
What type of natural stream is associated with the wetland, if any?(check all that apply)
❑ Blackwater
❑ Brownwater
❑ Tidal(if tidal,check one of the following boxes) ❑ Lunar ❑ Wind ❑ Both
Is the assessment area on a coastal island? ❑ Yes ® No
Is the assessment area's surface water storage capacity or duration substantially altered by beaver? ❑ Yes ® No
Does the assessment area experience overbank flooding during normal rainfall conditions? ❑ Yes ® No
1. Ground Surface Condition/Vegetation Condition—assessment area condition metric
Check a box in each column. Consider alteration to the ground surface(GS)in the assessment area and vegetation structure(VS)in the
assessment area. Compare to reference wetland if applicable(see User Manual). If a reference is not applicable,then rate the assessment
area based on evidence an effect.
GS VS
®A ®A Not severely altered
❑B ❑B Severely altered over a majority of the assessment area(ground surface alteration examples: vehicle tracks, excessive
sedimentation, fire-plow lanes, skidder tracks, bedding, fill, soil compaction, obvious pollutants) (vegetation structure
alteration examples: mechanical disturbance, herbicides,salt intrusion[where appropriate],exotic species,grazing,less
diversity[if appropriate], hydrologic alteration)
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. EA EA 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
ED ED Depressions able to pond water<3 inches deep
3b. EA Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is greater than 2 feet
®B Evidence that maximum depth of inundation is between 1 and 2 feet
EC 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 DC 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 >_20%coverage of agricultural land(regularly plowed land)
®E EE EE >_20%coverage of maintained grass/herb
❑F ❑F 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?
DYes ®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.)
DA >_50 feet
❑B From 30 to<50 feet
DC 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?
DYes ❑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
DB ❑B From 80 to< 100 feet
DC DC 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
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.
DC 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)
DA ❑A ❑A >_500 acres
❑B ❑B ❑B From 100 to<500 acres
DC DC DC From 50 to< 100 acres
❑D ❑D ❑D From 25 to<50 acres
❑E ❑E ❑E From 10 to<25 acres
O F OF ❑F From 5 to< 10 acres
❑G ❑G ❑G From 1 to<5 acres
®H ®H ®H From 0.5 to< 1 acre
❑I ❑I ❑I From 0.1 to<0.5 acre
DJ DJ DJ 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)
DA 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
DB ❑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."
DA 0
®B 1to4
DC 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.
DC 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)
DA Vegetation diversity is high and is composed primarily of native species(< 10%cover of exotics).
DB Vegetation diversity is low or has> 10%to 50%cover of exotics.
DC 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
c ❑B ❑B Canopy present, but opened more than natural gaps
0 ®C ®C Canopy sparse or absent
>,
o❑A ❑A Dense mid-story/sapling layer
in ❑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
®C ®C Shrub layer sparse or absent
. ❑A ❑A Dense herb layer
_ ®B ®B Moderate density herb layer
❑C ❑C Herb layer sparse or absent
18. Snags—wetland type condition metric(skip for all marshes)
❑A Large snags(more than one)are visible(> 12 inches DBH,or large relative to species present and landscape stability).
®B 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
--\
r
77-7\
1r� s
J
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 Pond 2 (Southern Pond) Date of Assessment 12/10/2020
Wetland Type Headwater Forest Assessor Name/Organization A. Pierzga(McAdams)
Notes on Field Assessment Form (Y/N) NO
Presence of regulatory considerations (Y/N) YES
Wetland is intensively managed (Y/N)
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 LOW
Water Quality Pathogen Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Particulate Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Soluble Change Condition MEDIUM
Condition/Opportunity MEDIUM
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Physical Change Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Pollution Change Condition NA
Condition/Opportunity NA
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NA
Habitat Physical Structure Condition LOW
Landscape Patch Structure Condition LOW
Vegetation Composition Condition MEDIUM
Function Rating Summary
Function Metrics Rating
Hydrology Condition LOW
Water Quality Condition LOW
Condition/Opportunity LOW
Opportunity Presence (Y/N) NO
Habitat Condition LOW
Overall Wetland Rating LOW

} ' United States Department of the Interior
sAi
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICEilljoj
Raleigh Ecological Services Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh,NC 27636-3726
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]
In Reply Refer To: December 02, 2020
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0297
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624
Project Name: Browns Pond Mitigation Site
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

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 2
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].

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 3
Attachment(s):
• Official Species List

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 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]

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 2
Project Summary
Consultation Code: 04EN2000-2021-SLI-0297
Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624
Project Name: Browns Pond Mitigation Site
Project Type: ** OTHER **
Project Description: Potential mitigation/monitoring site
Project Location:
Approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https://
www.google.com/maps/place/35.591784546072276N78.23988541147054W
1
el.
Counties: Johnston, NC

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 3
Endangered Species Act Species
There is a total of 7 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
Fisheries', 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
Amphibians
NAME STATUS
Neuse River Waterdog Necturus lewisi Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. Threatened
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/6772
Fishes
NAME STATUS
Carolina Madtom Noturus furiosus Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. Endangered
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/528

12/02/2020 Event Code: 04EN2000-2021-E-00624 4
Clams
NAME STATUS
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni Proposed
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat. Threatened
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/5164
Dwarf Wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/784
Tar River Spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
No critical habitat has been designated for this species.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/1392
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata Threatened
There is proposed critical habitat for this species.Your location is outside the critical habitat.
Species profile:https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/4511
Critical habitats
THERE ARE NO CRITICAL HABITATS WITHIN YOUR PROJECT AREA UNDER THIS OFFICE'S
JURISDICTION.

• Roy Cooper.Govt.-nor
go■�• NC DEPARTMENT OF
SVs1 HeRori.Sretery
MileHamilton.
NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
* *e Walter Clark.Director, Land and Water Stewardship
NCNHDE-13419
December 2, 2020
Alec Pierzga
The John R. McAdams Company
2905 Meridian Parkway
Durham, NC 27713
RE: Browns Pond Mitigation Site; CLW-18000
Dear Alec Pierzga:
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) appreciates the opportunity to provide
information about natural heritage resources for the project referenced above.
Based on the project area mapped with your request, a query of the NCNHP database indicates that
there are no records for rare species, important natural communities, natural areas, and/or
conservation/managed areas within the proposed project boundary. Please note that although there
may be no documentation of natural heritage elements within the project boundary, it does not
imply or confirm their absence; the area may not have been surveyed. The results of this query
should not be substituted for field surveys where suitable habitat exists. In the event that rare
species are found within the project area, please contact the NCNHP so that we may update our
records.
The attached 'Potential Occurrences' table summarizes rare species and natural communities that
have been documented within a one-mile radius of the property boundary. The proximity of these
records suggests that these natural heritage elements may potentially be present in the project area
if suitable habitat exists. Tables of natural areas and conservation/managed areas within a one-mile
radius of the project area, if any, are also included in this report.
If a Federally-listed species is found within the project area or is indicated within a one-mile radius of
the project area, the NCNHP recommends contacting the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) for
guidance. Contact information for USFWS offices in North Carolina is found here:
https://www.fws.gov/offices/Di rectory/ListOffices.cfm?statecode=37.
Please note that natural heritage element data are maintained for the purposes of conservation
planning, project review, and scientific research, and are not intended for use as the primary criteria
for regulatory decisions. Information provided by the NCNHP database may not be published
without prior written notification to the NCNHP, and the NCNHP must be credited as an information
source in these publications. Maps of NCNHP data may not be redistributed without permission.
The NC Natural Heritage Program may follow this letter with additional correspondence if a
Dedicated Nature Preserve, Registered Heritage Area, Clean Water Management Trust Fund
easement, or Federally-listed species are documented near the project area.
If you have questions regarding the information provided in this letter or need additional assistance,
please contact Rodney A. Butler at [e-mail] or 919-707-8603.
Sincerely,
NC Natural Heritage Program
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
121 w.JONES STREET,RALEIGH,NC 276D3 • 1651 MAIL SERVICE CENTER,RALEIGH,NC 27699
OFC 919.707.9120 • FAX [phone]

Natural Heritage Element Occurrences, Natural Areas, and Managed Areas Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Browns Pond Mitigation Site
Project No. CLW-18000
December 2, 2020
NCNHDE-13419
Element Occurrences Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Taxonomic EO ID Scientific Name Common Name Last Element Accuracy Federal State Global State
Group Observation Occurrence Status Status Rank Rank
i - i Date Rank i— A
Amphibian 19065 Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog 2019-10-29 AB 3-Medium Proposed Special G2 S2
Threatened Concern
Dragonfly or 33753 Somatochlora Coppery Emerald 2004-Pre H? 5-Very --- Significantly G3G4 S1?
Damselfly georgiana Low Rare
Freshwater 7127 Alasmidonta Dwarf Wedgemussel 2004-08-04 E 3-Medium Endangered Endangered G1G2 S1
Bivalve heterodon
Freshwater 36528 Elliptio fisheriana Northern Lance 2018-05-10 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S3
Bivalve Rare
Freshwater 21929 Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance 2006-01-09 BC 3-Medium Threatened Endangered G2 S2
Bivalve
Freshwater Fish32386 Enneacanthus obesus Banded Sunfish 2006-02-24 E 3-Medium --- Significantly G5 S3
Rare
Freshwater Fish36896 Notropis chalybaeus Ironcolor Shiner 1961-06-21 H 3-Medium --- Significantly G4 S2S3
Rare
Natural Areas Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Site Na - -epr-sen a iona mating Collective Rating
NEU/Little River (Franklin/Wake/Johnston/ Wayne)R1 (Exceptional) C1 (Exceptional)
Aquatic Habitat
No Managed Areas are Documented Within a One-mile Radius of the Project Area
Definitions and an explanation of status designations and codes can be found at https://ncnhde.natureserve.org/help. Data query generated on December 2,2020;source: NCNHP, Q3 October 2020.
Please resubmit your information request if more than one year elapses before project initiation as new information is continually added to the NCNHP database.
Page 2 of 3

N NHDE-13419: Dr mis Pcrid Akio. �V'ry It.
• {
5 -
Lien miner'L 21;2:: :'!:31 E
�2 C•1 }r.rti
❑ PnujacL BuLnday
❑ RIjf rar! Projinr.RQun¢uy G C 025 a GS 1.21Ian
❑ NI IP Na`JraI A'au NFI a•.,•i • r „R a.,,yti..i....•• a•,,:3 rri• ficus
u}+w}1711 7M�3nu IW� L•�•eCX 11 Li7lY�7F�I Wr,•ri
l II dr. .*rF�Atli i� y. .dlI.�k rWs
tavc{amv�
Page 3 of 3

APPENDIX C
Landowner Authorization Form
Browns Pond Mitigation
CLW-18000

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL OE RITION:
Parcel ID Number: 7C -J 79 Deed Book: 1391 Page: 0530 County; Johnsen
Street Addr,ezia: 4422 Browns Pond R
oIma, NC 27576
Pr pe Owner (please I0ri13 is Thomas E. F#13,.'thc
Prrtperly Owner(please print): MAO.l)r.111yate
T]iw undersigned, registered property owner()"I(tlw a home property,de bunchy authorize
of Carwater Mitigation Sol ul ions
(Coal ractorfAgeot(Pre eet Managcr)1 [Name of Contractor/Agent Fi,rnd'Agency)3
10 take all actions necessary dear the einhuation of the property use potential stream,wetland ap dier
riparian iiufffr projeci,including conducting stream andfor wetland determinations and
delineations, as weft es issuance and aeeepoance Many required permit(s) or certirat i(s). I
agree to a]low regulatory Sigencies,incL idi,nrg the US Army Corps of Engineers,to visit the property
us oarl of timer envinnnmLoial reviews.
Property Owners(s) Address: 4422 Browns florid Road
(if different from above) Selma, NC 2'7576
Property Owner Telephone Number: (9 E 9)631-765 L
Property Owner'Telephone N wmber:
'We hereby errti r the above inforreiatimii to be true and acciJ rate In the best agar kaowledge.
d /, �.
(PTO rty Cwmer Authorized Sig re) abe _
•
•
•
•
:W"fr'1420/D 15-al‘a‘f • -
(Property Owner Authorized 14_1 turn) Mute)
'Name QC'full delivery staff member(full-deliveries)or DIMS project maftager
2Narno of company(fulE-deliver es)or D? S (d si8rt-bid-build).

LANDOWNER AUTHORIZATION FORM
PROPERTY LEGAL DE CRI11ON:
rcel ID Number.:26270f1-60-348.9 Delft!.Books! 3030 Pam: 0757 County: dohnstoT
Parcel 11)Number: 2.1 M(H]-60-5323 Deed Bona: 3$92 Page: (irg35 County: Johnston
Street Address: J3romis Pond Road
Selma,NC 27576
Property Owner(please print: 'Michael Maltby.
Pru perry Owner(pleas& print):
The undersigned, registered property owt►er(s)of the above property,do hereby authorize
_ of Clearwater'MitigaticrL SOLUt[CM
(CantractoragentfProject Manuger)' (Name of Contractor/Agent.Firm"Agency)#
to take a]]actions nocessat y for the evaluation of the property as a potential stream,wetland atdfor
riparian buffer mitigation pro.et.including conducting stem andfor wetland determinations and
delinentinn9.5 as.well as issuance and accept. nee of any regTirerl permit(s)or certifitatiou(s). C
agree to olSow regulatory agencies, including the US Array Corps.Auf Engineers,to visit the ph/Pert!
an part of the environmental re'i iew-s.
•
Property Owners(s) AddresN: 32S9 Lang+jgli Road
(iii different from above} Angier_NC 2721
Property Owner Telephone Nu mb.er: (919)4 I.8-6,647
Property Owner Telephone Number:
We hereby certify the above information to be true anti accurate to the het of oar knowledge.
GI4
(Property Owner Auihcrized Sigrurture Mate)
(Property Owner Authorized Signature) (Date)
'Nime of full del ivory sth1F member(full-deliveries)or JDMS prn,Iect maruigcr(dust rr-bid build),
'Name of company (fu I I-de]i...cries)or]DM`S(dcs.ign-bid-build).